Re: Phunky Phonology

> [huge snip]
> >Now comes the NASTY part -- orthography.  What am I gonna do with THIS
> >mess!?  *relishing his quagmireous quandry*
> >
> >I have considered the following:
> >
> >t      d      x      c     k     q
> >tj     dj     xj     cj    kj    qj
> >ts tsr ds dsr tz tzr tc cc kc kh qh qx
> >(s sr  z  zr  h  hr  tc cc kc kh qh qx) alternative to the above
The bottom row above is better--whichever way you do it, this language is
going to look horrifying, so any options which slightly lower the number
of digraphs is better.

> >
> >tl tlr kl css cs kss ks qss qs
> >
> >But I would appreciate any alternative schemes anyone would like to
> >suggest!
> >
> >Vowel orthography:
> >
> >i  u
> >y  o
> >e  a
> >
> >I don't especially like having <y> represent [I] and I really hate <u> for
> >[1] and <o> for [@\].
Actually, I think this is better than any of the alternatives I've seen
offered.  With such bizzare vowels (all non-low, non-back,
non-rounded!) you're going to have to go for atypical.  Our Latin alphabet
was designed for writing languages with normal vowel distributions, so
adapting it for this purpose will inevitably create strange conventions.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
"It is of the new things that men tire--of fashions and proposals and
improvements and change.  It is the old things that startle and
intoxicate.  It is the old things that are young."
-G.K. Chesterton _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_