Faux-phonetics (fuit: Conlang Article in the LA Times)
|From:||Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, August 25, 2007, 18:54|
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
 "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 / -> [@]/[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
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
: /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
/ 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)