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

How to write sh-sound?

Expand Messages
  • Frithureiks Swartagaizis
    How could sh-sound be written in neogothic? Words such as choclate (t+sh) or Czech? I once thought of adding a letter c and write ch but since gothic never
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      How could sh-sound be written in neogothic?

      Words such as choclate (t+sh) or Czech?

      I once thought of adding a letter 'c' and write ch but since gothic never have consonant clusters to correspond to one consonant sound that would be a bad idea.

      Then I thought, why not use X? It's only used for loanwords so far, why not give it a use like that and stand for sh-sound?

      *Xaukolata
    • Michael Everson
      ... Sjaukolata, that is, 𐍃𐌾𐌰𐌿𐌺𐍉𐌻𐌰𐍄𐌰, would be better, I think. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 19 Mar 2012, at 18:53, Frithureiks Swartagaizis wrote:

        > How could sh-sound be written in neogothic?
        >
        > *Xaukolata

        Sjaukolata, that is, 𐍃𐌾𐌰𐌿𐌺𐍉𐌻𐌰𐍄𐌰, would be better, I think.

        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
      • Thomas Ruhm
        Sy plus vowel developed to sh plus vowel or shy plus vowel in many languages. Shy looks like shy.
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          'Sy' plus vowel developed to 'sh' plus vowel or 'shy' plus vowel in many languages. 'Shy' looks like shy.
        • Kevin Behrens
          Very interesting this discussion. On the gothic wikipedia we were thinking about making a system of how to write English words (like those of actors, brands
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Very interesting this discussion. On the gothic wikipedia we were thinking about making a system of how to write English words (like those of actors, brands etc.) in Gothic. We haven't got so far. But there are two ways on the wikipedia of doing it: 1. writing in latin alphabet (which I really don't appreciate) 2. trying to apply such rules.
            And for the "sh" sound in most cases 𐍃𐌷 is written, it seems to be a not outspoken intuitive rule among the users there. And I think it is the best way. Since it wasn't in the Gothic pronounciation, we don't need letters, that are as much as possible close to the Gothic language. We could just adopt "sh" as 𐍃𐌷 and everything is fine, too many thoughts about that would maybe be off target. It's the most intuitive way of doing it and so the easiest way for learners.
            The X sound should only be used for sounds like in German "ich/ach", as it was originally ment. Using it also as "sh" would maybe confound too much.

            To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
            From: thomas@...
            Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:11:10 +0100
            Subject: Re: [gothic-l] How to write sh-sound?




























            'Sy' plus vowel developed to 'sh' plus vowel or 'shy' plus vowel in many languages. 'Shy' looks like shy.














            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Michael Everson
            ... I think you ll find ΣΙ used in Greek to approximate [ʃ]. If one is going to construct neologisms in an ancient language, one should do it in an
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On 19 Mar 2012, at 20:29, Kevin Behrens wrote:

              > And for the "sh" sound in most cases 𐍃𐌷 is written, it seems to be a not outspoken intuitive rule among the users there. And I think it is the best way. Since it wasn't in the Gothic pronounciation, we don't need letters, that are as much as possible close to the Gothic language.

              I think you'll find ΣΙ used in Greek to approximate [ʃ]. If one is going to construct neologisms in an ancient language, one should do it in an authentic fashion. Since Gothic is based in Greek, I think ΣΗ would be a rather unlikely choice for this. 𐍃𐌾𐌰𐌿𐌺𐍉𐌻𐌰𐍄𐌰, σιαυκολατα, yes. Σηαυκολατα, I really don't think so.

              > We could just adopt "sh" as 𐍃𐌷 and everything is fine, too many thoughts about that would maybe be off target. It's the most intuitive way of doing it and so the easiest way for learners.

              English-speaking learners, maybe. I still believe that 𐍃𐌹 would be the better choice. For what it's worth, I've seen a lot of this sort of thing, and I helped to encode Gothic and Coptic and other Greek-derived scripts in Unicode.

              Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
            • marja erwin
              I m not sure how Greek would do this, but I lean towards: SH - SJ CH - QJ KH - X G/DZH - no idea J/ZH - no idea
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not sure how Greek would do this, but I lean towards:

                SH -> SJ

                CH -> QJ

                KH -> X

                G/DZH -> no idea

                J/ZH -> no idea
              • Michael Everson
                You have to have a principled, and in terms of Gothic, historically defensible rationale for such choices, if you want an accurate and *authentic* system for
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  You have to have a principled, and in terms of Gothic, historically defensible rationale for such choices, if you want an accurate and *authentic* system for extending the alphabet to other sounds.

                  On 19 Mar 2012, at 21:13, marja erwin wrote:

                  > I'm not sure how Greek would do this, but I lean towards:
                  >
                  > SH -> SJ
                  >
                  > CH -> QJ

                  Perhaps TSJ.

                  > KH -> X

                  Doesn't this go without saying?

                  > G/DZH -> no idea

                  Perhaps DZJ.

                  > J/ZH -> no idea

                  Perhaps ZJ.

                  Thus SJ [ʃ], TSJ [tʃ]
                  Thus ZJ [ʒ], DZJ [dʒ]


                  Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                • Mike Adamz
                  Cyrillic or Coptic has SH and .. Written like a W with a y tail? Mike Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Cyrillic or Coptic has SH and ..

                    Written like a W with a y tail?

                    Mike

                    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                  • Kevin Behrens
                    But most of the people learning Gothic know English at least at an intermediate level. I see in sh an international sign for [ʃ] as seen in the intuitive
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      But most of the people learning Gothic know English at least at an intermediate level. I see in "sh" an international sign for [ʃ] as seen in the intuitive way of the users. "𐍃𐌷" cannot stand for anything else, but "si" or "sj" could have another reading [sj] and I think it is hard to always distinguish them intuitivly without having the distinction made in written language.
                      But why does we have to make it historically rationable here? The Goths haven't had contact with English people as far as we know. The need for finding transcription ways are just of today and so we could use modern ways.

                      To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
                      From: marja-e@...
                      Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:13:15 -0400
                      Subject: Re: [gothic-l] How to write sh-sound?




























                      I'm not sure how Greek would do this, but I lean towards:



                      SH -> SJ



                      CH -> QJ



                      KH -> X



                      G/DZH -> no idea



                      J/ZH -> no idea


















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Mike Adamz
                      Sh or sch? Maybe find out how others did the sound? Copts in Egypt http://www.omniglot.com/writing/coptic.htm Varangian guard is how old? Norse or Goths or ??
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sh or sch?

                        Maybe find out how others did the sound?

                        Copts in Egypt
                        http://www.omniglot.com/writing/coptic.htm

                        Varangian guard is how old? Norse or Goths or ?? First members?

                        Cyrilic had the B-V cause B had come to sound like V. So the b that they came up with the replace it for a B sound.

                        Same with sh?

                        Ch is or was a y looking character or ??

                        Mike
                        Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                      • Michael Everson
                        ... The Cyrillic letter Ш SHA was likely borrowed from Hebrew; the Goths didn t have so much contact with that language. The Coptic letter Ϣ SHEI was
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 19 Mar 2012, at 21:27, Mike Adamz wrote:

                          > Cyrillic or Coptic has SH and ..
                          >
                          > Written like a W with a y tail?

                          The Cyrillic letter Ш SHA was likely borrowed from Hebrew; the Goths didn't have so much contact with that language. The Coptic letter Ϣ SHEI was borrowed from an Egyptian hieroglyph; the Goths certainly didn't know that.

                          Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                        • Michael Everson
                          ... So? ... There s nothing intuitive about any collection of graphemes. One learns that Greek γγ and Gothic 𐌲𐌲 are pronoununced like NG. ... It cans
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 19 Mar 2012, at 21:29, Kevin Behrens wrote:

                            > But most of the people learning Gothic know English at least at an intermediate level.

                            So?

                            > I see in "sh" an international sign for [ʃ] as seen in the intuitive way of the users.

                            There's nothing intuitive about any collection of graphemes. One learns that Greek γγ and Gothic 𐌲𐌲 are pronoununced like NG.

                            > "𐍃𐌷" cannot stand for anything else,

                            It cans tand for the sequence [s] followed by [h], as in the word "householder".

                            > but "si" or "sj" could have another reading [sj] and I think it is hard to always distinguish them intuitivly without having the distinction made in written language.

                            But [s][j] is closer to [ʃ] than [s][h] is. The J palatalizes the S nicely; compare [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ].

                            > But why does we have to make it historically rationable here?

                            Because if you don't then it is just a ham-fisted pastiche, as opposed to an artistic reconstruction.

                            > The Goths haven't had contact with English people as far as we know. The need for finding transcription ways are just of today and so we could use modern ways.

                            But if we use ancient ways it is more authentic, and more fun.

                            Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                          • Michael Everson
                            On balance I do think this is well-motivated historically and phonologically. 𐍃𐌾 [sj] [sʲ] [ʃ] 𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] [tsʲ] [tʃ] 𐌶𐌾
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On balance I do think this is well-motivated historically and phonologically.

                              𐍃𐌾 [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ]
                              𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] > [tsʲ] > [tʃ]
                              𐌶𐌾 [zj] > [zʲ] > [ʒ]
                              𐌳𐌶𐌾 [dzj] > [dzʲ] > [dʒ]

                              I can do some digging into how these sounds are written in Greek dialects. Would that interest anyone?

                              Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                            • Thomas Ruhm
                              Yes. I am interested. Go for it.
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes. I am interested. Go for it.
                              • Kevin Behrens
                                ... So, it is fun? ;) Well, I don t want to insist on my version. I would go fine with aswell. But I will comment your comments on my comments. ;) The
                                Message 15 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > But if we use ancient ways it is more authentic, and more fun.
                                  So, it is fun? ;)

                                  Well, I don't want to insist on my version. I would go fine with <sj> aswell.
                                  But I will comment your comments on my comments. ;)
                                  The thing with English learners is, for them the "sh" is already really common and familiar.
                                  And sure, <sh> could be devided into two syllables, but that should be clear when reading it. But there is no other possible pronounciation thinkable, except maybe an aspirated [s]. If we all decide about <sj> as to be [ʃ] we will always have the problem of ambiguation between [ʃ] and [sj]. For "foreign" people this might end in confusion. This is my biggest problem with this version. I already talked to Robert Pfeffer, the creator of the Gothic fonts, if he had time for creating and extended gothic font with added signs for not-gothic transcription. But he doesn't have the time for it. In the gothic wikipedia we have to big problem, that we don't have any rules of transcription from English to Gothic yet. I would be really happy if this discussion will go further and might end into a set of rules for a standardized transcription. If we could make changings on the gothic font, we could make a sign for <sj> that both letters are a bit more closer so that they appear more as belonging together.

                                  I would agree with your version:
                                  𐍃𐌾 [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ]

                                  𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] > [tsʲ] > [tʃ]

                                  𐌶𐌾 [zj] > [zʲ] > [ʒ]

                                  𐌳𐌶𐌾 [dzj] > [dzʲ] > [dʒ]

                                  To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: everson@...
                                  Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:44:49 +0000
                                  Subject: Re: [gothic-l] How to write sh-sound?




























                                  On 19 Mar 2012, at 21:29, Kevin Behrens wrote:



                                  > But most of the people learning Gothic know English at least at an intermediate level.



                                  So?



                                  > I see in "sh" an international sign for [ʃ] as seen in the intuitive way of the users.



                                  There's nothing intuitive about any collection of graphemes. One learns that Greek γγ and Gothic 𐌲𐌲 are pronoununced like NG.



                                  > "𐍃𐌷" cannot stand for anything else,



                                  It cans tand for the sequence [s] followed by [h], as in the word "householder".



                                  > but "si" or "sj" could have another reading [sj] and I think it is hard to always distinguish them intuitivly without having the distinction made in written language.



                                  But [s][j] is closer to [ʃ] than [s][h] is. The J palatalizes the S nicely; compare [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ].



                                  > But why does we have to make it historically rationable here?



                                  Because if you don't then it is just a ham-fisted pastiche, as opposed to an artistic reconstruction.



                                  > The Goths haven't had contact with English people as far as we know. The need for finding transcription ways are just of today and so we could use modern ways.



                                  But if we use ancient ways it is more authentic, and more fun.



                                  Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/


















                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Michael Everson
                                  ... And many people who are interested in Gothic, also speakers of Germanic languages, may very well not prefer sh . Germans might prefer sch . Certainly
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 19 Mar 2012, at 22:10, Kevin Behrens wrote:

                                    > The thing with English learners is, for them the "sh" is already really common and familiar.

                                    And many people who are interested in Gothic, also speakers of Germanic languages, may very well not prefer "sh". Germans might prefer "sch". Certainly "sj" is widespread, found in Dutch, Icelandic, Swedish, and Norwegian. In terms of "marking a sibilant for palatalization" I think that a Jot has more gravitas than a Ha.

                                    > And sure, <sh> could be devided into two syllables, but that should be clear when reading it. But there is no other possible pronounciation thinkable, except maybe an aspirated [s]. If we all decide about <sj> as to be [ʃ] we will always have the problem of ambiguation between [ʃ] and [sj]. For "foreign" people this might end in confusion. This is my biggest problem with this version.

                                    I don't know who "foreign" people are, but all you're talking about is where the ambiguity is held. It's either between S-H or between S-J in that case. But I suppose that readers of Gothic

                                    > I already talked to Robert Pfeffer, the creator of the Gothic fonts,

                                    Of "the" Gothic fonts? I have made two Gothic fonts. Everson Mono supports Gothic in glorious monowidth, and Sadagolthina is based on the recommendations of Fairbanks and Magoun.

                                    > if he had time for creating and extended gothic font with added signs for not-gothic transcription.

                                    Added signs?

                                    > But he doesn't have the time for it. In the gothic wikipedia we have to big problem, that we don't have any rules of transcription from English to Gothic yet. I would be really happy if this discussion will go further and might end into a set of rules for a standardized transcription.

                                    Well, you start with phonology. Unifon and Deseret and Shavian transcriptions may help, but it would be good not to get all tied up in knots about British vs American pronunciation. In deference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a pioneer in Revived Gothic, I would suggest using the former.

                                    > If we could make changings on the gothic font, we could make a sign for <sj> that both letters are a bit more closer so that they appear more as belonging together.

                                    I would not counsel inventing new Gothic letters as they will not get into Unicode.

                                    Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                  • Michael Everson
                                    ... Proposed for Gothic. 𐍃𐌾 [sj] [sʲ] [ʃ] 𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] [tsʲ] [tʃ] 𐌶𐌾 [zj] [zʲ] [ʒ] 𐌳𐌶𐌾 [dzj] [dzʲ]
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 19 Mar 2012, at 22:05, Thomas Ruhm wrote:

                                      > Yes. I am interested. Go for it.


                                      Proposed for Gothic.
                                      𐍃𐌾 [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ]
                                      𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] > [tsʲ] > [tʃ]
                                      𐌶𐌾 [zj] > [zʲ] > [ʒ]
                                      𐌳𐌶𐌾 [dzj] > [dzʲ] > [dʒ]

                                      Greek dialects which have these fricatives:
                                      Tsakonian:
                                      ΣΧ [sx] = [ʃ]
                                      ΤΣΧ [tsx] = [tʃ]
                                      ΡΖ [rz] = [ʒ]

                                      Pontic:
                                      ΣΣ [ss] = [ʃ]
                                      ΤΣ [ts] = [tʃ]
                                      ΖΖ [zz] = [ʒ]
                                      ΤΖ [tz] = [dʒ]

                                      Cypriot:
                                      ΣΙ [si] = [ʃ]
                                      ΤΣΙ [tsi] = [tʃ]
                                      TΖ [tz] = [ʒ] (conjecture)
                                      ΤΖΙ [tzi] = [dʒ] (conjecture)

                                      I suspect that mdoern Greeks do not use Δ because for them it is [ð] not [d].

                                      Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                    • Kevin Behrens
                                      ... supports Gothic in glorious monowidth, and Sadagolthina is based on the recommendations of Fairbanks and Magoun. Oh, I m sorry. :S I didn t know that.
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Of "the" Gothic fonts? I have made two Gothic fonts. Everson Mono
                                        supports Gothic in glorious monowidth, and Sadagolthina is based on the
                                        recommendations of Fairbanks and Magoun.
                                        Oh, I'm sorry. :S I didn't know that. Actually, I like Sadagolthina.

                                        > I would not counsel inventing new Gothic letters as they will not get into Unicode.
                                        Yes, that's true.


                                        To: gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
                                        From: everson@...
                                        Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:29:13 +0000
                                        Subject: Re: [gothic-l] How to write sh-sound?




























                                        On 19 Mar 2012, at 22:10, Kevin Behrens wrote:



                                        > The thing with English learners is, for them the "sh" is already really common and familiar.



                                        And many people who are interested in Gothic, also speakers of Germanic languages, may very well not prefer "sh". Germans might prefer "sch". Certainly "sj" is widespread, found in Dutch, Icelandic, Swedish, and Norwegian. In terms of "marking a sibilant for palatalization" I think that a Jot has more gravitas than a Ha.



                                        > And sure, <sh> could be devided into two syllables, but that should be clear when reading it. But there is no other possible pronounciation thinkable, except maybe an aspirated [s]. If we all decide about <sj> as to be [ʃ] we will always have the problem of ambiguation between [ʃ] and [sj]. For "foreign" people this might end in confusion. This is my biggest problem with this version.



                                        I don't know who "foreign" people are, but all you're talking about is where the ambiguity is held. It's either between S-H or between S-J in that case. But I suppose that readers of Gothic



                                        > I already talked to Robert Pfeffer, the creator of the Gothic fonts,



                                        Of "the" Gothic fonts? I have made two Gothic fonts. Everson Mono supports Gothic in glorious monowidth, and Sadagolthina is based on the recommendations of Fairbanks and Magoun.



                                        > if he had time for creating and extended gothic font with added signs for not-gothic transcription.



                                        Added signs?



                                        > But he doesn't have the time for it. In the gothic wikipedia we have to big problem, that we don't have any rules of transcription from English to Gothic yet. I would be really happy if this discussion will go further and might end into a set of rules for a standardized transcription.



                                        Well, you start with phonology. Unifon and Deseret and Shavian transcriptions may help, but it would be good not to get all tied up in knots about British vs American pronunciation. In deference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a pioneer in Revived Gothic, I would suggest using the former.



                                        > If we could make changings on the gothic font, we could make a sign for <sj> that both letters are a bit more closer so that they appear more as belonging together.



                                        I would not counsel inventing new Gothic letters as they will not get into Unicode.



                                        Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/


















                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Mike Adams
                                        http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ For many languages but Goth and like are there? http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gothic.htm
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          http://www.omniglot.com/writing/

                                          For many languages but Goth and like are there?

                                          http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gothic.htm

                                          http://www.omniglot.com/writing/runic.htm#gothic

                                          Mike
                                          Alaska

                                          Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                                        • Thomas Ruhm
                                          If there are words with sj in Gothic they could be pronounced like with english sh or the other way round because it is a minor difference. One could just
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            If there are words with 'sj' in Gothic they could be pronounced like with english 'sh' or the other way round because it is a minor difference. One could just take it as a gothic accent to say 'sj' instead of 'sh' or it is gothic to say both as 'sh', depending on which one is more realistic. That 'ddj' in comparison is said to the same sound as in Magyar. That would make spoken 'sh' more probable, when I think about it.

                                            /Thomas (you know)
                                          • Michael Everson
                                            ... I don t actually follow this at all. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Mar 19, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 19 Mar 2012, at 23:48, Thomas Ruhm wrote:

                                              > If there are words with 'sj' in Gothic they could be pronounced like with english 'sh' or the other way round because it is a minor difference. One could just take it as a gothic accent to say 'sj' instead of 'sh' or it is gothic to say both as 'sh', depending on which one is more realistic. That 'ddj' in comparison is said to the same sound as in Magyar. That would make spoken 'sh' more probable, when I think about it.

                                              I don't actually follow this at all.

                                              Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
                                            • Thomas Ruhm
                                              I was saying that sj and sh might have been pronounced the same by a Goth anyway. I did not check that.
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Mar 21, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I was saying that 'sj' and 'sh' might have been pronounced the same by a Goth anyway. I did not check that.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.