Re: an "i" for an /i/ was: Heyas all!

Mathew Willoughby <sidonian@...> wrote:
> I agree.  As an English writer who is marketing his work to a predominantly
> English market, I've made the decision to keep most of my conlang
> spelling systems English-based.  English spelling is, of course, utter chaos
> but there are some basic "kindergarten" level conventions that most
> English speakers (even non-native) will understand.
Of course. But the problem is that you can't have an
English-like spelling if you want really different words.
It's the same as trying to spell English with _katakana_.

>
> A Latin-based spelling system is, IMO, the second best candidate for
> the transcription of conlangs in fiction.  Most people are familiar with at
> least one Romance language and English spelling is rather anomalous
> for not having an "i" for /i/.  Then again, to paraphrase Umberto Eco
> in _Faucault's Pendulum_, 'The English have to be different in
> everything.'  I actually use a Latin-based spelling system for those
> conlangs with a Latinesque (sorry, Brian ;-) phonology.
I tend to use a Latin spelling (or IPA). For Drasele'q I used
all IPA, except <qg> for a voiced uvular stop, and the same symbols
as Spanish for <r> (alveolar flap) and <rr> (alveolar trill). For
the dental fricatives I went for Sindarin <th> and <dh>.

In Ciravesu, I decided to be more Latinesque and I used <c> = /k/,
and <qu> for /kw/ -- but that was for looks only.


--Pablo Flores

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 The trouble with the rat race is that even
 if you win,  you're still a rat.
                                             Lily Tomlin