Re: Idea for Roman orthography.

 --- Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> schrieb:
> Suppose you had 5 consonants and three vowels and
> declared that every sound is represented by a
> digraph?
Then that would be evil. And a pretty cool idea;
binary alphabet, anyone :)?

> Then Digraphs wouldn't be "clunky", they'd be the
> norm.  You could have 5 X 5 = 25 consonant sounds
> and 3 X 3 = 9 vowel sounds. Or up it to 6 consonants
> and 4 vowels for up to 36 consonant sounds an up to
> 16 vowel sounds.
> There would be no ambiguities because all words
> would be an even number of letters long and could
> only be divided into digraphs in one way.
What I originally intended was a way to represent the
sounds of my conlang in a more-or-less phonemic manner
without resorting to such monsters as /ch/ for [x],
since the cluster /kh/ did exist. Especially grating
to me were the clusters /th/ and /dh/ for [T] and [D];
the two sounds were commonly geminated, and the
clusters /tth/ and /ddh/ are simply awful in my eyes.

So, I'd write /tt/ and just remember that it's
pronounced as a geminated fricative, not a plosive. To
help me out in ambiguous situations, I'd add an accent
mark to clear things up a bit.

For some purposes, I'd allow diagraphs like [dj] and
[tj] for [dZ] and [tS], because they were
aesthetically pleasing to me.

> ex: Ai rhaikk dhue ghoe phiishiihg. Dhue eeue?
...

Not particularly. I sunburn too easily :).


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de