Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?

Roger Mills wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>
>
>
>>Roger Mills wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Joe, responding to Mark J. Reed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>      ś       (LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH ACUTE)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>s-acute = [C]
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>Eh? I've always been under the impression it was [S] (though Hindi may
>>>
>>>
>not
>
>
>>>be the same as Sanskrit....)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hmm?  S-acute is palatal(sometimes written c-cedilla, in fact).  S-dot
>>is retroflex.  I don't think indic languages have postalveolar sounds...
>>
>>
>
>Yes, S-acute is considered a palatal.  So are "c j ñ" which at least
>conventionally are pronounced [tS dZ] (probably postalveolars) and [J] ( a
>true palatal).  The series "s - s-dot - s-acute" parallels the other
>consonantal series "t - t-dot - c".  How it was _actually_ pronounced in
>Skt. is probably unknowable; nor do I know how it's pronounced in Hindi.  It
>could well be [C]; I've learnt it as [S], which is also the usual
>transliteration, as in "Shiva".  And yes, ç is often used.
>
>
>
Yes, but convention isn't accurate.  It's just a way so English speakers
don't have to learn to pronounce sounds they don't know, while still
being intelligible to  speakers of Hindi or whatever.

And I think the Indic linguists left  fairly detailed records on the
pronunciation of Sanskrit, so we do know quite a bit about its
pronunciation.

>(ObConlang!!) My first Kash texts used s-acute for [S] (which proved
>impossible in email at the time), now changed to ç.
>
>-----Error in my previous post: "r.s.i" would be -- technically at least--
>['ris`i] with retroflex (or apical) s.  It is, however, Anglicized as
>"rishi".  It's possible Hindi is merging or confusing s-dot and s-acute; I
>recall an Indian friend mentioning that they often have to ask "is that
>"21-s?" (which the devanagari s-dot resembles).
>
>

Well, no, technically it would be [r\=s`i], but could be understood with
[ris`i]