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

'featural' writing in ASCII

Expand Messages
  • MorphemeAddict
    What is the name of a writing system that uses features of the associated sounds? Like this: p p b pv (where v indicates voicing) f pf
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      What is the name of a writing system that uses features of the associated
      sounds?

      Like this:
      'p' > "p"
      'b' > "pv" (where "v" indicates voicing)
      'f' > "pf" (where "f" indicates fricative)
      'v' > "pfv" (or "pvf")
      'm' > "pn" (where "n" indicates nasal)
      similarly for t d n k g ng
      and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
      and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.
      This kind of writing makes it easier to indicate th, dh, kh, gh, etc., and
      other sounds with no standard spelling, as well as being slightly esoteric
      looking.

      I've been trying to remember or find this for years, with no luck.

      stevo
    • Jörg Rhiemeier
      Hallo conlangers! ... I think you mean Peter Bleackley s stribography : http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309B&L=conlang&P=R2825 -- ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hallo conlangers!

        On Sunday 15 December 2013 22:32:09 MorphemeAddict wrote:

        > What is the name of a writing system that uses features of the associated
        > sounds?
        >
        > Like this:
        > 'p' > "p"
        > 'b' > "pv" (where "v" indicates voicing)
        > 'f' > "pf" (where "f" indicates fricative)
        > 'v' > "pfv" (or "pvf")
        > 'm' > "pn" (where "n" indicates nasal)
        > similarly for t d n k g ng
        > and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
        > and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.
        > This kind of writing makes it easier to indicate th, dh, kh, gh, etc., and
        > other sounds with no standard spelling, as well as being slightly esoteric
        > looking.
        >
        > I've been trying to remember or find this for years, with no luck.

        I think you mean Peter Bleackley's "stribography":

        http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309B&L=conlang&P=R2825

        --
        ... 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
      • MorphemeAddict
        Stribography is what I was looking for, although I m not a fan of Bleackley s version. Thank you, Jörg. stevo
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 15, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          "Stribography" is what I was looking for, although I'm not a fan of
          Bleackley's version.
          Thank you, Jörg.

          stevo



          On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:

          > Hallo conlangers!
          >
          > On Sunday 15 December 2013 22:32:09 MorphemeAddict wrote:
          >
          > > What is the name of a writing system that uses features of the associated
          > > sounds?
          > >
          > > Like this:
          > > 'p' > "p"
          > > 'b' > "pv" (where "v" indicates voicing)
          > > 'f' > "pf" (where "f" indicates fricative)
          > > 'v' > "pfv" (or "pvf")
          > > 'm' > "pn" (where "n" indicates nasal)
          > > similarly for t d n k g ng
          > > and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
          > > and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.
          > > This kind of writing makes it easier to indicate th, dh, kh, gh, etc.,
          > and
          > > other sounds with no standard spelling, as well as being slightly
          > esoteric
          > > looking.
          > >
          > > I've been trying to remember or find this for years, with no luck.
          >
          > I think you mean Peter Bleackley's "stribography":
          >
          > http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309B&L=conlang&P=R2825
          >
          > --
          > ... 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
          >
        • Alex Fink
          ... Ick and ugh, why in the world would you do it that way? There is an actual extension of the analogy to be had here, namely to say that /ts s/, /dz z/, /tS
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:32:09 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:

            >and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
            >and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.

            Ick and ugh, why in the world would you do it that way? There is an actual extension of the analogy to be had here, namely to say that /ts s/, /dz z/, /tS S/, /dZ Z/ are the stop-fricative pairs. All I've had to do there is to accept affricates as a kind of stop, which is a very natural thing to do articulatorily (they're really just stops with noisy closure), phonologically (in languages with affricates, they pattern as stops with remarkable frequency), and historically (often through palatalisation, or if not then through reinterpretation of an aspirated release).

            By contrast, all I can make out as a rationale for your original proposal is the analogy of _English-style spellings_ in s:sh::t:th; the advantage of this seems especially minor given that no stribography is going to retain any aura of familiarity to the uninitiated anyhow. (I am on record as disliking the spelling <sh> for [S]. That it suggests this kind of thing is one of the reasons why.)

            Alex
          • MorphemeAddict
            The reason I did it that way (it s just an example, to get my idea across) was that I consider stops to be more fundamental or simpler than fricatives, and
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              The reason I did it that way (it's just an example, to get my idea across)
              was that I consider stops to be more fundamental or simpler than
              fricatives, and fricatives simpler than affricates. In a real functional
              script the affricates, fricatives, and stops would all be treated
              separately.

              stevo


              On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:

              > On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:32:09 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > >and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
              > >and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.
              >
              > Ick and ugh, why in the world would you do it that way? There is an
              > actual extension of the analogy to be had here, namely to say that /ts s/,
              > /dz z/, /tS S/, /dZ Z/ are the stop-fricative pairs. All I've had to do
              > there is to accept affricates as a kind of stop, which is a very natural
              > thing to do articulatorily (they're really just stops with noisy closure),
              > phonologically (in languages with affricates, they pattern as stops with
              > remarkable frequency), and historically (often through palatalisation, or
              > if not then through reinterpretation of an aspirated release).
              >
              > By contrast, all I can make out as a rationale for your original proposal
              > is the analogy of _English-style spellings_ in s:sh::t:th; the advantage of
              > this seems especially minor given that no stribography is going to retain
              > any aura of familiarity to the uninitiated anyhow. (I am on record as
              > disliking the spelling <sh> for [S]. That it suggests this kind of thing
              > is one of the reasons why.)
              >
              > Alex
              >
            • Siva Kalyan
              I just learned that Kenneth Pike, in his 1943 book *Phonetics*, devised a (hugely complicated) phonetic notation of a similar sort. E.g. his [t] was as
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 13, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                I just learned that Kenneth Pike, in his 1943 book *Phonetics*, devised a
                (hugely complicated) phonetic notation of a similar sort. E.g. his [t] was
                as follows:

                MaIlDeCVvelcAPpaatdtltnransfsSiFSs
                "The key to the first of these features is: M mechanism, a air
                stream, I initiator,
                l lung air, D direction, e egressive." (Quoted from Winfred Nöth (ed.)
                *Handbook
                of Semiotics*.)

                Siva


                On 16 December 2013 08:32, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:

                > What is the name of a writing system that uses features of the associated
                > sounds?
                >
                > Like this:
                > 'p' > "p"
                > 'b' > "pv" (where "v" indicates voicing)
                > 'f' > "pf" (where "f" indicates fricative)
                > 'v' > "pfv" (or "pvf")
                > 'm' > "pn" (where "n" indicates nasal)
                > similarly for t d n k g ng
                > and sh and zh are treated as the fricative versions of 'stop' s and z. Ch
                > and j are considered the fricative versions of 'stop' ts and dz.
                > This kind of writing makes it easier to indicate th, dh, kh, gh, etc., and
                > other sounds with no standard spelling, as well as being slightly esoteric
                > looking.
                >
                > I've been trying to remember or find this for years, with no luck.
                >
                > stevo
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.