RAMBLINGS OF A MADMAN
The purpose of blogs vary. Many are simply personal ones, where they describe the workings of the author's life. Some are political, rallying for one side and decrying the other. The purpose of this blog is to post my internal musings about things I don't fully understand. There are few answers in this blog, but many questions. No post is a light read - I endeavour to make them long and deep. And I never give a tl;dr version. If I haven't scared you away yet, happy thinking. :D
Phonotactics: Don't put that there!
Tags development, linguistics
For those not familiar with the term, phonotactics is the linguistic phenomenon which controls which structures of words are acceptable.
Let's make up two words. Clestrath and Pkan. Try to pronounce them. Assuming you're an English monoglot, you probably found the first far easier to say than the second.
This is because the first complies with English phonotactics - even though it's longer, the two consonant clusters "cl" and "tr" are acceptable.
"Pkan", however, could not be a word in today's English. That's because the cluster "pk" is not allowed at the beginning of a word. It's allowed in the middle of a word, like in "napkin", but not at the start.
English actually has rather flexible phonotactics, as evidenced by the word "strength". At the beginning of the word, there's a cluster of three consonantal sounds, and at the end there are two. (Yes - there are four letters, but they only represent two sounds. A phonologist would probably find this cluster more interesting than a layman, with the massive difference between the velar nasal "ng" and voiceless interdental fricative "th". But I digress.)
Now, what does a language with very restrictive phonotactics look like? We'll have a look at Japanese, which has very restrictive phonotactics.
The syllable structure of a Japanese word is always (C)(y)V(V)(n), where C is a consonant, V is a vowel, y is the English "y" consonant, and n is a nasal consonant. The brackets, as you've probably guessed, mean that the component is optional.
So, "Sten" could not be a Japanese word because it fits a CCVn structure, which is invalid. Even though "s", "t", "e", and "n", are all valid Japanese sounds, "Sten" is not a valid hypothetical Japanese word. Just like "Pkan" is not a valid hypothetical English word.
Other other hypothetical words that are easy to pronounce for us but can't be in Japanese are "Kot", "Bomed", "Esta", and others.
(Some might note that ts is a valid cluster in Japanese, like in tsunami. Technically, "ts" is one consonant, and is treated as such by the language. If you're interested, it's a special type of "compound" consonant called an affricate.)
Conversely, Georgian has an even less restrictive phonotactical system than English. გვფრცქვნი (gvprckvni) is a real word, meaning "you peel us", in Georgian.
So, this begs the question: why did phonotactics develop? Did certain words become so entrenched in our mind that we lost our ability to string together other possible combinations with ease? But that would make it highly improbable that rigid systems like Japanese would arise, if it was only on the pattern of use. So, why?
Let's make up two words. Clestrath and Pkan. Try to pronounce them. Assuming you're an English monoglot, you probably found the first far easier to say than the second.
This is because the first complies with English phonotactics - even though it's longer, the two consonant clusters "cl" and "tr" are acceptable.
"Pkan", however, could not be a word in today's English. That's because the cluster "pk" is not allowed at the beginning of a word. It's allowed in the middle of a word, like in "napkin", but not at the start.
English actually has rather flexible phonotactics, as evidenced by the word "strength". At the beginning of the word, there's a cluster of three consonantal sounds, and at the end there are two. (Yes - there are four letters, but they only represent two sounds. A phonologist would probably find this cluster more interesting than a layman, with the massive difference between the velar nasal "ng" and voiceless interdental fricative "th". But I digress.)
Now, what does a language with very restrictive phonotactics look like? We'll have a look at Japanese, which has very restrictive phonotactics.
The syllable structure of a Japanese word is always (C)(y)V(V)(n), where C is a consonant, V is a vowel, y is the English "y" consonant, and n is a nasal consonant. The brackets, as you've probably guessed, mean that the component is optional.
So, "Sten" could not be a Japanese word because it fits a CCVn structure, which is invalid. Even though "s", "t", "e", and "n", are all valid Japanese sounds, "Sten" is not a valid hypothetical Japanese word. Just like "Pkan" is not a valid hypothetical English word.
Other other hypothetical words that are easy to pronounce for us but can't be in Japanese are "Kot", "Bomed", "Esta", and others.
(Some might note that ts is a valid cluster in Japanese, like in tsunami. Technically, "ts" is one consonant, and is treated as such by the language. If you're interested, it's a special type of "compound" consonant called an affricate.)
Conversely, Georgian has an even less restrictive phonotactical system than English. გვფრცქვნი (gvprckvni) is a real word, meaning "you peel us", in Georgian.
So, this begs the question: why did phonotactics develop? Did certain words become so entrenched in our mind that we lost our ability to string together other possible combinations with ease? But that would make it highly improbable that rigid systems like Japanese would arise, if it was only on the pattern of use. So, why?
Total Comments 23
Comments
-
I said it like so: "peh-can". :PPosted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 AM by donavannj 
-
On a serious note: I did find that kind of interesting.
Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 AM by donavannj
-
Yeah - you had to insert an intermediary vowel. To say it as a "p" followed directly by a "k" is difficult for most English speakers, if in word-initial position.
Thanks. ^^;Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 AM by Citrinin 
-
Now it's starting to bother me that no one developed an accepted phonetic sound for some consonant combinations.
Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 AM by donavannj
-
This reminds me of learning to roll r's.Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 AM by Forever
-
All consonant clusters can be pronounced. A phonologist would have no trouble pronouncing "pkan". It wouldn't surprise me if some languages did have this cluster.Quote:Originally Posted by donavannjNow it's starting to bother me that no one developed an accepted phonetic sound for some consonant combinations.
It's not quite the same thing. Rolled rs are another phoneme (unit of sound) entirely (the technical term being alveolar trill). Whereas the issue with phonotactics is that it means we have difficulty pronouncing a series of sounds, that individually, are easy to pronounce.Quote:Originally Posted by HakeenThis reminds me of learning to roll r's.Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 AM by Citrinin
-
Yes... rolling r's is like that. :(
LIKE TRYING TO SAY FOREVER AND ROLLING BOTH R'S.Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 AM by Forever
-
In that case (assuming you've incorporated the rolled r into the phonemic inventory) then you're right, it is. :P
Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 AM by Citrinin
-
I don't know what that means but I know I'm right. XDD
Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 PM by Forever
-
XD; Well, that's the main thing. :P
"Phonemic inventory" is the set of acceptable sounds in a language. For example, our "L" sound is not in the Japanese phonemic inventory. XD;Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 PM by Citrinin
-
>:[ Stop trying to make me feel stupid. ;_; My position as linguistics-nerd is being compromised.Posted October 3rd, 2009 at 08:20 PM by Misheard Whisper
-
I don't set out to make you feel stupid. ;0;
Posted October 4th, 2009 at 12:07 AM by Citrinin
-
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL j/k. Just stop using big words, mmkay? )_)
Posted October 4th, 2009 at 12:20 AM by Misheard Whisper
-
I pronounced like "kan". Greek for the win. ;P
I think the Japanese just wanted a language that flowed, you know? It may give them a lot of homonyms in the future, but hey, they've got kanji to give them the meaning. ;>
Remember they also have "ng" and anything that starts with an "n" as available consonant sounds. They can still be German with stuff like "antsukyangan", hypothetically. :DPosted October 4th, 2009 at 01:04 AM by Ineffable~
-
The Japanese are remarkable when it comes to loanwords and translating foreign words. Negi Springfield, from Mahou Sensei Negima *is bricked for yet another MSN reference* is Nipponised as Negi Supuringufirudo. That's a mouthful if I ever saw one.
Just had to throw that out there.
Posted October 4th, 2009 at 01:47 AM by Misheard Whisper
-
I don't think it's that much of a mouthful. It is roughly pronounced "Springufieldo" due to the altered tempo, and is written 「スプリングフィルド」。
And wait, isn't it "nipponized"? :o
I probably sound mean saying all this at you. x<Posted October 4th, 2009 at 02:16 AM by Ineffable~
-
it's possible, but that's the sort of thing that you'd expect from someone inventing a language, not a language evolving. :SQuote:Originally Posted by NeedleI think the Japanese just wanted a language that flowed, you know?
Yes - the (n) incorporates nasal consonants, of which "ng" is one. ^^Quote:Originally Posted by NeedleRemember they also have "ng" and anything that starts with an "n" as available consonant sounds.
It's -ise in some parts of the world, so they're both correct.Quote:Originally Posted by NeedleAnd wait, isn't it "nipponized"? :oPosted October 4th, 2009 at 02:27 AM by Citrinin
-
No, it doesn't sound mean. I'm quite happy to be corrected, and as Citrinin said, we in NZ use the -ise ending.
Posted October 4th, 2009 at 02:32 AM by Misheard Whisper
-
It isn't that we created phonotactics, it's just that...it happened. Let us take Latin for example. If you isolate the Latin speaking groups over many centuries, their language will start to change. And it has, into Spanish, French, and German.
Wow, I'm the only one who answered your question.Posted October 4th, 2009 at 07:26 AM by Luck
-
XD; True. To a certain extent. I wasn't trying to ask why we "created" them (that doesn't usually happen in languages), but more why that feature of language evolved.
Posted October 4th, 2009 at 09:07 AM by Citrinin
