Page 2 of 2

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 1:00 am
by Creyeditor
zompist wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 5:32 pm
The other is visibility. Thousands of languages are just barely documented. Many historical languages only exist as wordlists, which means even basic features like argument order are unknown. If you want to know (say) how the middle voice works, Ancient Greek is particularly important because of the depth of the evidence.
This is really a thing. Here is an example I like. According to Peter Ladefoged, phoneticians judged velar laterals to be non-existant in the phonology of natural languages until a few decades ago. He then met a student who was a native speaker of Mid-Wahgi when giving a lecture in PNG (IIRC) who corrected him.

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 11:10 am
by Travis B.
Creyeditor wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 1:00 am
zompist wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 5:32 pm
The other is visibility. Thousands of languages are just barely documented. Many historical languages only exist as wordlists, which means even basic features like argument order are unknown. If you want to know (say) how the middle voice works, Ancient Greek is particularly important because of the depth of the evidence.
This is really a thing. Here is an example I like. According to Peter Ladefoged, phoneticians judged velar laterals to be non-existant in the phonology of natural languages until a few decades ago. He then met a student who was a native speaker of Mid-Wahgi when giving a lecture in PNG (IIRC) who corrected him.
Obviously this is something that could have been disproven simply by an adequate study of English dialects. :D

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 12:25 pm
by Creyeditor
I'm still not dure that I ever heard a real velar lateral in any English dialect (in contrast to velarized coronal laterals). They are acoustically so drastically different from the velar lateral that I heard in Mee (aka Ekagi/Ekari).

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 12:42 pm
by Travis B.
Creyeditor wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 12:25 pm I'm still not dure that I ever heard a real velar lateral in any English dialect (in contrast to velarized coronal laterals). They are acoustically so drastically different from the velar lateral that I heard in Mee (aka Ekagi/Ekari).
The velar lateral in the dialect here to my ears sounds like [ɣ] or [ɰ] except, well, lateral. For me it is not a proper lateral being that the tongue does not actually touch the roof of the mouth (but the point where it is closest to the roof of the mouth is in the velar region ─ the tip of the tongue is nowhere near the roof of the mouth, in contrast). As I've mentioned here before, it is unstable, alternating with [ɰ] (and apparently, contrary to what I had previously thought, also [w]), but it is still common at the start of stressed words and when geminate.

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 12:59 pm
by Creyeditor
Sorry to derail the thread further but do you have a recording?

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 5:26 pm
by Travis B.
Creyeditor wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 12:59 pm Sorry to derail the thread further but do you have a recording?
length https://voca.ro/1gbNgjVA3LRd

Re: What do you think of the following proposition? As conlangers?

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2024 10:28 pm
by keenir
xxx wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 1:48 am let's be more pragmatic: who among the conlangers has voluntarily studied ancient Greek...
(not me...)
as a language, I have not; as a source of words (to better understand parts of taxonomy and cladistics), I have delved into it.