Re: mu for [N] (was: Koryak Vowel harmony)

As Mark wrote on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 11:02:
"To each his own, of course..."

Yep - chacun à son goût - as we say in English   ;)

..but I'll just add my two-penn'orth.
====================================================

On Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 08:38 , Isaac Penzev wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
>
>> Isaac Penzev writes:
>>> ... µ for [N] - translit is mine) ...
>>
>> Would that generally be understood?
>
> I think no.
I agree; it would not. It all depends, I think, what we associate with µ.
I learnt it over half a century ago as a the Greek character for /m/.
Unless there was explicit information to the contrary, I would 'naturally'
  associate it with "emness". I would assume an /m/-like sound, maybe the
labiodental nasal [F] (IPA [ɱ]). Indeed, as Philip Jonsson pointed out,
Celticists use |µ| = /v~/ which is practically the same as /F/.

> I used µ as a simulation of eng character. The only reason for
> this is that I find ñ used sometimes for this purpose extremely
> misleading,
> as I'm accustomed to see it in Spanish for [J].
...whereas I am familiar with ñ in Breton, where it has no sound of its
own but indicates that the preceding vowel is nasalized, thus:
Breton |añ| = French |an| = Portuguese |ã|

So personally I find ñ = /N/ much less objectionable than µ = /N/      :)

[snip]

>> 'm', which I don't need, is weird for /N/ or /N\/.
>
> Indeed that would be too weird...
Yep - just as weird as µ     :)
======================================================

On Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 10:29 , Henrik Theiling wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> writes:
>>> Isaac Penzev writes:
>>>> ... µ for [N] - translit is mine) ...
>>>
>>> Would that generally be understood?
>>
>> I think no. I used µ as a simulation of eng character. ...
>
> I think it's still much better than |m| or |ñ|, which both seem
> misleading.
I beg to differ; I find |µ| more misleading than |ñ|, since the latter
does at least have different uses in two natlangs, whereas |µ| is always
/m/ in the one natlanng that uses it.
======================================================

On Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 10:42 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:02:41PM +0100, Andreas Johansson wrote:
[snip]
>> I find the use of mu extremely misleading, since I'm used to see it
>> for /m/. :p
>
> I agree.  The letter µ has far too strong an "M-ness" associated with it
> for me to like it for [N].  It would take a LOT of getting used to.
Amen! I am in perfect agreement with Andreas & Mark.

> Whereas my Spanish experience made ñ mildly offputting at first, but now
> I
> just interpret it in general with a slightly more generic meaning,
> "modfication of [n]", details depending on context.  I therefore find
> it much more palatable (so to speak) than µ.
Well, yes - and in my case there's also the Breton use which means I am
likely to interpret |ñ| in a different language as "some sort of nasal
sound".
(PS - like the pun  :)

> Of course, you could
> actually use Eng itself almost everywhere except on this mailing list.
> :\
Absolutely!!!
=======================================================

On Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 11:39 , Tristan McLeay wrote:

> On 21 Jan 2005, at 9.29 am, Henrik Theiling wrote:
[snip]
>> I think it's still much better than |m| or |ñ|, which both seem
>> misleading.  I seem to have overseen this fourth nasal character in
>> isolatin! :-) Very nice.
>
> I agree too. ñ seems too much like a modification of n, a sound which
> describes [J] quite nicely, but [N] seems to be a base sound, like [m]
> or [n].
Eh?? [J] is just as much a 'base sound' as [N], [n], [m] or even [N\] and
[n`].

> OTOH, µ has no definition in the English language apart from
> 'micro' so it works quite well.
The trouble is that many of us on this list are familiar with a few other
langs besides English - and quite a number of  list members do not have
English as their L1. IMSHO what happens or does not happen in English is
the least relevant factor in this discussion.

> But that's probably just because I'm an
> English speaker who has a phonemic /N/ but not even a phonemic /J/ ;)
Yep - it obviously is. But not all varieties of English have phonemic /N/;
even to some L1 anglophones, [N] is a 'modification of n'.
======================================================

So, to sum up my own opinion:

|ŋ| (U+014B) is by far the best character   :)

But if you really have to confine your symbols to those from U+0021
through (to) U+00FF and you want a single symbol, then IMO:
- |q|, which was once popular among conlangers for /N/, is the least
objectionable;
- |ñ| is the next least objectionable.

None of the other U+0021 through (to) U+00FF are any good for [N]. As for
|µ|, it is fine for [F], but is just as bizarre as |m| for [N].

When shall we be free from the tyranny of ASCII!

Ray
=======================================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
=======================================================
"If /ni/ can change into /A/, then practically anything
can change into anything"
          Yuen Ren Chao, 'Language and Symbolic Systems"

Reply