Re: Futurese

Javier wrote:
> >Still, chosing a value for |x| etc that occurs in languages more
>well-known
> >than Albanian would be helpful for most potential speakers. One might
>also
> >question your choice |q|=/N/ - it'll be a freakingly small proportion of
>the
> >potential speakers that'll guess that.
>
>Can you suggest an alternative letter assignment which
>doesn't introduce diacritics nor additional letters
>nor leaves any letter unused?
Well, your scheme had exactly one 26 phones to distribute among the 26
letters of the Roman alphabet. That'd mean 26! possible arrangements.

>
> >> >[snip]
> >> >> > except I'd still hate |x| to indicate anything voiced.
> >> >>
> >> >>I'm waiting for undefeatable arguments against the use
> >> >>of letter x for something voiced; I mean, other than your
> >> >>personal taste which is of course totally irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> >The "IMHO" rather suggests a personal opinion, doesn't it?
> >> >
> >> >Still, using |x| for something as odd as [Z] does work against the
>point
> >>of
> >> >using a well-known alphabet.
> >>
> >>I don't see using <x> for /Z/ that odd. <x> is already in
> >>use for very closely related sounds to that (/S/, /dz/ and
> >>/dZ/).
> >
> >Apart from /S/, to my knowledge only in real marginal languages.
>
>And what?
I'm getting the impression you're not really trying to see my point.

Anyway, IF the reason for chosing the Roman alphabet is that it's well-known
around the globe, THEN it would logically seem to follow that it's
desireable that the use of said script is as familiar as possible for as
many people as possible. IN THIS CASE, it ought to be much less interesting
what Albanian does than what languages like Spanish, English or German does,
for the very simple reason that very many more people are familiar with the
later languages than with Albanian. From your later posts, it APPEARS you
are more interested in making clever and elegant use of the Roman script
than maximizing familiarity, IN WHICH CASE Albanian is a no worse model than
Spanish etc. I won't repeat this again - I believe to have made myself so
clear that only those don't want to understand can fail to do so.
>
>
> >> >One possible rejuggle would be |x|=/S/, |j|=/Z/, |y|=/j/ and |ë|=/@/
>(|ë|
> >>is
> >> >e-diaeresis, in case the mailer mangles it). Would feel rather less
> >>exotic
> >> >to me, at least.
> >>
> >>And do you consider that that option, introducing a
> >>cumbersome diacritic and leaving letter c sillily unused,
> >>really makes a better use of the roman script than mine?
> >
> >Well, it depends on what you mean by making good use of the Latin
>alphabet.
> >If you mean using it as efficiently and elegantly as possible, then
> >obviously no. If you mean to maximize the advantage of using a well-known
> >script, then I think yes.
>
>You mean that introducing a diacritic which will only
>cause problems and leaving unused a letter which is
>available in every keyboard around the globe is what
>you understand by "maximizing the advantage of using a
>well-known script"?
Yes. For the record, |c| is not found on every keyboard around the globe,
and keyboard-friendliness has, to my knowledge, not been stated as one of
the goals of Futurese orthography.

>And how would those hundreds of millions of Spanish-
>speakers, used to assign letter j to sound [X] instead
>of [Z] (and Argentinians "instinctively" associate this
>sound to letter y not to j), get any advantage with
>your option?
Well, most of them would be happy to see |y|=[j], I'm sure, and I'm thinking
that |x|=[S] would feel more familiar to them than |x|=[Z].
>
>OTOH, you propose to use <ë> for the schwa, something
>which to my knowledge is supported precisely by that
>"odd" orthography of that "marginal" Albanian.
Now I'm getting a real distinct impression that you're deliberately
misunderstanding me.

>
> >>Yes, I expected the l/r opposition to be questioned here.
> >>But why hasn't anybody so far complained about the b/v
> >>one? When I posted it to a Spanish-language list, the l/r
> >>"problem" wasn't even mentioned in the replies while the
> >>b/v one was ubiquitous.
> >
> >Could this be due to the simple fact the failure to distinguish /b/~/v/
>is
> >quite rare compared to the failure to distinguish /r/~/l/, but
>nonetheless
> >occurs in Spanish?
>
>To which extent is b/v merging more rare than r/l?
>Confusing b/v is not just an oddity of Spanish.
Well, check that survey of yours - while it's hardly a good guide to global
phonological trends, it should at least give an indication which merger is
commoner.

                                                  Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.