Re: Orthography question for the group.
From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
Date: | Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 21:14 |
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 01:56:56PM -0700, Stone Gordonssen wrote:
> I'm curious to know indivual's perferences with regards to using the latin
> alphabet for certain orthographic mappings.
>
> E.g.
> [ts] could be rendered _ts_ or _z_ so long as any reader is prewarned of
> either mapping and orthographic ambiguities could be resolved. The same with
> [S] as _x_ or _sh_, etc.
>
> However, which is more pleasing to the eye, assuming the goal is to be
> readily apparent rather than obscured?
For aesthetic pleasure, <c> for /ts/ is another popular choice,
with <c^> (Unicode <č>) for /tS/ as in the Americanist tradition.
In my most recent bout of Latinization, I decided to extrapolate
from those choices thus:
ASCII Unicode
<c> /ts/
<c^> /tS/ <č> /tʃ/
<j> /dz/
<j^> /dZ/ <ǰ> /dʒ/
<s^> /S/ <š> /ʃ/
<z^> /Z/ <ž> /ʒ/
For obviosity, though, I'd go with digraphs (and one trigraph)
wherever there was no ambiguity:
<ts> /ts/
<ch> /tS/ /tʃ/
<dz> /dz/
<dzh> /dZ/ /dʒ/
<sh> /S/ /ʃ/
<zh> /Z/ /ʒ/
-Mark
Reply