Re: "iu" and "ui" alternative spellings [was: Chin. Mode: No "-io", but "-io-"]
- Hisilome wrote:
> [Well, I'm impressed with what you two came up with! CertainlyI'm not so sure about that considering the three tehtar words '*lüan'
> _very_ economical in its use of diacritics.
and 'lü'. And then, there's another problem: The omission of the
e-tehta leads to some ambigue spellings. For example, 'liao' might be
read as 'lie ao'. Hm, that ambiguity might be solved by always using a
carrier in the transcriptions of 'ai ao ei ou' -- and of course, it
would disappear if every word had a tone diacritic (which isn't the
case, is it?, or at least not in the proposed mode). Maybe the
obligatory carrier is the best solution.
I've uploaded another table with /a/ analyzed as velar glide -- as in
Pulleyblank's analysis pointed out by Melroch in #5193 -- and
expressed by the gasdil or by a vertical stroke below (taken to be
identical to a gasdil). That's certainly a remarkably strange
analysis, resulting in Chinese having only one phonemic vowel, but it
seems to work. That table also includes the above mentioned
improvement of using a short carrier (as syllable onset sign) in 'ai
ao ei ou'. I've changed the default consonant letter from lambe to
númen since lambe is kind of an exceptional letter, taking tehtar
below inside its bow, and I have found no lambe version of the
vertical stroke below. There are again a pdf version and an rtf
version to be found in the same directory.
That version without any vowel tehtar really leaves the space above
the tengwar to be used for tone signs. I imagine that normal ómatehtar
signs might be used as tone signs, for instance the acute, grave,
circumflex and caron tehtar. Like this, that Chinese mode can even be
typed with existing tengwar fonts.
However, there's the problem of the combination of the two dots above
with another tehta (combination of modified left curl with another
teha above is attested). Perhaps it might be more practical to place
the two dots below the letters in all cases, even in combination with
the vertical stroke (the dots may be placed on either side of it) and
with the single dot (resulting in three dots below), in order to avoid
a combination of the two dots above with another tehta above, --
especially in the case of words of the kind consonant + üan and
consonant + ü, because these already have two tehtar above even
without any tone tehta.
j. 'mach' wust
- hisilome skrev:
>"Mandarin" was a typo for "Cantonese" here. Sorry.
>>Duh, with six or seven tonemes Mandarin even stretches Roman to
> [ 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? ]
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)