John Vertical wrote:--
> 1) So they show the underlying form (which may be changed by harmony)?
Yep.
> 2) I.e. the vowel markers always agree with the phonetic realization?
Ya.
> 3) /T D/ _don't_ harmonize? That clears it up a little. Listing those
> together with the "main" fricatives and /s z/ separately suggested to
> me that those might be alveolar, not dental spirants.
Yeah - this is an organisational device for me, I wanted them to be
listed next to /ts/ /dz/.
> 4) There's no plosive/affricate distinction with the palatals, it seems?
Right.
> 5) Harmony spreads over the whole utterance??
Shocking, isn't it(:
> PS. I might be just me, but with regards to the romanization, I find
> the practice of using <j> for both a palatal plosive and a
> palatalization marker a little ugly. And do your really have /h G/
> without an /x/, or is /x/ <h> and not <kh> for some reason?
It's a bit of a kludge because I can't use the combining diacritic COMMA
BELOW with any kind of typing comfort. This also means that I have a
'lazy mode' affricate spelling |jz| (hideous) because |zj| is occupied
and |jj| is geminate |j|. I can't even remember what horrors the
geminated africate spellings are. They are not pretty.
Historically, /h/ was /x/ at one point and got softened (this is written
as |h|), or was deleted except in a single context, and is not spelled
there. This form appeals in sequences of like vowel, such as |kááladh|
/ka:halaD/ (long vowels are not permitted in unstressed position).
--
Shreyas
is too lazy to post a real sig