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 atradition,
> > 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
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.