Re: Is it necessary to distinguish inclusiveness in possessive markers?

Quoting Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > |r| for [x] is kinda neat ...
> >
> > |ä| for [9], OTOH, is atrocious! Any reason not to use instead |ö|?
>
> Well ö is [O]. The wovel system is rather logic.
>
> a [a]   ä [9]
> e [e]   ë [E]
> i [i]
> o [o]   ö [O]
> u [u]   ü [y]
>
> [9] is closer to [a] than [o] IMHO. I also speak German but it's not a
> problem; Shaquelingua definitively doesn't resemble german except for "ü"
> [y]. Maybe should I use "ï" instead?
I'm afraid I don't see the logic; in 'ë' and 'ö', the trema indicates
lowering, in 'ü' fronting, and 'ä' rising and rounding! Switching to 'ï' would
give an example if rounding, which doesn't seem to do much for consistency.

> Back to atrocities: what do you think of "y" pronounced [w]?  ;-)
Fairly atrocious, but I'm positive I've seen that before.

> The last hidden atrocities of Shaquelingua are the unpronoucable "x" [x\]
> (simultaneous [S] and [x])
That's hardly unpronunceable. It's supposedly the target pronunciation of
Swedish /S/, altho pretty much no-one seems to be using it.

> and the mute vowel "h" which is pronounced [:],
> [?], [_h] or [.] depending on its position. A very funny vowel, isn't it?
> ;-)
I guess that that makes more sense than romanized Meghean, which uses 'h' for
fricativization, [j] and zero.

                                                       Andreas

Replies