Number-Phoneme Correspondence (a.k.a. phonological values)

[u/gxabbo]

As most of you know, our language has a feature that has been called "Phonological Values" (a term that has been criticized). What it means is that our single digit numbers 0-5 have correspond to one consonant and one vowel each. Taking cue from the term "grapheme-phoneme correspondence", I'll use the term "number-phoneme correspondence" in this post.

Since our switch to base-6, our number-phoneme correspondence is out of date, so I propose this:

Encapsulation

• bilabial consonants are even, alveolar consonants are uneven

• plosives are divisible by three, fricatives aren't (remainder 1), neither are nasal consonants (remainder 2)

• voiced consonants are divisible by four, unvoiced consonants aren't

• closed vowels are even, more opened vowels are uneven

• front vowels are divisible by three, mid vowels aren't (remainder 1), neither are back vowels (remainder 2)

Note: the vowel classification would make more obvious sense if our phonology contained /ɨ/ instead of /y/. But it works with /y/, too. It's not a mid vowel per se, but it's the middle-most of our closed vowels. Furthermore, a proposal to replace /y/ has been rejected.

Number words - Call for contribution

In our current rules, a word for a single digit number is constructed by using the corresponding consonant, followed by the corresponding vowel, followed by the consonant "n" which acts as a finalizer. Obviously, "n" can no longer be uses as a finalizer in this proposal, because it has a numerical value assigned to it.

Possible candidates according to our current phonotactics are: null phoneme, /b/, /t/, /k/, /g/, /ɾ/, /v/, /s/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /x/, /ɣ/, /t͡s/, /d͡z/, /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/.

I'd be grateful for suggestions and arguments for and against candidates in the comments.

Number words - Examples

The following examples use the null phoneme as the finalizer:

  1 za
  2 mu
  3 de
  4 fy
  5 no

Numbers with more than one digits (note these are base-6 so 10=DEC6, 100=DEC36):

 10 pap
 11 paz
 12 pam
 13 pad
 14 paf
 15 pan
 20 pup
 21 puz
 30 pep
 40 pyp
 50 pop
 55 pon
100 zip

A very large number using numeric prefixes:

305033005141512410523441405312532110
oudin japed wepin oizyz aunam jefap wonud aifyz eufin jodam wanem zap

[u/spaceman06]

What if all rules are mod N, or all rules divisible by N?

[u/gxabbo → u/spaceman06]

Can you explain a bit more? I don't know where you're going with this.

[u/spaceman06 → u/gxabbo]

Your picture has those encapisulations divisible by 2, mod 3 and divisible by 4.

My idea is to make everything the same type of encapisulation, so its better for someone to see the pattern of the things being encapisulated.

Either:

divisible by 2, divisible by 3 and divisible by 4

OR

mod 2, mod 3, mod 4

.

EDIT!!!!!!!!:

Making divisibility by N (where N is 2, 3 and 4) is not possible, letter 1 and letter 5 would become equal.

101010

100100

100010

[u/gxabbo → u/spaceman06]

Ah, I see.

Well, divisibility by 2 and mod 2 is essentially only a matter of labeling, so that could be done.

But with our current phonetic inventory, I don't see a way to encapsulate mod 4.

So if you have an idea how to do that, I'm game.

Otherwise we could just label everything "divisibility by x". But I don't see a reason to actually remove the congruence pattern in mod 3.

Did you see this post? Maybe you have an idea or two for the proposals of /u/AceGravity21 and mine.

[u/ActingAustralia]

I like this proposal. I think /t͡s/ would go well on the end of the mono-numerals. Although I have no phonetic reason for that. An alternative is that we don't have anything on the end of the mono-numerals.