Re: Is that Ladino?

Shaul Vardi wrote:

<<< Thanks for the corrections and explanations! >>>

You are welcome. They were necessary because the language is not a
spontaneous mix of Spanish and Arabic, but a conhisoricly grown naturalistic
system, a result of numerous diachronic developmants.

<<< The relationship between the
Arabic and Latin script versions is interesting. >>>

Speaking correctly, there is no Latin version. Yesterday night I revised
totally my previous version of Romanization, coming to something more e-mail
friendly. Now it is fully compatible with Latin-3 encoding (I hope), using
only additional Esperanto and Maltese characters. If I have more time, I'll
post a message with Ajami alphabet and LTS (Latin Translit Scheme). But I
need to emphasize, that LTS is ***completely unofficial***, and exists only
in our timeline just for convenience of reading - not many people can read
Arabic even if they are linguists ;) It is neither transliteration not
precise transcription, but rather a mnemonic tool.

<<< For example سلام and تود
for salamo and todo - would you pronounce the words the same way reading
both scripts? >>>

[s6"lamo], ["tODo] in standard dialect, if being precise. Western dialect
would say [s@"lamU], ["tOdU]. Both Arabic spelling and LTS are to certain
extent interdialectal.

<<< I can see leaving سلام like that since it's an Arabic word,
but why تود and not تودو ? >>>

Because the first /o/ is stressed, and the second is not. Spelling is
designed so that it could make stress more predictable. It also reflects the
fact that Arabic /i/ and /u/ > Ajami /e/ and /o/ when unstressed, but
remained /i/ and /u/ when stressed. This pattern is used in spelling Romance
words too.

<<< It's also interesting that you write ke rather than que - my guess is
because you want to leave "q" for transliterating Arabic ق (right?) Actually
that does make it look a bit Ladino-like - I recall that Latin alphabet
renditions of Ladino (or some of them, anyway) also use k. >>>

Right. I need |q| because it behaves differently than |k|, though sometimes
it is realised as [k], indeed.

<<< Anyway I look forward to seeing more Ajami. >>>

To be continued...

<<< My Conlang (Tesk) is similar
insofar as it is also deliberately based on existing languages. >>>

I just *love* aposteriori conlanging.

<<< I'll end with our same hopeful sentence
about Ukraine in Tesk:
Kfêt, waðul mix ykrîñín erx slij jkyn. Pax hâðefkái insjala mix ykrîñín xêl
dynjeín ëmmît! >>>

Completely incomprehensible!!!

Ĥeyro a-ti,
-- Yitzik
(NB: spelt with capital Y - that's my trademark!)

Reply