Faux-phonetics (fuit: Conlang Article in the LA Times)

David J. Peterson skrev:
 > Taliesin: << My vote is: "both", if the url is longer than
 > 70 characters.
 >  >>
 >
 > I'll remember that for the future.

Me too, though my criterion hardly is the number of
characters only. Thunderbird seems to break URLs with
parameters at the equals signs.

 > Taliesin also: << Actually, I think it is a very good
 > article to give to ones loved ones to explain what it is
 > we are doing. Now, if we could only get an article about
 > this list so that it'll be notable for wikipedia... =)
 >  >>

Agreed on both counts.

 > Well, let me tell you that among those interviewed were
 > me, Sally, and Sai, and we ALL made a point about
 > SPECIFICALLY mentioning the Conlang list, and that it was
 > the origin of the term "Conlang". Oh well. Langmaker.com
 > made it in...
 >
 > BPJ: << Are the Teoneht and Epiq samples handwritten by
 > you and Sally? And who made the faux-phonetics? :-)
 >  >>

"Teon*e*ht"? Sorry 'bout that Sal!

 > Handwritten by Sally; fontwritten by me (though it came
 > out a little pixelated... The graphic I sent her was
 > smooth...). And Amber wanted the faux-phonetics. For mine,
 > I gave her an initial version that was kind of a
 > transcription (using an /a, e, i, o, u/ vowel system and
 > common romanizations of the sounds, including "x" for
 > [X]), and she said that even that was too complex, and so
 >    you have the version that showed up. Kind of goofy, but
 >    does the job, I suppose.
 >
 > For those not familiar with "American phonetics", the
 > vowel correspondences are something like this:
 >
 >:  ee = [i]
 >:  oo = [u]
 >:  ah = [A]
 >:  oh = [o]
 >:  uh = [@]
 >
 > I guess [e] would be "ay", probably. Or "ey"?

"eh"? Although that's [3:] for Brits, IIRC. I'd go for "ey",
since someone may take "ay" as [ai]. I've seen [ai] faux-
phoneticized as "aye", FWIW.

BTW what do native speakers think of the system at
<http://www.behindthename.com/pronunciation.php>? I have a
beef with "UU French feu, UY French rue". I'd rather write
[2] "eu" or "uh" and [y] "ue", since "uu" might just as well
     be [U], [u] or [ju] and "uy" invites confusion with
     their "ui" for [9y]. IIANM [2]/[9] -> [@]/[3:] and
[y] -> [ju] would be the expected Anglicizations anyway.
     FWIW "uy" might spell [ai] based on "buy, guy".

This is not a YAEPT, it's a EFPT (english faux
phonetics thread).

FYI, faux-phonetics is far better than nothing at all for
the instruction of linguistics innocents. If "KELL-e- born"
and "gahl-AHD-ree-ell" saves us from 'Silly-born' and 'Galled-
reel' I'm happy! :-) I'm actually trying to work out a
system that would work for the Tolkien onomasticon.
Unfortunately Sindarin has all of /ju/, /ui/, /y/ and
marginal /y:/, and even /2/ in archaic forms. I can live
with the supposition that Gondorans merged /y/ with /i/, but
"MEEL" for _my^l streches beyond what I can stomach. I'm
thinking of

: /y/	"y"
:		(and /j/ "y" too, I'm afraid -- /jy/ doesn't occur)
: /y:/  "eu" or "ue"
: /ju/  "yoo"
: /ui/  "ooee" -- yeah, really!

Actually /ai/ (and /ae/, which is only marginally distinct)
and /x/ may be the hardest nuts to crack! How does "MEL-rokh
UY-stahn" look to you Anglos? Based on what Tolkien said
happened to /x/ in Gondor I propose "kh" word-finally and
"hh" elsewhere.

/ B.Philip Jonsson B^)
--
mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No man forgets his original trade: the rights of
nations and of kings sink into questions of grammar,
if grammarians discuss them.
                     --Dr. Samuel Johnson (1707 - 1784)

Replies