Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

137470Re: Seinundjei Script (is actually about allophony now)

Expand Messages
  • Shreyas Sampat
    Mar 1, 2006
      John Vertical wrote:--

      > 1) So they show the underlying form (which may be changed by harmony)?


      > 2) I.e. the vowel markers always agree with the phonetic realization?


      > 3) /T D/ _don't_ harmonize? That clears it up a little. Listing those
      > together with the "main" fricatives and /s z/ separately suggested to
      > me that those might be alveolar, not dental spirants.

      Yeah - this is an organisational device for me, I wanted them to be
      listed next to /ts/ /dz/.

      > 4) There's no plosive/affricate distinction with the palatals, it seems?


      > 5) Harmony spreads over the whole utterance??

      Shocking, isn't it(:

      > PS. I might be just me, but with regards to the romanization, I find
      > the practice of using <j> for both a palatal plosive and a
      > palatalization marker a little ugly. And do your really have /h G/
      > without an /x/, or is /x/ <h> and not <kh> for some reason?

      It's a bit of a kludge because I can't use the combining diacritic COMMA
      BELOW with any kind of typing comfort. This also means that I have a
      'lazy mode' affricate spelling |jz| (hideous) because |zj| is occupied
      and |jj| is geminate |j|. I can't even remember what horrors the
      geminated africate spellings are. They are not pretty.

      Historically, /h/ was /x/ at one point and got softened (this is written
      as |h|), or was deleted except in a single context, and is not spelled
      there. This form appeals in sequences of like vowel, such as |kááladh|
      /ka:halaD/ (long vowels are not permitted in unstressed position).

      is too lazy to post a real sig
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic