Re: orthographical question.

 Frank George Valoczy wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, J Matthew Pearson wrote:
>
>> Frank George Valoczy wrote:
>>
>> > I have a little difficulty here with the Dalmatian orthography. How to
>> > represent /S/ and /tS/ where the [i] following is not syllabic?
>> >
>> > As I have it now, /Sta:lu/ is written [scitalu]. Also in suffices it
will
>> > happen that there's an -i- there which isn't pronounced hardly, let
alone
>> > syllabic...
>>
>> This solution is not very Romance-like (Romantic?), but how about using a
>> "j"?  So /Sta:lu/ would be "scjtalu" or some such.
>>
>
>Hm; /j/ is already in use to represent [Z].
>
>/h/ on the other hand is hardly used, but how stupid would it look to
>retain the German /sch/ in an Italian-inspired orthography and have
>/schtalu/. I also think that that isn't reasonable because the whole point
>of changing the orthography was to forget the days of evil Austria...>
My 2 cents:  Avoid _sc'talu_:  the unenlightened foreigner is immediately
going to think [sk-].
Possibilities:  Least likeable:  put a breve over the _i_; Romanian uses it
IIRC, but of course it doesn't work in email.
Also awkward in email, though not in text:  s^ and c^ (s- and c-hacek)
Perfectly acceptable in several E.Eur. languages.
Perhaps:  _sh_, so shtalu, and I suppose _tsh_ for /c^/ (c-hacek) (or devise
somethng else for c^ [ I don't remember the whole phonology of Dalmatian--
is c^ contrastive?]).  Doesn't Albanian use _sh_?  How about Polish sz, cz?
Or:  Matt's _sj_ and I suppose _tj_; not bad, though a hint of Germanic
usage, cf. Germ. dsch for [dZ], tsch [tS]; so why not s+Z, t+Z to indicate
voicelessness.
(Again, I don't remember the phonology; but could it be possible for /s/ >
[S] before vl. stops in native words? not just German loans?)

Replies