Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?

Roger Mills wrote:
> Michael Poxon quoted:
>>>
>>> Tangentially, how does your J-less conlang transliterate the "J"
>>> sound in
>>> "Jim" and "John"? I've done so by substituting "Z" [dz] for it in Cl.
>>> Ar.
>>>
> Kash: those would be "cim" [tSim] and "can" [tSan], but their /c/ can be
> semi-voiced. Of course any Kash resident on Earth will have learned
> proper English (they have ways....).
>
> Gwr: closer, but [dZiN], [dZaN], probably mid-tone; but if some
> (semi-)obscene or insulting homophone has a different tone, that could
> be used (maybe not in direct address, if Jim and John are fluent in
> Gwr). There are probably related languages that retain /-m/.
>
> Prevli: could pronounce [dZIm, dZan] but [dZ] is not a phoneme, it
> derives from obs. agentive gi+(h)V- and is rare.
I've been thinking about "Beijing" for some reason lately :-) and ended
up calling it Beĭżiñ-vor ['bejdz\iN,vOr] in Tirelat, ta-Beidžiŋ
[ta'bejd`z`iN] in Minza. The /ż/ in Tirelat is typically [dz] but the
following /i/ causes it to be palatalized, so it's a good match for the
Chinese [ts\]. That would also work for "Jim" Żim ['dz\im], although
"John" Żaan ['dza:n] is less recognizable. Žaan ['Za:n] is another
possibility. (That's for an American "John" -- an English "John" would
be Żon or Žon.) I could always write Džaan or Džon, although /dž/ is not
a sequence that occurs in Tirelat.

Replies