Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: +AFs-CONLANG+AF0- Vowel romanization

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Monday, February 23, 2004, 15:32
> And Rosta scripsit: > > > As Herman implicitly says in his reply, the roman alphabet is a
> > a family of sets of letters, rather than a single set of letters. The > > crux is whether such and such a character is 'traditionally' used with > > the roman alphabet. > > I quite agree. The question is, how old does a tradition have to be > to count as traditional? > > The Latin-alphabet writing systems for African languages are typically > more recent than the IPA, and often show influence from it; but because > they are now handed down from teacher to student as part of literacy, > I believe these writing systems are now as traditional as the English > or French ones, though admittedly the tradition does not go as far > back.
I agree. A conlang might itself start a new branch of the tradition, introducing into the family of roman letters a character never hitherto used alongside them.
> > [T]o use eng would, in the Livagian view, not count as a romanization > > And yet the Saami use eng in upper and lower case for the only orthography > their languages have ever had.
I sort of knew that, except I (wrongly, I do not doubt) thought it was Eskimo, not Saami, and I had a sense that the orthography did not evolve indigenously and that it doesn't date back beyond some time in the 19th century. The Livagian romanization would predate this. --And.