Re: Gzarondan: Spelling Review

caeruleancentaur wrote:

> You may want to do what I did.
Use diacritics? No, I prefer not to. A native Gzarondan script exists;
that is to say, I haven't actually invented it yet, but the *notion*
of a native Gzarondan script exists if you see what I mean. It would
be just silly to have a Romanised orthography with diacritics and a
Romanised orthography without diacritics.

Gzarondan orthography has undergone several changes in the past. In
the previous version, I used several digraphs (such as 'hl' for /K/,
'hs' for /T/, 'hz' for /D/, 'kk' for /x/) but this time around I've
decided to avoid digraphs where possible. It's simply a matter of
trying not to let words look too cluttered.

*****

An off-topic comment: I don't know how much Internet experience you've
had, but it's generally not considered polite to quote the entire
message you're replying to, especially when it's long. Just quote a
paragraph or two, to make sure the reader understands what your post
refers to. Below is an illustration of how your post might have looked
if you had followed this guideline.

### Begin Illustration ###

Adrian Morgan wrote:

> Note that this spelling reform involves some radical changes, being
> essentially re-created from scratch. For consonants, I have decided to
> avoid digraphs where possible this time around, and to this end have
> sometimes chosen to fit a consonant into a somewhat unconventional
> role (e.g. 'v' for /D/ and 'h' for /T/). I believe I have done the
> right thing, but of course comments are welcome.
You may want to do what I did.  I devised my Senyecan orthography
before joining the conlang group.  I, too, do not like digraphs (I
have no idea why not), & prefer diacritics.  When I joined the

...

[And so on. You get the idea.]

### End Illustration ###

*****

Adrian.