Re: Romanization of Reduced Vowels

Mathias wrote:

>Kristian Jensen wrote:
>
>> [....]
>> >
>> >Boreanesian, like its conlang predecessor Lumanesian, still
>> >has only four vowels: /a/ /i/ /u/ /@/. From what Raymond has
>> >posted, the vowel in Boreanesian's minor syllables would
>> >naturally have to be /@/, and that this vowel has several
>> >conditioned variants: voiced and voiceless [@],[I],[U], and
>> >zero. Raymond has also suggested that if this were the case, I
>> >should represent the vowel in the Roman orthography.
>> >
>> >But how should this be represented?
>>
>
>I would suggest *o* when major is *u*, *e* when major is *i*, *a*
>when major is *a*, and nothing when mute because I believe you
>will end up pronouncing them like that.
But there is only _one_ underlying minor vowel in Boreanesian - the
/@/. The other realizations of this vowel ([I],[U], and zero) are
allophones of the same vowel. That's why I have decided to symbolize
this with the same letter all throughout. Yet, it still wouldn't
cause any ambiguity to represent these allophones by different
letters to better reflect the pronounciation. Its just that Raymond
adviced using one letter. What's better, phonemic or phonetic
transcription?

Regards,
-Kristian- 8-)