Re: Deseret alphabet

Raen-Fransua Colsunu ƿraet:

> Thank yall for your answers.
There's only one of me. And when pluralised, I take 'youse', not 'yall' :)

>>Raen-Fransua Colsunu ƿraet:
>
> I don't know what's that transcription and how you pronounce it, but for
> your information I pronounce my name /ZA~frA~swa kOlso~/.
It's written in Ancient Foietisc and pronounced /rA:nfranswa kolsunu
wra:t/. I took the -son to be 'son', so it was calqued rather than
borrowed. AF doesn't have a /Z/ sound, so I had two options: /dZ/ or
/r/, and I decided to be more interesting and take it as /r/.

> The Latin alphabet would not be my best bet because my language has 4*6 = 24
> vowels (6 short and 6 long and each can be nasalized).
Short/long can be solved with doubling of vowels or consonants (using w
or y as the sixth); nasalisation can use a following nasal consonant (if
one can be unambiguous) or a tilde above. (And you'd have to do
something with Deseret for the nasals, anyway.)

> I did create my own script, but as some natlangs are written with different
> scripts following the dialects or the period (the Latin and Cyrillic
> alphabets for Serbo-Croatian now considered two separate languages for
> political reasons, the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets and the UCAS for
> Inuktitut, The Arabic and Latin alphabets for Turkish, The traditional and
> modern logograms in Chinese, etc.) I wish to use both my script and the
> Deseret alphabet, and of course 2 Latin transliterations (one with only
> ASCII characters for e-mail and one with diacritics for the Web).
I guess it is always up to you :)

>>Deseret probably wouldn't look the same if anyone really changed to use
>>it---pairs of letters like long ah and long o are just *dying* to be
>>confused. (Not to mention that it's just plain ugly :P )
>
>
> What's ugly in it? It's just different and uncommon, i.e. ideal for a
> conlang.
It doesn't appeal to my aesthetics. It seems too artificial.

>>Of course they aren't. They're talking about a different dialect of
>>English. (The only alternative orthography that'd work for English as a
>>whole is something like Regularized Inglish, which doesn't even try to
>>be phonemic.)
>
> How would it be possible to be phonemic without having a different spelling
> for every dialect?
Exactly.

> For your information I tend to say [wom{n] myself but since I don't live in
> an English speaking country and English is not my mother tongue...
Ah, well, for your information, the standard pronunciation I'd expect is
something resembling /wUm@n/.

> Thus the single letter "short o" should be used for [V], [@] and [3:]?
> Interesting! I'll decode some texts to see how that works.
Ah, no: what I meant is that /V/ and /@/ are spelt the same, and [3:] is
spelt the same as /Vr/. So 'hurry' and 'furry' will still be eye-rhymes.
This is acceptible because in American English, they're ear-rhymes, too.

>>A note on your SAMPA transcriptions:
>>Text in between <angle brackets> refers to the orthography. Text in
>>between /slashes/ refers to the phonemic pronunciation. Text in between
>>[square brackets] refers to the phonetic pronunciation. So you're
>
>
> <your>... I'm not '<"wUm@n>'        ;-)
Bah, damn homophony :)

> BTW what does a text in between \back slashes\ mean (see above)?
They mean I'm using a phonemic transcription that is not IPA or
SAMPA-based. Sometimes it means I'm using M-W.com's transcription,
sometimes it means I'm using an English-orthography--based transcription.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Reply