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

Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> David J. Peterson skrev:
[snip]
>  >:  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.
Eh??

This Brit, now in his 69th year, has always read "eh" as [e(j)]. Way
back in the 1940s, Reginald Dutton, another Brit, indicated the long
vowels of Speedwords with "ah, eh, ee, oh, oo" /a:/, /e:/, /i:/, /o:/
and /u:/.

Surely [3:] occurs only as a non-rhotic variety of /@r/ or /Vr/ (I'm not
going to get into another YAEPT on the phonemic status of /@/ and /V/
which is clearly different in different pars of the anglophone world).
In 'faux-phonetics' it'd probably be |ur| and we non-rhotics would say [3:].

> I'd go for "ey",
> since someone may take "ay" as [ai].
Yes, tho "ey" surely suggests a diphthongal pronunciation; if one wants
to indicate [e:] then it seems to me that "eh" is preferable.

>I've seen [ai] faux-
> phoneticized as "aye", FWIW.
Because that's the way the word "aye" (dialect for 'yes') is pronounced!

> BTW what do native speakers think of the system at
> <http://www.behindthename.com/pronunciation.php>?
Not much - no better or worse than many other 'faux-phonetic' schemes
I've seen around.

> I have a
> beef with "UU French feu, UY French rue".
At least there's an attempt to mark these sounds as different from
English sounds. So often French 'eu' in 'feu' is given as though it were
the same as a non-rhotic 'er' or 'ur', and French [y] is often treated
as though it were the same as English [ju].
[snip]>

> This is not a YAEPT, it's a EFPT (english faux
> phonetics thread).
No 'faux phonetics' is going to be perfect or going to please everybody;
the main thing IMO is that the users of a scheme explain their symbols
clearly and comprehensively.

> 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.
What's wrong with using IPA?

[snip]
> 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?
I suspect the first would be /'mElrQk/ to those who know no phonetics,
as for the second, goodness knows what UY would come out as. One thing's
for certain - it won't get the same pronunciation everywhere  :)

Personally, I find 'faux phonetics' confusing. Too often the scheme is
only superficially explained and one is often left puzzled. When a
scheme is properly explained, I often find I have to keep referring to
the explanation to make sure I'm not confusing the symbolism with
another similar, but different, scheme that I've met elsewhere.

One of the main problems surely is the variety of native pronunciations
of English. Make-shift schemes based loosely on English spelling are IMO
at best only going to be rough guides. At least the guy at
http://www.behindthename.com/pronunciation.php
does actually admit that.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply