Re: [Q] is a vowel?! (...)

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:26:17PM +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:24:06 +0100,
> Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Trebor Jung <treborjung@...>:
> >
> > > Merhaba!
> > >
> > > The result of reading Herman Miller's post
> > > http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?
> > A2=ind0402d&L=conlang&F=&S=&P=5802
> > > makes me want to reform XS. I mean, who's ever heard of spelling a vowel as
> > > a consonant except in...XS?! Even English didn't get it this wrong...
> >
> > Welsh comes to mind ...
>
> I considered transcription schemes using _w_ or _q_ for vowels for my
> own Albic (formerly Hesperic) conlangs, where seven vowel phonemes
> exist, such that a,e,i,o,u,y aren't enough.  However, I settled
> on using _ø_.
Ebisédian has 9 vowels, which puts it in an even worse strait when it
comes to Roman transcription schemes. I settled for u,w,y,o,3,i,ø,a,e.
(The frankly dissatisfyingly ugly _3_ is meant to be a mirror-image e, but
no such glyph exists in current email charsets. Where ø is not available,
I have no recourse but to use the even uglier _0_.) The vowel values are
[u], [8], [y], [o], [@\], [i], [A], [a], [&].

[...]
> > There's been more suggestions to rework the X-SAMPA/CXS than Esperanto.
>
> Which is indicative of how dissatisfying the system is.  And that's
> why I made up my own system, CPA (wherein most of the more commonly
> used symbols are the same as in X-SAMPA or CXS, but the most
> unfortunate choices of X-SAMPA are avoided).
[snip]

And *I* wish there were more vowels in the Roman alphabet. :-)


T

--
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

Reply