I've actually caught myself "pronouncing" <Munkhâshi> as [munx1Si] in my thoughts, even though I'm not studying Romynian or anything.
finlay wrote:
Polish <y> is /ɨ/...
But not necessarily [ɨ]
cedh audmanh wrote:
XinuX wrote:What annoys me is there's a precomposed <ş> for /ʃ/ but no precomposed <z̧> for /ʒ/.
Seconded. As soon as you need diacritics on vowels and consonants, the cedilla/comma below would be the best choice aesthetically for just about every consonant in the palatal/postalveolar region, if only it was available for all the relevant letters.
.
I've had exactly the same problem in one of my first more serious conlanging attempts... And indeed, when you have the same/similar diacritic on several consonants and vowels it can easily result in rather ugly sequences like śéćáźí or šěčǎžǐ.
In my old language Aquenandi, I have /ɨ/, /j/ and /ɟ/ and had a terrible time Romanizing it. I ended up using <y j ǧ>, which is ugly as hell. I've been considering redoing the Roman orthography, but don't know what to do with these.
cedh audmanh wrote:As for /ɨ ʉ/, I quite like using the IPA symbols for these, but unfortunately there's no capital version of either.
U+0197 CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE (Ɨ) and U+0244 CAPITAL LETTER U BAR (Ʉ), both from the Latin Extended-B block (which has capital letter variants for quite a few IPA glyphs). You're welcome.
Risla wrote:In my old language Aquenandi, I have /ɨ/, /j/ and /ɟ/ and had a terrible time Romanizing it. I ended up using <y j ǧ>, which is ugly as hell. I've been considering redoing the Roman orthography, but don't know what to do with these.
So pretty much, I agree completely.
Well, what's the rest of the inventory? If you have a complete set of palatals, you could probably do something like <y j gj>. Alternatively, <ɨ y j>.
Risla wrote:In my old language Aquenandi, I have /ɨ/, /j/ and /ɟ/ and had a terrible time Romanizing it. I ended up using <y j ǧ>, which is ugly as hell. I've been considering redoing the Roman orthography, but don't know what to do with these.
So pretty much, I agree completely.
Well, what's the rest of the inventory? If you have a complete set of palatals, you could probably do something like <y j gj>. Alternatively, <ɨ y j>.
/i ɨ u e ø o æ ɑ/
/m n ŋ/
/p b t d c ɟ k g/
/f v s z ʃ ʒ x χ h/
/w r l j/
the thing is, /kj/ /gj/ sequences actually contrast with /c/ and /ɟ/, like in /ruc-ɑ/ (hand-ACC) versus /ruk-j-ɑ/ (catch-POS-PAST). I realize that this is unlikely to be stable over time, but the contrast is definitely there now.
Besides, it's more convenient to reserve this for a palatal semivowel anyway.
This is what <j> is for.
For a language that has both /j/ and /y/, the latter has priority for <y> unless there is an umlaut process justifying <ü> for that. But that is the only circumstance I would ever consider using <j> for /j/. Especially when that might be needed for other things itself, such as a voiced palatal or postalveolar obstruent.
Not least because NAE speakers have wide exposure to mainly just two languages, English and Spanish, both of which use <j> for something else than /j/ - leaving the IPA feeling anomalous until you've gotten used to it from long exposure.
The use of <j> for something other than /j/ and, conversely, of using <y> for /j/ or something similar always seemed to me like an oddity of Anglic and Romance orthographies that just happened to get spread widely due to many new orthographies and transliteration/transcription systems being designed by people who natively speak (and are most literate in) Anglic and Romance languages. I would very much rather that <j> be used for /j/ rather than <y> in new orthographies and transliteration/transcription systems myself...
Travis B. wrote:Despite the issues therewith, to me at least making /j/ be <j> and /ɨ/ or /ɯ/ be <y> still seems like, in the end, the most sensible choice here for anything written in Latin script. All the other choices are simply much worse.
But then what about English? If <j> represents /j/, then what represents /dZ/? That's always been my problem in English reforms. Short of <dzh> itself, for which there is no historical background in English, the only sensible options are diacritics as I can see it, and English doesn't much care for diacritics.
Travis B. wrote:Despite the issues therewith, to me at least making /j/ be <j> and /ɨ/ or /ɯ/ be <y> still seems like, in the end, the most sensible choice here for anything written in Latin script. All the other choices are simply much worse.
But then what about English? If <j> represents /j/, then what represents /dZ/? That's always been my problem in English reforms. Short of <dzh> itself, for which there is no historical background in English, the only sensible options are diacritics as I can see it, and English doesn't much care for diacritics.
What stops you from putting a diacritic on that <j>, or using some other digraph?
Travis B. wrote:What stops you from putting a diacritic on that <j>, or using some other digraph?
The nature of Modern English and computer keyboards and the fact we don't do it for sh, ch, etc. Besides what good digraphs can there even be? Esperanto uses a g with a carrot or hacek (I forget which), but that's the only one I know.
EDIT: On second thoughts, maybe you meant caret. Either way, the joke still works.
Well, it's a reasonable mistake. Look at this excerpt for caron "Possibly derived from caret after its similar shape." Then given the massive amount of vocabulary words and lack of phonemic distinction here in English, it cant be too surprising that someone would mess up the spelling of caret as carret.
Viktor77 wrote:Well, it's a reasonable mistake. Look at this excerpt for caron "Possibly derived from caret after its similar shape." Then given the massive amount of vocabulary words and lack of phonemic distinction here in English, it cant be too surprising that someone would mess up the spelling of caret as carret.
I didn't say it was an unreasonable mistake, I just found "g with carrot" extremely funny. Lighten up.
Viktor77 wrote:Well, it's a reasonable mistake. Look at this excerpt for caron "Possibly derived from caret after its similar shape." Then given the massive amount of vocabulary words and lack of phonemic distinction here in English, it cant be too surprising that someone would mess up the spelling of caret as carret.
I didn't say it was an unreasonable mistake, I just found "g with carrot" extremely funny. Lighten up.
Even funnier when you think of the ghetto meaning of a G.
/m n ŋ/
/p b t d c ɟ k g/
/f v s z ʃ ʒ x χ h/
/w r l j/
the thing is, /kj/ /gj/ sequences actually contrast with /c/ and /ɟ/, like in /ruc-ɑ/ (hand-ACC) versus /ruk-j-ɑ/ (catch-POS-PAST). I realize that this is unlikely to be stable over time, but the contrast is definitely there now.
You could definitely get away with using <ü> for /ɨ/ there. Also, does /c/ contrast with /tj/? /tʃ/?
Yes on both counts to the contrasts, although I merged [c] and [tS] in some dialects. There's also /cj ɟj/.
I've actually been thinking of keeping <y> for /1/, using <j> for /ɟ/ and using <i> for /j/, since there's actually nowhere it would be ambiguous with /i/ thanks to phonotactics.
Risla wrote:Yes on both counts to the contrasts, although I merged [c] and [tS] in some dialects. There's also /cj ɟj/.
Fucking hell.
I've actually been thinking of keeping <y> for /1/, using <j> for /ɟ/ and using <i> for /j/, since there's actually nowhere it would be ambiguous with /i/ thanks to phonotactics.
