Re: CHAT: Tiri'n script was Re: chat: a conlang of my very own :)

On Saturday 01 June 2002 02:17 pm, Kendra wrote:
> Okay, so I managed to whip it up pretty quickly. I guess people in my
> house are feeling lazy today. :)
>
> http://refrigeratedcake.com/other/vsketch/tirichar.gif
        Ah--I thought there was something going on with the little tick marks; should
have guessed it indicated voicing.

> It now occurs to me that I should have done this with the font...
        Is it a truetype or type1 font? Can you put it on the web to download?
Please? :)

> Then the vowels, which are pretty easy. a i u e o are roughly like the
> japanese vowels (or so jeff explained ;). Kind of like the vowels in
> bah, bee, boo, bay, bow, if you're me anyway. The accented vowels...make
> them sassier, like: bat, bit, but, bet, book.
> Dur. I am a vowels idiot. I hope you understand what I mean. Sorry @_@;;
        Ah; all is clear. In X-SAMPA, the accented vowels are / { I @ E U /. However,
most people on the list replace /{/ with /&/, since "ampersand" starts with
the same vowel and it just looks better. Hmm--I don't know how you pronounce
"but"; another alternative vowel is / V /, which is pronounced very close to
/@/. (/@/, BTW, is called a schwa; the general rule seems to be if you do not
distinguish between /@/ and /V/, then just use /@/. Sloppy, and I expect to
be upbraided for every saying so, but there you have it. :)
        Oh, yes, and the unaccented vowels are simply /a i u e o/. So, who speaks
Nihongo (Japanese)? You or Jeff?

> I think if I used x-sampa vowels I'd just end up confusing myself even
> worse.
> The three dots over a letter means to blend the sound with the next one, so
> t`"x` = j, as in t`"x`e`f 'Jeff', or it makes u and i do wierd things and
> turn into
> w and y (/w/ and /j/? :) wow, I'm clueless!)
        You are correct. The sound that begins "Jeff" is usually written [dZ], when
[Z] is the like the "s" in "measure". ("zh" is also an accepted
transliteration.)

> If you use an accent that goes the other way (which really looks more like
> `,
> but we use  ' in transliteration, ; in the font,) it represents a vowel
> that's
> 'there but you don't really say,' which I'm guessing is /@/; so you'd
> write something like 'below' as p`'lo, at least if you pronounce it like I
> do.
        That seems to be a pretty accurate description of a reduced [@]. If you want
to be really picky, it would be transcribed as [b_@low], where "_" means
"superscript the next character." Of course, it's not really accurate to say
the vowel is not there. If there was no vowel there, then "below" would
become "blow." But it is definitely reduced.

> It's supposed to be written phonetically, whih can get confusing, because
> even
> the two of us disagree on pronunciation sometimes. I would be very afraid
> to read Tiri'n written by someone with an accent I'm not familiar with ;)
        Hehe. This list is pretty famous for long threads of comparing idiolects
(dialects). But it is a case for not changing English spelling to something
more phonemic.

> Also, there's a letter for the german 'ch' sound, but I left it out because
> I can't
> quite remember it, and tiri'n isn't really well suited to write other
> languages,
> mostly because only three people can read it. :)
        I take it to be you, Jeff, and ? Is Jeff also a conlanger, or does he just
invent scripts? Nothing against graphopoeisis, mind you. And would someone
correct my Greek? Is it "-poeisis" or something else?
        :Peter

Replies