R: Re: R: orthographical question.

Jesse Bangs wrote:

> Mangiat sikayal:
>
> > Italian wouldn't deal with this. There is no way to write [St]. You can
> > switch to <st>. 'Schweiz' [Svajts], for istance, became 'Svizzera'
> > ['zvittsera] in Italian. You can keep the <sci> solution (<scitalu> is
not
> > that bad, after all). If you want Dalmatian to resemble Rumanian, you
can
> > add breve signs... and use them in this case as well.
>
> Hate to be pedantic, but I have to stop this misinformation before it goes
> any further.  Romanian does *not* use the breve over {i}.  The only letter
> that takes the breve is {a}, which is used to represent [@], the schwa.
I knew it. But you can't deny that a breve sign would anyway make the
orthography somehow resemble Rumanian. Is there any other European language
still using breve signs? I am sure Latvian uses macrons, but lacks breves.

Luca

> <pontificate>
> Romanian only has a problem with representing [tS] and [dZ] before
> consonants, and in that case the solution in standard written Romanian is
> actually to reduce them to [S] and [Z], which are written with {s,}
> (s-cedilla) and {j}.  Thus from 'veci'=[vetS], you have 'veci+nic' >
> ves,nic = [veSnic], instead of [vetSnic], which is unspellable in
> modern Romanian.  However, in dialect you do hear [vetSnic], and in older
> texts you do have the spelling {vecinic}.  I haven't seen it with the
> cedilla, but I suspect that the texts I've read have been respelled
> somewhat, since Romanian orthography has varied widely over time and
> space.
> </pontificate>
>
>
> 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_
> Conlanger code: CLI> l%p+++ cS:R:N:H a++ y n18d:6 X+++ A-- E-- L-- N2.5
> Idmp k++ ia-- p+ m++ o+++ P d++ b++ Yivríndil
>

Replies