Re: New to the list

At 07:42 18/06/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Well, if you take the latinised version, it would certainly be esperantized
>>as Basilio /basi'lio/.
>
>Or Basiljo? or Baziljo?
>
Endings in -jo are rare in Esperanto (I can only think of the "caressing"
suffixes -cxjo and -njo). Most words ending in /jV/ are rendered as -io in
Esperanto. Often, it's because the stress sounds better there (in
Esperanto, I mean, in this case it is not tried to mimick the stress
pattern of the origin language). But Bazilio could be possible too.

>>As for the Russian version (I guess Vasiliy Chernov
>>is pronounced something like /vasjiljij tSernof/, tell me if I'm wrong, as
>>I have only a very very basic knowledge of Russian phonology), it would
>>certainly be semi-esperantized as Vasilij Cxernov (x-convention for the
>>c-circonflex).
>
>Well, to begin with, the first (atonic) vowel in Vasilij is something
>like the vowel in English _cut_. For Russian it is natural to identify
>it with [a], but how can I be sure about a different language?
>
It is identified with 'a' in all languages I know who lack this vowel
(that's too say the Romance languages and Japanese). It is done in
Esperanto too (it's not that nothing is said in the Fundamento that there
are no rules. They just have been settled by the users and are now followed
by the majority, and now you begin to find them in grammars).

>Next, the palatalized [s'] and [l']. Both stand before [i], so I cannot
>figure out if they will be perceived as [sj], [lj] or simply [s], [l].
>
I've seen how Russian words were given a pronunciation in an Esperanto
book. Generally the pronunciation given takes into account the
palatalisation as a /j/ after the consonnant whatever the next vowel is,
even a /i/.

>Finally, is the tautosyllabic [ij] allowed? That's not obvious. And if
>it is, does this mean that English _fee_ (or, say, German _Vieh_) will
>be perceived as [fij] (as it happens e. g. in Bulgarian)?
>
Again, I think it's allowed because I saw it already :) .

>Still worse with my surname: the [t_S'] is palatalized, and an unstressed
>/e/ between a palatalized and non-palatalized (that is, in fact, quite
>utterly *velarized*) consonants becomes a rather complex diphthongoid,
>something like quick gliding from [i] to [e] to [@] or even [8] (all
>very narrow). Besides, [t_S'], like all Russian shuffling sounds, tends
>to be slightly labialized.
>
>So it wouldn't be much wonder if a person suited to a different phonology
>transcribed my surname as e. g. _Cxjurnof'_ ...
>
I cannot tell. But there are transcription patterns in Esperanto which do
not depend on your native language (They are not found in grammars that I
know, but they are well settled by use). Cxjernof' would be the form given
to show the actual pronunciation but the semi-esperantized version would be
Cxernov. Both forms could be used interchangeably, depending on which one
is easier for you.

>Indeed, I don't intend to criticize Esperanto as such. Actually, I think
>it could be a nice *artlang* ;) .  Rather, I wonder about the lack of
>inter-phonological concerns with what is intended to be *international*
>langs. And that all transcription rules are so oriented to graphics rather
>than to potential colloquial borrowings.
>
Oh, you can criticize Esperanto, that's no problem to me, as I'm not
concerned about it status as a IAL. I like it from an 'artlang' point of
view. But it's true that you pointed to something very right: if possible
the (semi)-Esperanto transcription has to correspond both to graphics and
sound if possible. If not (or if accuracy is preferrable or if graphics
cannot be compared with the Esperanto writing) sound is always preferred,
but a few European habits are in the language already. You cannot help it,
Esperanto has such an history that it was used in Europe much more than in
other places of the world. Thus, it took a little of the European habits.
Whether or not it prevents it from being an international language I won't
discuss about that, as I don't have an opinion anyway :))) .

>I have the feeling that many artlangers intuitively understand their
>invented phonologies better. But I don't remember anybody to discuss
>cross-linguistic phonologies e. g. of a multinational conworld, with
>languages borrowing words from each other. Am I wrong?
>
That's an interesting subject. Anyone wants to reply?

                                                Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
(ou : http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepages/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html)