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

203016Re: Labialization in Senjecas

Expand Messages
  • BPJ
    May 7, 2014
      2014-05-07 09:35, Njenfalgar skrev:
      > 2014-05-06 23:09 GMT+07:00 Roman Rausch <aranwe@...>:
      >>> <ъ> is very much the right grapheme, having originally stood
      >>> for (the reflex of) a short /u/!
      >> Well, <ъ> would be natural to the historical linguist, but not to many
      >> others.

      What's wrong with historical linguists? ;-)

      >> On the other hand, <ъ> is still used as a vowel sign in Bulgarian
      >> which might give a justification.

      Of the two Cyrillic conorthographies I've devised I used <ъ> to
      distinguish /v d g x/ from /w ð ɣ h/ in the one and for
      (evanescent) /ə/ in the other, so I've not actually been a
      naughty historical linguist. Both of those orthographies were
      supposed to have been devised in the 19th century BTW.

      The question is also when the Senjecas Cyrillicization was
      devised, and by whom. IIRC the language is supposed to be spoken
      by immortal or longaeval beings, in which case the choices made
      by 20th century Soviet linguists may be irrelevant.

      >> My first impulse was to simply use <у>, but googling a bit I find that the
      >> transcription of Abaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaza_language) even
      >> uses <в>. I order for this to work, one shouldn't have contrasting clusters
      >> with /v/, of course.
      >> In Russian, both <у> and <в> are used somewhat inconsistently to represent
      >> English /w/, for example Ватсон beside Уотсон for 'Watson', but always
      >> Милуоки 'Milwaukee', Вашингтон 'Washington'.

      Isn't that largely dependent on when the transcription was
      established? The newer the transcription the likelier the word
      was borrowed directly from English and not by way of German, and
      the likelier <у> for /w/ as I've understood it.

      > Why not use u-kratkoye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%8E Seems to be in
      > use in several languages for exactly stuff like /w/.

      The problem with all of <в у ў> is that if you already have three of
      /v u w β/ you will be in trouble! I guess you could use

      <у> /u/
      <в> /v/ ~ /β/
      <ў> /ʷ/
      <вў> /w/

      This page


      speaks of

      "sequences with <в>, <у>, <ә> for labialized consonants; and
      sequences with <ӏ> or <ъ> for ejective consonants or
      pharyngealized consonants and vowels"

      so that if you have all four of /u v W β/ this would be an

      <у> /u/
      <в> /v/
      <ў> /w/
      <ә> /ʷ/
      <вә> /β/

      *unless* you have already used <ә> for /æ/ or /ə/ˌ in which case
      this could work:

      <у> /u/
      <в> /v/
      <въ> /w/
      <ў> /ʷ/
      <вў> /β/

      Moreover Kazakh uses <у> for /w/ and <ұ> for /u/, which perhaps
      should be considered among the possibilities.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic