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

5277Re: Large vowel systems (was: Last Name Translation Help?)

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    Apr 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
      > Since back vowels tend to get more rounded the
      > higher they are it might be a good idea to use
      > (( = /o/ and ( = /O/: doubling would then indicate
      > relatively greater rounding. That way you can still
      > -- tenuously -- preserve consistency in the use of
      > the doubling modification.

      That also sounds reasonable.

      > Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
      > there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
      > I would express these like this:
      > i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
      > e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
      > ä /E/ = \
      > â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^

      That's a pretty system! What is /9-/?

      > (I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
      > Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
      > being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
      > by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
      > people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
      > phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
      > is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)

      Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in
      Swedish phonology? Traditionally, the Alemannic consonant length is
      considered to be a secondary feature of the fortis-lenis opposition,
      but it is debated whether there are other features to that opposition.

      > AFAIK the use
      > of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,

      It's attested in DTS 10, after all one of the two major English tehtar
      mode samples.

      > If having to distinguish two levels of i-vowels
      > I'd prefer using the caret tehta for /Y/ and double
      > it (vertically) for /y/ -- and of course . = /I/
      > and .. = /i/.

      I prefer to keep the attested symmetry between unrounded front vowel =
      . and corresponding rounded front vowel = ..

      > in a language like Icelandic, where older
      > /Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
      > that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
      > the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
      > because the orthography is archaizing...)

      Wouldn't the usual (and attested) distinction between a phonemic and
      an orthographic mode work for Icelandic as well (the latter allowing a
      fair representation of Old Icelandic) and make the use of the modified
      left curl dispensable?

      > Do you have any particular
      > reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
      > would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
      > is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
      > think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
      > with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.

      That's the reason.

      > What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.

      Úre is not attested for initial /w/ in tehtar modes, but only as a
      "reading direction inverter" (as in Quenya). So I'd certainly use vala.

      j. 'mach' wust
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic