|From:||Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, July 7, 2007, 8:07|
On 6.7.2007 Jeff Rollin wrote:
> In general, I detest digraphs. The only excuses for them,
> in my view, are either that they are used in the same or a
> similar way as those in the language of the conlanger's
> intended audience (for example, I assume that the audience
> for most people on this list would consist of English
> speakers, in the main, so using "ch" for a sound like that
> in "chutney" is ok),
I might grudgingly use digraphs for that reason e.g. if I
used a conlang in a story which was also adressed at a non-
linguistically inclined audience, like Tolkien's switch from
ð to dh in Sindarin. Thus I might replace Sohlob _c, ç, q_
with _ch, sh, gh_.
> OR the reading is intuitive - thus using "h" for
> aspirates, etc.
I will in general only use digraphs for aspirates,
affricates and secondary articulations (e.g. consonant + y
for palatalized consonants in Kijeb). For some reason I can
also live with h + sonorant for voiceless sonorants. I guess
that feels like a natural assimilation to me.