Re: Con-Alphabets & Real Languages

--- In conlang@y..., Roger Mills <romilly@E...> wrote:

> It's presumptuous of me to carp and cavil about the German version, but--
> (1) why adapt "dh" for Germ./z/, when there is a perfectly good "z" in your
> script?
Because in my script the letters <th dh> are clearly fricative versions
of <t d>, and German treats /s z/ as fricative versions of /t d/, as
can be seen in the common affricate /ts/.


> Surely Germ. /Z/ is so rare/foreign that it ought to get the unusual
> symbol?
Yes.  The symbols <s z> *are* the unusual ones.  I invented them
specifically for the rendition of foreign languages.  Obrenje doesn't
have the sounds /T D/, and uses <th dh> for /s z/.

Actually, the phonology isn't that simple.  /s z/ are realized as [s z]
or as [S Z] depending on the following vowel, but that's not the point
here.  ;-)


> (2) why is "so" /zo/ written {dho} but "aussieht" is written with
> {-ss-}?
With {-thth-}, you mean.  There's no inconsistency there.


> Isn't it [aws.'zi:t]? I could be wrong, Lord knows...
I should say so.  I've never hear anything else than ["aws.,si:t]
(using the new C-SAMPA convention of /,/ as secondary stress =).
Without the prefix, it would indeed be [zi:t].


> .......Actually, aside from the vowels, you could almost follow
> German spelling conventions, although then your con-people might not know
> how to pronounce it.
Which is why I prefer to write it phonemically.


-- Christian Thalmann