Re: Two questions about Esperanto

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:22:42AM +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> But Esperanto uses 'c' for /ts/, not /k/, which, one assumes, is the
> unvoiceless counterpart to /g/.
No, /g/ *is* the "unvoiceless" one.  /k/ is actually voiceless. :)

I see your point, but I was addressing the Latin alphabetic history
behind Esperanto's choices, not consistency within the system itself.
The only reason <c> for /ts/ makes sense in the first place is because,
although <c> originally represented only /k/ in Latin, it got
palatalized (into /ts/, among other results such as /tS/, /s/, /T/, etc)
before front vowels.  This led to the letter <c> used for these non-/k/
sounds in other languages when they adopted the Latin script.  Since
/tS/ is another of those sounds, using a modification of <c> for it also
makes sense, without trying to formulate any systematic meaning for the
Esperanto circumflex diacritic.

The voiced counterpart <g>=/g/ also got palatalized before front vowels,
and /dZ/ was one of the outcomes, so using a modification of <g> for
that sound also fits.

Therefore, looking at Esperanto from the outside, <ĉ> and <ĝ> make sense
for their respective sounds.  Were I designing its orthography myself, I
would have made different choices, but <k̂> for /tS/ is not among them.
That would be just plain weird. :)

-Mark

Reply