 |
conlanger bboard
A forum for conlangers and others interested in languages and/or linguistics.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Veris
Fheari Lazhin
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Location: Pennsylvania
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: Phonological constraints notation -- how does it work? |
 |
|
You know how the phonological constraints of a language are often expressed with parenthesis around C for consonant, V for vowel and lower-case letters for those respective letters? You know, like, Japanese words follow (C)V(V)(n) and Mandarin follows (C)(i, u)V(w, y, n, ng).
How exactly does this notation work? What's the significance of a parenthesis around a C or V or not? And how does this notation account for all the permutations of words? For example, in one of my languages, vowels can be next to other vowels and to consonants, and can be in pairs of up to four vowels in a row, but consonants can only be next to vowels, never other consonants. The first and/or last letter in a word can be a vowel or a consonant, it doesn't matter, so long as consonants aren't adjacent. How would I express that in the phonological constraints notation used above?
Last edited by Veris on Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sangi39
Láni Lazhin
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 1312
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Phonological constraints notation -- how does it work? |
|
|
| Veris wrote: | You know how the phonological constraints of a language are often expressed with parenthesis around C for consonant, V for verb and lower-case letters for those respective letters? You know, like, Japanese words follow (C)V(V)(n) and Mandarin follows (C)(i, u)V(w, y, n, ng).
How exactly does this notation work? What's the significance of a parenthesis around a C or V or not? And how does this notation account for all the permutations of words? For example, in one of my languages, vowels can be next to other vowels and to consonants, and can be in pairs of up to four vowels in a row, but consonants can only be next to vowels, never other consonants. The first and/or last letter in a word can be a vowel or a consonant, it doesn't matter, so long as consonants aren't adjacent. How would I express that in the phonological constraints notation used above? |
Just to start, V=vowel. It works by attmepting to represent the most basic syllable constraints of a given language. As a result, it doesn't represent, say, the phonological constraints across entire words. For example, it doesn't attempt to state that in a CV structure, the second syllable cannot begin with the same consonant as the second syllable. This is, instead, discussed in a separate section. So to answer "And how does this notation account for all the permutations of words?", in general, given that it's a representation of syllable structure, it doesn't, it only attempts to represent the possible syllable permutations in isolation. You could, however, expand upon this notation and add things like C1V1(V2|N)C2V1(V2|N) where C2 is any consonant other that C1 which V1 can be any vowel and V2 can be any other vowel. So we could have /baikan/ but not /baabee/ since the second consonant is the same as the first and the second vowel of each nucleus is the same as the first.
The significance of the parentheses lies in the fact they represent optional parts of the syllable. For example, if the syllable structure were CV then every syllable must have a consonant followed by a vowel. However, if we have (C)V then every syllable must have a vowel but not necessarily a consonant as an onset.
From the description of your conlang you've got a three different syllable structures based on position within the word:
1) Word-Initial: (C)V(V)(V)(V)
2) Word-Medial: CV(V)(V)(V)
3) Word-Final: CV(V)(V)(V)(C)
So you could have the example words /paiuenaipeiatek/, /aiuenaipeiatek/ or /paiuenaipeiate/ but words like /prentik/ would break the constraints of the syllable structure.
_________________
In the name of the Father, the Son and... wait... that can't be right... can it? No. It can't be.
By the flow of the Red River we worship humanity and live our lives on its banks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veris
Fheari Lazhin
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whoops -- that was a typo. I mean vowel, not verb.
Anyway, I guess I was mistaken. I thought that notation was meant to show how any word could possibly be constructed. I was wondering why the English example in Zompist's construction kit was so mild-looking...
(s) + (C) + (r, l, w, y) + (V) + V + (C) + (C) + (C)
...when a word like "twelvfths" doesn't seem to fit that (freaking six consonants in a row, and tw at the beginning is not (s) + (C), plus (s) + (C) isn't even right since you'd never see sv or sx at the beginning of a word).
I get it now. Thanks.
I think you got mine wrong, though; there shouldn't be any C's outside of parenthesis. Or maybe I don't quite understand completely. Since there can be four vowels in a row and a word can't have more than a beginning, middle and end (essentially), a word could consist of three vowels and no consonants. Thus, a consonant is never necessary. As it so happens, most words do have consonants (98%+ off the top of my head) and there aren't any words consisting solely of three-vowels (though there are several two-vowel only words) but they aren't "illegal" strictly speaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yana
Tári Lazhin
Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still learning all the different notations systems and words to do with conlanging and I have a couple of questions related to this specific subject. I hope it's not bad etiquette to add them to this thread?
With this notation system "V" = vowel and "C" Consonant, right? So, this is talking about individual phonemes? Does a singular "vowel" represented by a "V" include a dipthong?
Ranqa has a base rule of :
CV
Did I get the notation right so that that means it needs a consonant and then a vowel to be a "legal" word?
Another rule I have is where you can sometimes drop a Vowel or a Consonant at certain parts of a word, would that be written as:
(C)VCV
CVC(V)
and CV(C)V?
How does one use this notation system to express specific Consonant and Vowel rules? Such as:
My "letters" are a consonant with an inherent vowel, using diacritics to change the inherent vowel. But if you have two of the same consonant-vowel sets you can sometimes drop off the first Consonant:
[baba] is the same as [aba]
but [naba] can't be [aba]
How would I write that with this notation system?
And I guess my other questions is pretty much the same question for specific vowel rules as well.
Like, [tQta] can be [tQa] but [tatQ] can NOT be [taQ] it must be [atQ] because you generally can't drop the consonant with a [Q] vowel attached, especially the [tQ] and [dQ] because those two have [Q] as an inherent vowel, unlike the others which have an [a] inherently.
_________________
-Moo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
queerasaclockworkbanana
Zevei Lazhin
Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Veris wrote: | Whoops -- that was a typo. I mean vowel, not verb.
Anyway, I guess I was mistaken. I thought that notation was meant to show how any word could possibly be constructed. I was wondering why the English example in Zompist's construction kit was so mild-looking...
(s) + (C) + (r, l, w, y) + (V) + V + (C) + (C) + (C)
...when a word like "twelfths" doesn't seem to fit that (freaking six consonants in a row, and tw at the beginning is not (s) + (C), plus (s) + (C) isn't even right since you'd never see sv or sx at the beginning of a word). |
Veris, first, I think you're mixing up graphemes with phonemes. (This still doesn't change that <twelfths> /twelfTs/ has more consonants than in the example.) Second, <tw> /tw/ is covered in the example. It's under (C)+(r, l, w, y).
_________________
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
queerasaclockworkbanana
Zevei Lazhin
Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yana, sorry it may be confusing, but this notation is for syllables not words. If a word needs to have at least one CV in it, you would mention that after. I'd say your syllables could be noted as (C)V(V)(C). And unless they are phonemic, diphthongs are normally noted as V(V).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sangi39
Láni Lazhin
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 1312
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Veris wrote: | Whoops -- that was a typo. I mean vowel, not verb.
Anyway, I guess I was mistaken. I thought that notation was meant to show how any word could possibly be constructed. I was wondering why the English example in Zompist's construction kit was so mild-looking...
(s) + (C) + (r, l, w, y) + (V) + V + (C) + (C) + (C)
...when a word like "twelvfths" doesn't seem to fit that (freaking six consonants in a row, and tw at the beginning is not (s) + (C), plus (s) + (C) isn't even right since you'd never see sv or sx at the beginning of a word).
I get it now. Thanks.
I think you got mine wrong, though; there shouldn't be any C's outside of parenthesis. Or maybe I don't quite understand completely. Since there can be four vowels in a row and a word can't have more than a beginning, middle and end (essentially), a word could consist of three vowels and no consonants. Thus, a consonant is never necessary. As it so happens, most words do have consonants (98%+ off the top of my head) and there aren't any words consisting solely of three-vowels (though there are several two-vowel only words) but they aren't "illegal" strictly speaking. |
You did say, though, that a word could begin and end with either a vowel or a consonant and four vowels (no more) could appear one of the other. This would necessitate having all medial syllables being CV(V)(V)(V) with the obligatory consonant but (C)V(V)(V)(V) mand CV(V)(V)(V)(C) in initial and final syllables respectively where in initial syllables the C is optional (since words can begin in C or V) while final syllables require an obligatory C onset and can have an optional C coda. The overall word structure could be summed up as (C)V(V)(V)(V)-CV(V)(V)(V)...-(C). The general syllable structure, regardless of the syllables position in the word, however, would be (C)V(V)(V)(V)(C).
Also, the syllable (generally speaking without going into which consonant clusters are vialble) for English is (s)(C)(r|w|l|j)V(:|V)(C)(C)(C)(C).
_________________
In the name of the Father, the Son and... wait... that can't be right... can it? No. It can't be.
By the flow of the Red River we worship humanity and live our lives on its banks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veris
Fheari Lazhin
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Yana: No prob; feel free to ask your own questions about phonological constraint notation, too, since this topic's already here.
@queerasaclockworkbanana: Yeah, I just realized I counted "th" as two when it should be one C. And I missed the (C) + (w). However, there's still the issue of sx or sj or something, which would seem to be permissable according to (s) + (C), when in fact, English would never have a word beginning with sx or sj (I dropped the sv example cause of Sven, though technically that's not English, even though it's known to English speakers).
@sangi39: I'm still missing something. (C)V(V)(V)(V)(C) makes perfect sense according to what I said (there has to be a vowel, consonants can't touch, but either one can begin or end a word). But I don't understand how a medial syllable has to have a C. That's not my intention. "Ue" and "oi" are two words with no consonants. It so happens that there aren't any three-vowel words (like "aue" for example) but there certainly could be, in which case all three syllables (initial, medial and final) would lack consonants.
Plus, if all medial syllables were CV(V)(V)(V) by necessity, then a word could never begin with a vowel followed by a consonant (which it could) because then you'd have VCCV; two consonants touching, which is "illegal" (is there a more correct word than "illegal?" maybe asyntactical or simply improper?).
Hmm...although technically, if consonants can't touch, I guess that means that a word never could begin with a vowel followed by a consonant; that consonant would be the beginning of the next syllable, rather than the end of the first; i.e. "alue" would be a-lu-e not al-u-e. But again, "aue" as in a-u-e is a legal word, so there are never any mandatory Cs.
Oh, wait, no, a word can "begin" with a vowel followed by a consonant -- "on." That's one syllable that ends with a consonant. I guess that doesn't really count, though, because a one syllable word is neither initial, medial or final (the concept of initial-medial-final applies only to words with three syllables, correct?).
(Man, and I'm trying to make my language here as simplistic as possible, heh.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sangi39
Láni Lazhin
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 1312
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Veris wrote: | @Yana: No prob; feel free to ask your own questions about phonological constraint notation, too, since this topic's already here.
@queerasaclockworkbanana: Yeah, I just realized I counted "th" as two when it should be one C. And I missed the (C) + (w). However, there's still the issue of sx or sj or something, which would seem to be permissable according to (s) + (C), when in fact, English would never have a word beginning with sx or sj (I dropped the sv example cause of Sven, though technically that's not English, even though it's known to English speakers).
@sangi39: I'm still missing something. (C)V(V)(V)(V)(C) makes perfect sense according to what I said (there has to be a vowel, consonants can't touch, but either one can begin or end a word). But I don't understand how a medial syllable has to have a C. That's not my intention. "Ue" and "oi" are two words with no consonants. It so happens that there aren't any three-vowel words (like "aue" for example) but there certainly could be, in which case all three syllables (initial, medial and final) would lack consonants.
Plus, if all medial syllables were CV(V)(V)(V) by necessity, then a word could never begin with a vowel followed by a consonant (which it could) because then you'd have VCCV; two consonants touching, which is "illegal" (is there a more correct word than "illegal?" maybe asyntactical or simply improper?).
Hmm...although technically, if consonants can't touch, I guess that means that a word never could begin with a vowel followed by a consonant; that consonant would be the beginning of the next syllable, rather than the end of the first; i.e. "alue" would be a-lu-e not al-u-e. But again, "aue" as in a-u-e is a legal word, so there are never any mandatory Cs.
Oh, wait, no, a word can "begin" with a vowel followed by a consonant -- "on." That's one syllable that ends with a consonant. I guess that doesn't really count, though, because a one syllable word is neither initial, medial or final (the concept of initial-medial-final applies only to words with three syllables, correct?).
(Man, and I'm trying to make my language here as simplistic as possible, heh.) |
A medial syllable has to begin with a consonant to stop VVVV-VVVV sequences within words from existing which, according to the outlined constraints, wouldn't be allowed. The general syllable structure would be (C)V(V)(V)(V)(C) but this would vary depending on position within the word. Word-initial syllables would be (C)V(V)(V)(V), word-medial syllables would be CV(V)(V)(V) (since VVVV-V(V(V(V(V)))) sequences would, as far as I understand, be illegal within the word) while word-final syllables would be CV(V)(V)(V)(C) (with the obligatory C onset for the same reasons as above), hence the word structure (C)V(V)(V)(V)-[CV(V)(V)(V)]...-CV(V)(V)(V)(C). Monosyllabic words would naturally constitute both final and intial syllables having a structure of (C)V(V)(V)(V)(C) giving the overall word notation:
(C)V(V)(V)(V)-(C(V)(V)(V)(V))-(C) - note this indicates that medial syllables are optional but must begin with an obligatory C to prevent 5+ vowel sequences.
Note also that this rides on the udnerstanding that words like /aeiouaeiou/ are illegal having 10 vowels in a row where the OP stated only 4 could appear in a row, hence the obligatory C onset in medial syllables.
_________________
In the name of the Father, the Son and... wait... that can't be right... can it? No. It can't be.
By the flow of the Red River we worship humanity and live our lives on its banks.
Last edited by sangi39 on Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sangi39
Láni Lazhin
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 1312
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Veris wrote: |
@queerasaclockworkbanana: Yeah, I just realized I counted "th" as two when it should be one C. And I missed the (C) + (w). However, there's still the issue of sx or sj or something, which would seem to be permissable according to (s) + (C), when in fact, English would never have a word beginning with sx or sj (I dropped the sv example cause of Sven, though technically that's not English, even though it's known to English speakers).
|
The (s)(C)(w|j|r|l)V(V)(C)(C)(C)(C) Structure for English is a general syallble structure. The go into exactly which clusters are viable using this notation would be too complex and it's usually dealt with in a subsection of the larger phonetics section. For example, although the notation would suggest /svjeonprs/ to exist, the more in-depth subsection would show it can't exist.
_________________
In the name of the Father, the Son and... wait... that can't be right... can it? No. It can't be.
By the flow of the Red River we worship humanity and live our lives on its banks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veris
Fheari Lazhin
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sangi39 wrote: | | (C)V(V)(V)(V)-(C(V)(V)(V)(V))-(C) - note this indicates that medial syllables are optional but must begin with an obligatory C to prevent 5+ vowel sequences. |
Oh! I see now; that makes sense.
| sangi39 wrote: | | The (s)(C)(w|j|r|l)V(V)(C)(C)(C)(C) Structure for English is a general syallble structure. The go into exactly which clusters are viable using this notation would be too complex and it's usually dealt with in a subsection of the larger phonetics section. For example, although the notation would suggest /svjeonprs/ to exist, the more in-depth subsection would show it can't exist. |
Okay, now I see my main problem with this notation -- I thought it was comprehensive, attempting to demonstrate how any word can (or more specifically, cannot) be constructed.
But then that begs the question, "what's the use of this notation?" It would presumably take an ungodly amount of notation to express what I can in a few words; "words in this language can have up to four vowels in a row, vowels can be next to vowels or consonants while consonants can't be adjacent, and a word can begin or end with a consonant or vowel." I don't see how "generally: (C)V(V)(V)(V), specifically: (C)V(V)(V)(V)-[CV(V)(V)(V)]...-CV(V)(V)(V)(C)" is any more concise or useful. In fact, it's not even equally useful; it's less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sangi39
Láni Lazhin
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 1312
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Veris wrote: | | sangi39 wrote: | | (C)V(V)(V)(V)-(C(V)(V)(V)(V))-(C) - note this indicates that medial syllables are optional but must begin with an obligatory C to prevent 5+ vowel sequences. |
Oh! I see now; that makes sense.
| sangi39 wrote: | | The (s)(C)(w|j|r|l)V(V)(C)(C)(C)(C) Structure for English is a general syallble structure. The go into exactly which clusters are viable using this notation would be too complex and it's usually dealt with in a subsection of the larger phonetics section. For example, although the notation would suggest /svjeonprs/ to exist, the more in-depth subsection would show it can't exist. |
Okay, now I see my main problem with this notation -- I thought it was comprehensive, attempting to demonstrate how any word can (or more specifically, cannot) be constructed.
But then that begs the question, "what's the use of this notation?" It would presumably take an ungodly amount of notation to express what I can in a few words; "words in this language can have up to four vowels in a row, vowels can be next to vowels or consonants while consonants can't be adjacent, and a word can begin or end with a consonant or vowel." I don't see how "generally: (C)V(V)(V)(V), specifically: (C)V(V)(V)(V)-[CV(V)(V)(V)]...-CV(V)(V)(V)(C)" is any more concise or useful. In fact, it's not even equally useful; it's less. |
I personally don't see how it's less useful since it means literally exactly what those "few words" mean. Once you learn the notation it's easier and initially more obvious what the author actually means. I mean (s)(C)(w|j|l|r)V(V)(C)(C)(C)(C) is a lot simpler than saying "an English syllable consists of an obligatory vowel which may be preceded by an optional consonant which itself can be preceded by an optional /s/ and optionally followed by one of /w/, /j/, /r/ or /l/. This obligatory vowel may also be followed by an optional vowel which may then be followed by up to four optional consonants". Even CV is "simpler" than "every syllable within language X consists of one (obligatory) consonant followed by one (obligatory) vowel". The use of set letters, symbols and parentheses sums that up perfectly in a more compact, simple and concise manner which isn't initially daunting once you know what it means. It's not concise, i.e. it doesn't list all viable sequences, though, since then it would become less useful.
_________________
In the name of the Father, the Son and... wait... that can't be right... can it? No. It can't be.
By the flow of the Red River we worship humanity and live our lives on its banks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veris
Fheari Lazhin
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 224
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, I guess so. But I think it's more about space-saving for categorical purposes specifically than anything. That is, if you're cataloguing 5,000 languages, giving a short paragraph to describe each language's phonological constraints would be unwieldy, whereas you can get away with a couple of lines of (C)(V)(etc.) and keep the whole thing managable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
