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

Re: "iu" and "ui" alternative spellings [was: Chin. Mode: No "-io", but "-io-"]

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    Benct Philip Jonsson Melroch wrote: ... That sounds very interesting. Of course, it would require the single dot below final n or ng. I immediately tried to
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 3 1:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Benct Philip Jonsson Melroch wrote:
      ...
      > In fact the E and O tehtar could be omitted in most cases, at
      > least where there are Y or W tehtar. That wouldn't look
      > good in Roman spelling, but is IMHO quite OK in Tengwar spelling.
      > Only it goes against the Quenya precedent of omitting the
      > A tehta, but arguably just as _a_ is the "default vowel"
      > in Quenya, _e_ is the "default vowel" un Mandarin, and
      > according to most phonologists _e_ and _o_ are actually
      > allophones of a single mid vowel phoneme. Syllables like
      > _bo, fo, mo_ are actually /bwe fwe mwe/: first the /e/
      > becomes [o] because it stands after a /w/, then the [w]
      > is deleted because it stands after a labial consonant.

      That sounds very interesting. Of course, it would require the single
      dot below final n or ng. I immediately tried to transcribe the whole
      wikipedia table using no other ómatehta than for /a/:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin#Finals

      However, I got stuck. How to distinguish 'yi wu yu' from 'ye wo yue'
      if already the latter are transcribed with nothing but the tehtar for
      following /j/ or /w/? We can't transcribe 'yi wu yu' with the letters
      for diphthongs ending in /j/ or /w/ either, since that would confuse
      them with 'ei ou'.

      A possibility might be to transcribe 'yi wu yu' with both the tehta
      for following /j/ or /w/ and the letters for diphthongs ending in /j/
      or /w/, that is, as if they were /j-j w-w jw-w/ since there seem to be
      no /jej wew jwew/, though I don't deem that solution very elegant
      since like this, the transcription of 'lu' /lw-w/ gets more
      complicated than the transcription of 'luo' /lwe/.

      Another possibility might be to transcribe 'yi wu yu' with the letters
      for diphthongs ending in /j/ or /w/ and to distinguish them from 'ei
      ou' by placing a dot under the preceding letter to show that the
      reading is not /ej ew/ but /-j -w/. But how to transcribe yu then?
      Like 'you' but with an additional dot below? This is only feasible if
      the two dots for following /j/ are not placed below, but above the
      letters whenever there is no other tehta above, which may well be
      considered to accord with Tolkien's use. Examples:

      'lü': lambe with two dots above and one dot below (inside), úre (with
      dot below?)

      'liu': lambe with two dots above, úre

      Hm, things seem to get even easier if 'yi wu yu' are transcribed not
      only with a dot below the initial, but also with a dot below the
      final, that is to say, write as many single dots below as possible. In
      the transcriptions of sounds like 'lei lou', a dot below yanta/úre is
      not necessary at all since there is no harm in reading them as /le-ej
      le-ew/ as long as it is clear that there is only one syllable. (This
      would even allow for the following /j/ tehta to be placed always below
      if the single dot is dropped in the initial of words like 'lü'.)

      li: lambe with dot below, yanta with dot below
      lu: lambe with dot below, úre with dot below
      lü: lambe with dot below and two dots above, úre with dot below

      The dot below is what distinguishes these from 'lei lou liu'.

      Yet another possibility, if the possibility of combining the dot below
      with one of the tehtar for following [j w] is already conceded:

      li: lambe with dot below and two dots above
      lu: lambe with dot below and tehta for following /w/
      lü: lambe with dot below and tehta for following /w/ and two dots above

      The dot below is what distinguishes these from 'lie lo lüe'. That last
      possibility might be preferrable since it provides a one-sign
      transcriptions (though the use of the two dots above when there is
      already another tehta above feels a little awkward to me).

      Well, that has been thinking by writing...

      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------
    • Melroch 'Aestan
      ... Mandarin was a typo for Cantonese here. Sorry. -- /BP 8^) -- Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
      Message 33 of 33 , Mar 19 11:35 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        hisilome skrev:

        >
        >>Duh, with six or seven tonemes Mandarin even stretches Roman to
        >>its limits!
        >
        >
        > [ Well, I'm no experts on linguistics (obviously!), so I may
        > misunderstand you here--but if "tonemes" are identical to tones,
        > standard Mandarin has four or five, and as far as I know some
        > subdialects of Mandarin have as little as three. Why six or seven? ]

        "Mandarin" was a typo for "Cantonese" here. Sorry.
        --

        /BP 8^)>
        --
        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
        ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
        "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.