Re: English notation/conlang scripts

From: "O'Connell James" <jamestomas2@...>
> One thing I did want to ask though was who here, when
> using their conlang, works first in the lang's native
> script as opposed to the Roman alpha..
I generally do that, when I can [read: when not using the computer].

However I've found I tend to exclude things that tend not to be writable in
the script.

For example, Hadwan (for which I generally work in the regular Latin
alphabet now) has a consonant /j/ and a vowel /i(:)/ which, not necessarily
being related [/j/ sometimes from */G/, cf. day ~ Tag, and /i(:)/ sometimes
from /e(:)/] sometimes appear together; but they're written with the same
letter, and Hadwan writing doesn't generally double consonants.  Which makes
some words horribly difficult to write...

/"ji:n/    "I do/am doing X"
/"In/      "in"
/"jIru:/   "I am supporting X"
/i:"jajen/ "I have lost X"
/"mIji:/   "me (locative)"

I didn't have oppositions like this when I worked in the native script.
How'm I supposed to spell them?  I suspect, possibly, "in, in, iru, iiaien,
mii", but I'm not sure.

As for working _in_ a language's script, I found I tended to things that
weren't otherwise obvious.  I had a language which voiced sounds
intervocalically, aspirated stops next to other stops, and nasalized them
initially.  I got by with eight letters for all of [p_h], [t_h], [k_h], [Z],
[S], [p], [t], [k], [m], [b], [d], [n], [g], [N], /E/, /A/, /u/, and /i/.  I
had only started out with /p/, /t/, /k/, and /S/ letters and the other
changes followed; now it's easier to work in the native because
correspondences are easier to see than they would be in a phonetic
transliteration, and a phonemic transliteration would be less intuitive.
For me, anyway.  ;p

    *Muke!

Reply