Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Abugidas (was: Chinese writing systems)

From:Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>
Date:Thursday, November 7, 2002, 7:17
Roger Mills wrote:
> If the language > perchance allows word-initial V syllables, then you would need either 5 > distinct "initial-V" symbols (like Devanagari IIRC), or a dummy > vowel-carrier symbol (which by itself would represent the inherent V) > modifiable with the V diacritics (like Buginese/Makassarese whose V-carrier > by itself represents /a/)
It seems to me that another possibility exists, to use a certain consonant (perhaps /h/) for V syllables, so that, for example, _h(i)k_ could be either _hika_ or _ika_. Since many writing systems permit a certain degree of ambiguity, that seems naturalistic enough, especially if there were few, if any, perfect minimal pairs, so that a knowledge of the language would tell you if _h(i)k_ was "hika" or "ika"
> Adapting such a system to a > language that allows more complex syllables (like English!) produces a lot > of problems.
Common Kassi (the ancestor of Uatakassi and the now-extinct Northern Kassi) had a pretty simple (C)V(C) syllable structure, (where the initial C was *almost* obligatory, and the final C could not be a stop), with 6 vowel - /i e a o u @/ (/@/ is transcribed ë), and only CV characters. The modern language has become (C)(l,w,y)V(length)(s,f,v,z,l,n,*) with three vowels /i a u/. The old /i/ and /e/ merged, as did /o/ and /u/. /@/, for the most part, was lost, but sometimes merged with /a/. The modern /Ci/ characters are derived from /Ci/ and /Ce/, with any given consonant, one or the other was chosen, thus /fi/ was kept and /fe/ lost, while /ke/ was kept, with /ki/ lost (I think; the exact examples might be wrong, but the principle holds), likewise for /Cu/ from /Cu/ and /Co/. /Ca/ comes entirely from the old /Ca/ syllables. Most of the /C@/ syllables were lost. There were also two consonants in CK which do not exist in Classical Uatakassi, /q/ and /h/. The /q/ syllables were lost, and the /h/ syllables gave rise to the pure vowel characters (even in CK it could ambiguously represent hV or pure V) First, a note on transcriptions: when describing the characters, capital letters (e.g., KA or PLI) represent the characters themselves, while lower case letters (e.g., s or l) represent diacritics, * represents the gemination diacritic, and (lv) represents the length-marker, and hyphens clarify where a new character begins. Now, in the original writing system, CVC was written with CVC@. CVC@ was written the same way, causing ambiguities. Scribes invented a way of showing CVC as distinct from CVC@, they would write the C@ part underneat the CV part for CVC. Thus, _kas_ would be written KAsë, while KA-SË represented "kasë". Thus, the /C@/ characters came to be used as diacritics, as they were simplified in subordinate position. The long vowel marker in Classical Uatakassi is derived from _kë_, as /k/, /g/, and /q/ syllable finally (which became possible only after the loss of /@/) became /x/, /G/, and /X/, and still later were lost, making the previous vowel long. Thus, /tak@/ -> /tak/ -> /tax/ -> /ta:/ (in the characters themselves, TA-KË -> TAkë -> TA(lv)), since the /k/-derived forms were most common, that diacritic was chosen over the /g@/ and /q@/ derived forms. Gemination is derived from the /r@/ character (later, /r/ became /l/), syllable-final /r/ assimilated to the following consonant creating geminates (e.g., karta -> katta, KA*-TA). The non-diactriticized /r@/ became the character (*not* diacritic) for syllable-final /l/ in the classical script. (E.g., /karta/ -> /katta/, but /kar@ta/ -> /kalta/, KA-L-TA) CLV syllables are derived from ligatures of C@ and LV syllables, which reflects the origin of that syllable type (/k@ro/ -> /kro/ -> /klu/), after the initial schwa loss, people came to write the /C@/ part above the LV part, which later merged into a new character. Thus, one can see patterns in the CLV characters. Finally, CyV and CwV syllables are written simply with Ci and Cu followed by the V, e.g., /kwa/ is KU-A. However, it's not uncommon to see the V characters written as diacritics of the Ci/Cu characters (e.g., /kwa/ can be KU-A or KUa), likewise syllable-final L character is sometimes diacriticized. There's still a strong tendency to write syllables as single glyphs, hangul-style. There are also a special set of fairly-recent characters, whose romanizations are t'i, d'i, k'i and gi, which represent secondary palatizations of /t/, /d/, /k/, and /g/ (long ago, /gi/ became /ji/ and then /i/, and thus the /g/ row traditionally had only /ga/, /gu/, /gli/, /gla/, /glu/). They are formed by the ta, da, ka, and ga with a diacriticized /i/, and are realized as [ti] or [tsi], [di] or [dzi], [ki] and [gi]. The original /ti/, /di/, /ki/, and /gi/ became respectively /tSi/, /dZi/, /Ci/ and /i/. The "proper" way or writing, e.g., t'ia ([tja] or [tsa]) is TAi-A, but is sometimes written TAia. "Tia" ([tSa]) is written TI-A, but sometimes TIa. Added to this complexity are the diphthongs, which are properly written as separate characters, thus "tai" = TA-I, but the second element is sometimes diacriticized, e.g., TAi. So, "t'iais" ([tsajS] or [tjajS], for example, may be written TAi-A-Is, or TAia-Is or TAiais, with a whopping *four* diacritics, two of them the same. Actually, now that I think about it, *five* diacritics is possible, as diphthongs become long in monosyllables, thus, a words like "t'iaais" ([tsa:jS] or [tja:jS]) is theoretically possible, and would be written in one of the following ways: TAi-A(lv)-Is, TAia(lv)-IS, TAia(lv)is -- "There's no such thing as 'cool'. Everyone's just a big dork or nerd, you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." - overheard ICQ: 18656696 AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42