Page 1 of 1

Elcaril ph

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 8:58 am
by vec
I was reading an old thread made before Elcaril was completed, but there
Zompist wrote:Just like it looks. The vowels are pretty much as in Barakhinei (except that none of them are rounded). Ch and j are as in English; ph is just [f]; q is the same uvular q as in Arabic or Verdurian. This sentence doesn't happen to have any implosives in it.
Is the ph an f then? Or is it bilabial?

Re: Elcaril ph

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 9:39 am
by zompist
vegfarandi wrote:I was reading an old thread made before Elcaril was completed, but there
Zompist wrote:Just like it looks. The vowels are pretty much as in Barakhinei (except that none of them are rounded). Ch and j are as in English; ph is just [f]; q is the same uvular q as in Arabic or Verdurian. This sentence doesn't happen to have any implosives in it.
Is the ph an f then? Or is it bilabial?
[ph] changed after that was written. It's a bilabial fricative, as it says in the grammar.

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 9:45 am
by vec
OK. But why didn't you use f at that point?

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 10:08 am
by zompist
At what point? If you mean when I posted that snippet to the board, it was because of internal consistency-- all the fricatives were transliterated as -h digraphs.

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 10:12 am
by vec
Yes, that's what I meant. Now I get it. When I was doing my first languages, I was always in trouble trying to keep them all consistant in spelling, especially since they were supposed to be used in my book and it's confusing when c is [S] on one place but [k] at another and [c] at yet another so I changed them all. You seem to have no trouble with keeping them very different when transliterated.

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 10:40 am
by zompist
Ah, I see what you're after now. It's a purposeful thing. Transliterations of Russian, Chinese, Arabic, and Quechua all look different; for Almea, I want the same feeling that the various cultures are very different.

On the other hand, I try to avoid gratuitous variation. The transliterations have good reasons to be the way they are. I don't (say) use <c> differently in two languages just because it looks cool.

Of course!

Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 10:44 am
by vec
As the thing Tolkien said! One of the reason Quenya etc. look so beautiful is because of the Latinesque transliteration. Had he used a lot of diacritical marks and such it would have gotten a different feel, at least written.