![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesDebating about whether changing the phonology of Darynese would be a good idea. Right now, 'tr' is the only consonant cluster in an otherwise (C)V(n,m,r,l,s,z) language. (For those of you who don't know that notation, it means syllables are made up of an optional consonant, a vowel, and optionally one of six terminal consonants. So, for example, ginkgo would not be a valid Darynese word, but ginko would be... well, if the Darynese distinguished between g and k*.) Anyway... I suppose it's not too unusual -- Japanese, for example is (C)V(V)(n)**, but I kind of want to throw in more stop + r consonant clusters.
Shows what happens when I declare a language 'finished except for vocab'. Mostly it's overcoming this one barrier -- the fact it would mean changing something I set a while ago.
Also my friend Shoshe traded a summer Sanskrit course with a friend of hers in the language department at Cornell for 'astronomers at your beck and call to answer questions'. Right now I have the 'homework' of memorizing the Devanagari alphabet. I will say that I like Sanskrit's consonants, in that all the stops and nasals follow the same system. Mostly it's getting the hang of the retroflex consonants (say 't', 'd' or 'n' with your tongue curled up a bit, rather than near your teeth) and the fact Sanskrit distinguishes between aspirated and unaspirated stops -- basically when an English speaker says 'pit' there's a puff of air with the /p/ that doesn't occur when she says 'spit'. I think I can control my aspiration on unvoiced sounds (p, t, k, ch, and retroflex t), but voiced sounds are harder.
A lot of learning language for me is speaking it, even if Sanskrit is like Latin in that it's more a historical language preserved for religious and cultural reasons, so is more often read than spoken. I could probably mentally convert all the letters to the Roman letters we use for transliteration, but I want to be able to hear it.
* This doesn't bother me that much -- English does distinguish between g and k, but not voiced and unvoiced th. (The 'th' in 'this' versus that in 'thin'.)
** English is (s)(C)(r, l, w, y)(V)V(C)(C)(C). English loves its consonant clusters.
Shows what happens when I declare a language 'finished except for vocab'. Mostly it's overcoming this one barrier -- the fact it would mean changing something I set a while ago.
Also my friend Shoshe traded a summer Sanskrit course with a friend of hers in the language department at Cornell for 'astronomers at your beck and call to answer questions'. Right now I have the 'homework' of memorizing the Devanagari alphabet. I will say that I like Sanskrit's consonants, in that all the stops and nasals follow the same system. Mostly it's getting the hang of the retroflex consonants (say 't', 'd' or 'n' with your tongue curled up a bit, rather than near your teeth) and the fact Sanskrit distinguishes between aspirated and unaspirated stops -- basically when an English speaker says 'pit' there's a puff of air with the /p/ that doesn't occur when she says 'spit'. I think I can control my aspiration on unvoiced sounds (p, t, k, ch, and retroflex t), but voiced sounds are harder.
A lot of learning language for me is speaking it, even if Sanskrit is like Latin in that it's more a historical language preserved for religious and cultural reasons, so is more often read than spoken. I could probably mentally convert all the letters to the Roman letters we use for transliteration, but I want to be able to hear it.
* This doesn't bother me that much -- English does distinguish between g and k, but not voiced and unvoiced th. (The 'th' in 'this' versus that in 'thin'.)
** English is (s)(C)(r, l, w, y)(V)V(C)(C)(C). English loves its consonant clusters.
