Alphabets and diagraphs
|From:||Carlos Thompson <cthompso@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 2, 1998, 17:47|
After another intensive debat in AUXLANG list on Esperanto's supersigned
characters and the ways around, and in the trial of recreating my first
conlang (Rithen) a question arose to me.
Rithen is based on its own scripting from the same family as Latin, Greek
and Cyrillic (for information look at
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/9028/rith/symbols.htm ). This scripting
could be used for coding Spanish or English as well, and because both
English and Spanish uses diagraphs, my script uses them too. In this
script, many sound combination is given its own symbol, many diphthongs
included, but diagraphs are also used, even pro Rithen. When writen in
Latin the 26 letters of modern Latin (or English letters) are not enough.
I've proved using supersigned leters, diagraphs and special symbols from
Greek, for example, so I could write in my word processor.
When crating languages, I've see many of you using their owns scripts,
including sillabaries and logographs but most of the times are letters.
Many times are related to Latin letters. When they are not, many ways of
giving those extra sounds are given, like using diagraphs, supersigns, and
I would ask which ways you prefered for latinising.
I've even remember projects of me when you see:
Use 'h' for weakning, like making fricative a plosive (bh for /B/ or /v/,
and b for /b/).
Use 'j' for palatizing (s for /s/ and sj for /S/... Swedish influence?)
Use all posible combinations and drop similar sounds.
This would increase sounds by reducing alphabet. Of course, it would give
Other projects use a different aproach, like using diferent letters for
different sounds. A vocalic n, would be written as an n with a dieresis,
some common diphthongs, like Spanish <ue> and <ie> heve their own symbols.
Numbers of symbos would be incremented by supersigning or by introdusing new
So, again, which method do you preffer?
Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzsn