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

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

Expand Messages
  • hisilome
    ... [Well, I m impressed with what you two came up with! Certainly _very_ economical in its use of diacritics. I d christen it the Radically Phonemic Mandarin
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 4, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Melroch 'Aestan <melroch@...> wrote:
      > j_mach_wust skrev:
      > > Don't forget about the /e/! If you're proposing to leave it as the
      > > predictable implied vowel (same as Quenya /a/), then it's
      >nonetheless still present. The beauty of that wikipedia table I'm
      >basing all these speculations on (here it is again:
      > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin#Finals ) is precisely that it
      > > analyzes all mandarin finals as having either underlying
      >vowel /a/, /e/ or none at all, in which case the semivowels become
      >the syllabic element. And that vowelless analysis of 'yi wu' is
      >different from the /jej wew jwew/ analysis, since it's rather a
      >simple /j w jw/ analysis (which would produce [i u y]).
      > >
      > > Here is a complete rendering of the wikipedia table:
      > >
      > > http://trizeps.ch/~choni/public/chinese_tengwar.png
      > >
      > > (There are also pdf and rtf versions in the same directory.)
      > 'Melroch' replied:
      > OK you are right. That *is* the vowelless analysis.
      > Now if you replace the long carrier in _e, en, eng_
      > with a short carrier and replace each A-tehta with a
      > long carrier (or a Wilya?) you get Pulleyblank's analysis exactly,
      > with [a] analysed as an underlying velar glide,
      > and you free the space above the tengwar for tone tehtar! :-)

      [Well, I'm impressed with what you two came up with! Certainly _very_
      economical in its use of diacritics. I'd christen it the "Radically
      Phonemic Mandarin Mode"----_full_ mode, really, once we get rid of
      the A-tehtar as well, as Melroch suggests. The attraction of this
      mode would lie in its minimalist simplicity.

      Personally, I still prefer the "original" orthographic mode we
      discussed earlier, at least for the purposes of calligraphy. I just
      feel it's more pleasing to the eye with all those tehtar, and I don't
      mind that some of the spellings look a bit "crowded"----it makes for
      more variety, and thus leaves more room for artistic expression, if
      you like. But in the end, that's just a matter of taste. :)
      I do also suspect that the orthographic mode may be easier to learn,
      but maybe I'm wrong there...

      Just one minor thing: some of the sounds in Mach's very useful table
      (many thanks for that and your explanations!) don't actually occur in
      Mandarin, more specifically, some of the finals occur only in
      combination with other initial consonants, but not with _l_. I guess
      you took all the finals from the Wikipedia list and used _l_
      as "default" initial, which is of course fine for theoretic purposes.
      So just for the record, in _len, lua, luai, luang, l√ľan_ and _liong_,
      lambe should only be seen as "default tengwa" (_-ua_ and _-uai_, for
      instance, combine only with initial _zh, ch, sh, g, k_, and _-iong_
      only with _j, q, x_, etc).

      A few questions about possible spellings for Melroch:
      Just out of curiosity, when using long carriers instead of the A-
      tehta, would you then spell _ya_ as "vilya plus long carrier (i.e.
      long carrier to the right of vilya)"? And if, a possibility you also
      mention, one would use vilya for A-tehtar, would _ya_ then be "vilya
      plus vilya"? And _yuan_ would be written as "vilya with modified left-
      curl on top + vilya + nuumen with under-dot"? Or _liao_ as "lambe
      with two over-dots + vilya + uure"? (Incidentally, I guess the over-
      dots would have to stay, but one could still put the "tone tehtar" on
      top, since the dots don't take up much space...) Or did I
      misunderstand something?]


    • 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, 2006
      View Source
      • 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
        || 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.