Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: orthographical question.

From:Roger Mills <romilly@...>
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2001, 23:20
 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
>> > happen that there's an -i- there which isn't pronounced hardly, let
>> > 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?)


Frank George Valoczy <valoczy@...>
Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>