Re: Another question about language naming

Herman:
> The question is how far to go in Anglicizing conlang names. I used to be in
> the habit of spelling the long [i] sound as "ee" in English representation
> of words like "Zireen" and "Neesklaaz". After switching to "i" for a while,
> I compromised, and now typically use "ie" for this sound. On the other
> hand, a word like "Zirien" risks being mispronounced as a three-syllable
> "zi-ri-en". So does it make sense to go so far as "Zireen" to avoid the
> chance of misinterpretation? Or would conlangers, who tend to be more
> familiar with languages than the average English speaker, assume this is
> meant to be pronounced [zire:n]?
Yes to the last question. When I first met a conlang friend in the flesh
he was surprised to find that _Livagian_ was pronounced /l@'vEIdZn/ and
not [livagian]. But given that your langs aren't conculturally located
in a version of the real (Terran) world, I don't think it really matters
which you choose. Obviously for Brithenig, Boreanesian, Elet Anta, Kinya,
Livagian, Miapimoquitch, Pjat, Scungric and other such langs that are
located in a version of this world, the English name clearly has to be
bound up with the conculture/conhistory, though of course the extrafictional
English name needn't be the same as the intrafictional English name. For
example, 'Pjat' may be the extrafictional English name, but
intrafictionally its English name might be 'Transylvanian' or such like
(with apologies to John for my forgetting yet again where exactly it
is spoken); similarly, the extrafictional English name of Livagian was
formerly 'Rostese'.

--And.

Replies