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

Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics

Expand Messages
  • Jörg Rhiemeier
    Hallo conlangers! ... In my romanization of Old Albic, _ng_ is always /ŋ/; the sequence /ŋg/ is transcribed _ngg_, /ŋk/ is _ngc_, and /ng/ does not occur (a
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 20, 2013
      Hallo conlangers!

      On Sunday 20 January 2013 00:02:28 Herman Miller wrote:

      > On 1/19/2013 8:44 AM, Melroch wrote:
      > > My own shifts in conventions for transcribing Sohlob. I started out over
      > > 15 years ago with an ASCII-based system using <tj sj dj zj> for
      > > alveopalatals. This was actually sub-phonemic since I decided very early
      > > that [ʑ] was an allophone of /dʑ/, and <j> was used only in those
      > > digraphs. At the same time I used <ny hl hr> for single phonemes and <ng>
      > > ambiguously for /ŋ/ and /ŋg/, justified by the conventions in the
      > > 'native' script which was and is under-specifying to a high degree.
      >
      > The ambiguity with "ng" is admittedly one of the drawbacks of
      > conventions like these including the spelling I use on the map (in names
      > like "Kerngat" and "Nagmingo"). A name like "Nagmingo" could be
      > [naɡminɡo], [naɡmiŋɡo], or [naɡmiŋo] (not counting possible variations
      > in the vowels that aren't distinguished in the romanization).

      In my romanization of Old Albic, _ng_ is always /ŋ/; the sequence
      /ŋg/ is transcribed _ngg_, /ŋk/ is _ngc_, and /ng/ does not occur
      (a nasal preceding a stop always assimilates to the latter's POA).

      Of course, in the native script, there is a letter for /ŋ/ (also
      letters for /ɸ/, /θ/ and /x/, so no digraphs are needed at all).

      --
      ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
      http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
      "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
    • Herman Miller
      ... I just noticed a fourth possibility with the name Kerngat, since the n could be part of an rn digraph, which would make it [keɳɡat]. Many of the
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 20, 2013
        On 1/20/2013 3:39 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
        > Hallo conlangers!
        >
        > On Sunday 20 January 2013 00:02:28 Herman Miller wrote:
        >
        >> The ambiguity with "ng" is admittedly one of the drawbacks of
        >> conventions like these including the spelling I use on the map (in names
        >> like "Kerngat" and "Nagmingo"). A name like "Nagmingo" could be
        >> [naɡminɡo], [naɡmiŋɡo], or [naɡmiŋo] (not counting possible variations
        >> in the vowels that aren't distinguished in the romanization).
        >
        > In my romanization of Old Albic, _ng_ is always /ŋ/; the sequence
        > /ŋg/ is transcribed _ngg_, /ŋk/ is _ngc_, and /ng/ does not occur
        > (a nasal preceding a stop always assimilates to the latter's POA).
        >
        > Of course, in the native script, there is a letter for /ŋ/ (also
        > letters for /ɸ/, /θ/ and /x/, so no digraphs are needed at all).

        I just noticed a fourth possibility with the name Kerngat, since the "n"
        could be part of an "rn" digraph, which would make it [keɳɡat].

        Many of the languages on Sarangia are written in alphabets that could be
        described as featural, although sound changes over time might complicate
        things. So the languages that have /ŋ/ as a phoneme probably all have a
        way to write the sound with a single character (as Tirelat does).

        I've used "ñ" to write the /ŋ/ sound in Tirelat, but currently I just
        use "ŋ". (If I'm going to use an inconvenient character in the first
        place, I might as well use one that won't be misread.)
      • Douglas Koller
        ... Just so in Géarthnuns, too. Bangui (in the news of late) is rendered Banggísars ; Ankara , Angkarasars . ... This is true of syllabic nasals in
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 20, 2013
          > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:39:40 +0100
          > From: joerg_rhiemeier@...
          > Subject: Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
          > To: CONLANG@...

          > In my romanization of Old Albic, _ng_ is always /ŋ/; the sequence
          > /ŋg/ is transcribed _ngg_, /ŋk/ is _ngc_,

          Just so in Géarthnuns, too. "Bangui" (in the news of late) is rendered "Banggísars"; "Ankara", "Angkarasars".

          > (a nasal preceding a stop always assimilates to the latter's POA).

          This is true of syllabic nasals in Géarthuns, certainly, but one can easily imagine morpheme boundaries knocking up against each other à la "input", "painkiller", and "ingrown" (examples in Géarthnuns are not legion, though).

          > so /ng/ does not occur

          For the Miami store "ManGear", you'd have to run with "Man'gírs" using our trusty friend, the apostrophe, to break up digraph romanizations. That pops up most often with a'u, sometimes with o'u and r'h, and only one set of related words with t'h that I can think of off hand. s'h, d'h, z'h, k'h may exist out there in the lexicon, but nothing springs to mind. I don't think n'g has occurred...yet. It's really hard to see z'ç happening any time soon if at all.

          > Of course, in the native script, there is a letter for /ŋ/ (also
          > letters for /ɸ/, /θ/ and /x/, so no digraphs are needed at all).

          Indeed. Just the opposite, in fact. There are fourteen letters which represent two consonant sounds together. (I'm really warming to [ɸ] BTW -- perhaps I can shoehorn it in as an allophone somewhere ;) )

          Kou
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.