21. ETRIK trick
22. SEKRIC screech
23. EPLOT plot
24. PELAGKE plank (well, no, actually, because the first E cannot be epenthetical here like in the previous words. Must be Indonesian)
25. ESTEREGFE strength
26. KERASTE crust
27. ULTU ??
28. TEWOF death
29. ESTERANTE strand
30. MURESYA ??
31. ESPERUS spruce
32. KERESNAYALSEK kṛśna... what?
33. PAREFE path (if it were hypercorrected to 'parth' in a rhotic dialect)
34. EKRAFTE craft
35. SEREPISTAN ??
36. SEKRUTRAIWE screwdriver
37. EKSEPOSE ex-spouse
38. SEPRIGKEL sprinkle
39. INESTERAKTE instruct
40. KALMEN ??
This seems to not get any more replies, so I'll close the survey. Unless I can get one more answer in today? I'll notify here when I've finished counting all the answers and definitely will not count any more.
I constructed the survey quite poorly, but it's too late to do anything about that now. I will now analyze the data I got. Hopefully I can get some insights from it. For those who are interested in knowing, here are the correct words:
*I had to consider "plank" a correct answer as well, because that word would have ended up identical.
**I had to consider "craft" and "kraft" correct answers as well, because those words would have ended up identical.
I was basically trying two different ways of assimilating words, and I'm trying to see which one results in more recognizable words.
Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:36 pm
C stands for /tʃ/
I think this is unadvisable — it's /k~s/ (or /k~s̪/ or /k~θ/, depending on dialect) in both English and Spanish, and I think Mandarin uses it for /tsʰ/; these aren't languages whose orthographies I think it advisable to make a potential learner fight.
Also, I just kind-of hate using "c" for affricates.
I feel unkind saying this, but I find the words opaque, the "c" (especially in the -ric(?) ending, which I want to read as -ic/-ique) and "g" painfully unintuitive (also they represent sounds that I wouldn't really think advisable in an auxiliary language), and the language overall rather ugly...
I'm going by the one sound - one letter principle here, so <c> and <g> were the only sensible options. [ts] and the like are an okay realization of <c>. I agree that the words in these lists are ugly. But I think they're not representative; I chose words with clusters that are awkward to represent in this conlang. When I pick words from natlangs to borrow for real, I will avoid such awkward words when possible.
, but it turns out this was difficult enough already. >_<
Don't be so hard on yourself. Most of these weren't too bad, and vocab is just part of learning a language. That said, i value any resource a script has to
I've been trying to work out exact rules for assimilation, using the data I got. This is what I've got:
1. Replace phonemes with letters according to the phoneme replacement list for the given language, or according to the general rules if there is no list.
2. If there is any R word-finally, or followed by a consonant, insert an epenthetic vowel after the R.
3. If there is a sequence of two consonants word-initially, insert an epenthetic vowel at the beginning of the word.
4. If there is a sequence of two consonants word-finally, insert an epenthetic vowel at the end of the word.
5. If there is a sequence of three consonants word-initially, ?
6. If there is a sequence of three consonants word-finally, insert an epenthetic vowel between the second last and last consonant.
7a. If there is a sequence of three consonants inside a word, insert an epenthetic vowel where there is a (clear) morpheme boundary.
7b. Or, if the first or second of those consonants is a plosive, insert an epentheric vowel after that (only insert one epenthetic vowel).
7c. Or, insert an epenthetic vowel between the first and second of those consonants.
8a. If there is a sequence of four consonants, insert an epenthetic vowel where there is a (clear) morpheme boundary.
8b. Or insert an epenthetic vowel between the second and third of those consonants.
9. If there are longer sequences of consonants, then break it up into smaller clusters, inserting as few epenthetic vowels as possible (first priority). Insert epenthetic vowels at morpheme boundaries as secondary priority. Insert epenthetic vowels after plosives as third priority.
Rule 1 will not make sense to you, because I haven't told about those things, so ignore that for now. Examples of what the other rules would lead to:
2. gwerther → kwerfer → kwerefere (→ ekwerefere)
3. stop → estop
4. round → raunt → raunte
5. ?
6. konst → konset
7a. untrue → antru → anetru
7b. växla → weksla → wekesla; kantra → kantera
7c. monster (Received Pronunciation) → monste → moneste
8a. unscrupulous → anskrupyules → aneskrupyules → rule 5; kantstött → kantstot → kantestot
8b. mts'k'rivi → mckriwi → mcekriwi (→ emcekriwi); hemskt → hemsekt (→ hemsekte)
9. gvrts'vrtni → kwrcwrtni → kwrecwretni (rule 2) → ekwerecweretni
The problem is rule 5. The results of the survey suggest that inserting vowels like this: CCCV... → eCCeCV... is most likely to lead to a recognizable word. But if I did like CCCV → CeCCV there would be fewer epenthetic vowels, which would keep word length shorter. A problem with this conlang is that some words get really long and unwieldy.
