Re: Roman Syllabary

>>The phonology of the Babm
>>syllabary is too obviously made to fit to the arbitrary quirks of the
Roman
>>alphabet and its traditional values.
>
>{j} = [zI] and {x} = [ki] doesn't seem to me to meet even that criterion.
Well, for {x} = [ki] I might point to the Spanish name of the letter -
 "equís", if I remember right (?). As to {j}, I could only conclude that FO
actually intended it to be [Zi] - I'm surely insulting his intelligence as
a linguist, but might his native palatilization conditions (i.e.
Japanese /si/ = [Si]) have clouded his mind? Just a theory.

>I'd suggest rather {c} = /ki/ or /ti/ = [tSi], [ts\i]; and having {x} =
>/hi/ or /si/ = [Si], [s\i]
>
>The now redundant {g} can be found a job as /Ji/ (suggested by the Italian
>_gni_ in _gnocchi_  :)
Yes, that's a good idea; though I wouldn't say /Ji/, merely /ni/, to be
pronounced [Ji]. This would solve the problem, which I had certainly
noticed, that there are too few nasal combinations.

And since this is already a language of strong assimilative processes,
where back vowels are associated with labials, and front vowels with
palatals, I'd suggest {m} to be phonemically /nu/, pronounced [mu].

If {c} would become /ki/ or /ti/, then I'd have {z} = /si/. {x} would still
be /hi/, though I see a paradox there - i.e. that /si/ and /hi/ should be
distinctive in spite of the assimilative processes. I'll have to think
about that.

>None of my systems, as far as I remember, contained diphthongs.
Nonetheless, I'd favor that solution; that way, {e o} are put to use,
without having to have an unnecessary five-way distinction of vowels, and
having to explain why the distribution of those five vowels would be so
uneven.

>But a more recent attempt of mine just had:
>{g} = /Ji/
>{n} = /na/
>{m} = /mu/
Essentially my conclusion, though I describe it phonemically as /ni na nu/,
pronounced [Ji na mu], written {g n m}.


I'm interested, actually, to know other details of Babm. Surely it was more
than a phonology; what kind of language was it, in other aspects?

Regards,
Óskar