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

Re: [romconlang] Orthography Question

Expand Messages
  • Benct Philip Jonsson
    ... First of all: have a look at for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this list (and other offshoots of
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark G skrev:
      > Continuing on with my series of disjointed questions:
      >
      > One of the phonemes in my current romlang is /OE/ (open front
      > unrounded)... I know in a few Germanic languages, and possibly even
      > French, it's sometimes an allophone of /oe/, but I've discarded the
      > idea of French 'oeu' or even the more appropriate 'oau' so as to avoid
      > confusion (because the language also has a few polyphthongs), and I
      > really don't want to resort to "ö" for aesthetic reasons (or actually,
      > *synaesthetic* reasons; "ö" simply doesn't look like /OE/ sounds to
      > me). Obviously, this is a much more common allophone than phoneme in
      > most cases, so it isn't often represented as such-- any ideas how I
      > might be able to represent in a way that's a little more original but
      > not beyond convincing?
      >

      First of all: have a look at <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>
      for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this
      list (and other offshoots of CONLANG). It is more
      convenient to write [\&] and [9] since the diphthongs
      [OE] and [oe] do actually occur in languages...

      The question how you should write /6\/ (open front rounded)
      depends quite a bit on two factors, namely how you write
      /9/ (half-open front rounded) and [2] (half-closed front
      rounded) and your position wrt digraphs/polygraphs vs.
      diacritics generally and how you use them.

      If you use <oe> for /9/ then perhaps you can use
      <eo> for /&\/. If this clashes with a diphthong
      you may perhaps use <ëo> for the diphthong or a
      sequence of two vowels which are not a diphthong.

      If you have nothing against diacritics
      and you use é and è similar to how they are used in
      French then you might use something like

      Front Back
      Unrounded Rounded Rounded

      Half-closed é ő ó

      Half-open e ö o

      Open è ȍ ò

      If you want to stay within Latin-1 you may use ö ô õ
      to get three varieties of non-closed front rounded
      vowels. Swedish dialect spelling uses the circumflex
      as a general laxing-centralizing diacritic so that
      you get

      â î ô û ŷ
      for [a] [I] [&\] or [3\] [8] [Y]

      versus a i o u y
      for [A] [i] [o] or [O] [u\] [y]

      If you are on Windows I suggest you download BabelMap

      <http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Software/BabelMap.html>

      and some suitable Unicode fonts (look at

      <http://wiki.frath.net/Help:Free_Unicode_fonts>

      for links). Browsing the Latin script ranges of
      Unicode will almost certainly turn up something
      which is to your liking.

      /BP
    • Mark G
      ... actually, ... Apologies, open front *un*rounded was completely a mistype on my part... as for the use of /OE/, that was more purism... I m very familiar
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
        >
        > Mark G skrev:
        > > Continuing on with my series of disjointed questions:
        > >
        > > One of the phonemes in my current romlang is /OE/ (open front
        > > unrounded)... I know in a few Germanic languages, and possibly even
        > > French, it's sometimes an allophone of /oe/, but I've discarded the
        > > idea of French 'oeu' or even the more appropriate 'oau' so as to avoid
        > > confusion (because the language also has a few polyphthongs), and I
        > > really don't want to resort to "ö" for aesthetic reasons (or
        actually,
        > > *synaesthetic* reasons; "ö" simply doesn't look like /OE/ sounds to
        > > me). Obviously, this is a much more common allophone than phoneme in
        > > most cases, so it isn't often represented as such-- any ideas how I
        > > might be able to represent in a way that's a little more original but
        > > not beyond convincing?
        > >
        >
        > First of all: have a look at <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>
        > for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this
        > list (and other offshoots of CONLANG). It is more
        > convenient to write [\&] and [9] since the diphthongs
        > [OE] and [oe] do actually occur in languages...
        >
        Apologies, open front *un*rounded was completely a mistype on my
        part... as for the use of /OE/, that was more purism... I'm very
        familiar with SAMPA, the conlang variant included-- I'll be sure to
        use it in the future if the potential for confusion is that high.

        > The question how you should write /6\/ (open front rounded)
        > depends quite a bit on two factors, namely how you write
        > /9/ (half-open front rounded) and [2] (half-closed front
        > rounded) and your position wrt digraphs/polygraphs vs.
        > diacritics generally and how you use them.
        >

        Part of the issue with the way I write /6\/ and /2/ is that they don't
        actually appear as phonemes in this language (although /Q/ does, I
        should add, and tentatively it is written Ä). I'm certainly not closed
        to digraphs or diacritics, though.

        > If you use <oe> for /9/ then perhaps you can use
        > <eo> for /&\/. If this clashes with a diphthong
        > you may perhaps use <ëo> for the diphthong or a
        > sequence of two vowels which are not a diphthong.
        >
        I had played with <eo>, <ao>, and <oa>, and I haven't ruled out the
        possibility of any of them-- while I mentioned not loving the idea of
        making people distinguish between digraphs and diphthongs, I do, to be
        objective, know several natlangs and conlangs based in and around
        France seem to use both diphthongs and then also letter digraphs such
        as <ou> for /u/.

        > If you have nothing against diacritics
        > and you use é and è similar to how they are used in
        > French then you might use something like
        >
        > Front Back
        > Unrounded Rounded Rounded
        >
        > Half-closed é Å` ó
        >
        > Half-open e ö o
        >
        > Open è ȍ ò
        >
        > If you want to stay within Latin-1 you may use ö ô õ
        > to get three varieties of non-closed front rounded
        > vowels. Swedish dialect spelling uses the circumflex
        > as a general laxing-centralizing diacritic so that
        > you get
        >
        > â î ô û ŷ
        > for [a] [I] [&\] or [3\] [8] [Y]
        >
        > versus a i o u y
        > for [A] [i] [o] or [O] [u\] [y]
        >
        > If you are on Windows I suggest you download BabelMap
        >
        > <http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Software/BabelMap.html>
        >
        > and some suitable Unicode fonts (look at
        >
        > <http://wiki.frath.net/Help:Free_Unicode_fonts>
        >
        > for links). Browsing the Latin script ranges of
        > Unicode will almost certainly turn up something
        > which is to your liking.
        >
        I actually have Babelmap, and my unicode fonts run the gamut of the
        Latin extensions-- I suppose the question was more on orthodoxy than
        simple lack of resources, though you answered both very well.

        I'm actually having trouble reading most of your diacritics, though--
        reading about this before, though, I'm guessing it's because I'm using
        the web interface to read this message, so I'll work on correcting
        this for myself before I ask about another way to see them. By your
        suggestion to refer to French, though, and what little bit I can see,
        I'm getting the idea thus far.

        Thanks for your help!
      • Benct Philip Jonsson
        ... I didn t even notice it, since I already made up my mind what you meant based on the transcriptions! :-) ... I don t know if the potential for confusion is
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark G skrev:
          > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
          >> Mark G skrev:
          >>> Continuing on with my series of disjointed questions:
          >>>
          >>> One of the phonemes in my current romlang is /OE/ (open front
          >>> unrounded)... I know in a few Germanic languages, and possibly even
          >>> French, it's sometimes an allophone of /oe/, but I've discarded the
          >>> idea of French 'oeu' or even the more appropriate 'oau' so as to avoid
          >>> confusion (because the language also has a few polyphthongs), and I
          >>> really don't want to resort to "ö" for aesthetic reasons (or
          > actually,
          >>> *synaesthetic* reasons; "ö" simply doesn't look like /OE/ sounds to
          >>> me). Obviously, this is a much more common allophone than phoneme in
          >>> most cases, so it isn't often represented as such-- any ideas how I
          >>> might be able to represent in a way that's a little more original but
          >>> not beyond convincing?
          >>>
          >> First of all: have a look at <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>
          >> for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this
          >> list (and other offshoots of CONLANG). It is more
          >> convenient to write [\&] and [9] since the diphthongs
          >> [OE] and [oe] do actually occur in languages...
          >>
          > Apologies, open front *un*rounded was completely a mistype on my
          > part...

          I didn't even notice it, since I already made up my mind
          what you meant based on the transcriptions! :-)

          > as for the use of /OE/, that was more purism... I'm very
          > familiar with SAMPA, the conlang variant included-- I'll be sure to
          > use it in the future if the potential for confusion is that high.

          I don't know if the potential for confusion is high, but
          it's there. If we all know CXS why not use it?

          >> The question how you should write /6\/ (open front rounded)
          >> depends quite a bit on two factors, namely how you write
          >> /9/ (half-open front rounded) and [2] (half-closed front
          >> rounded) and your position wrt digraphs/polygraphs vs.
          >> diacritics generally and how you use them.
          >>
          >
          > Part of the issue with the way I write /6\/ and /2/ is that they don't
          > actually appear as phonemes in this language

          But [9] and [2] do? It would be nice to have
          a look at your whole phoneme and allophone
          inventory!

          > (although /Q/ does, I
          > should add, and tentatively it is written �).

          Surely you mean å and not ä?
          The new Walloon spelling uses å in words where some
          dialects have /a/ and others /o/.

          > I'm certainly not closed
          > to digraphs or diacritics, though.
          >
          >> If you use <oe> for /9/ then perhaps you can use
          >> <eo> for /&\/. If this clashes with a diphthong
          >> you may perhaps use <ëo> for the diphthong or a
          >> sequence of two vowels which are not a diphthong.
          >>
          > I had played with <eo>, <ao>, and <oa>, and I haven't ruled out the
          > possibility of any of them-- while I mentioned not loving the idea of
          > making people distinguish between digraphs and diphthongs,

          I know the feeling! I'm usually all for diacritics,
          but sometimes althistorical realism demands digraphs...

          > I do, to be
          > objective, know several natlangs and conlangs based in and around
          > France seem to use both diphthongs and then also letter digraphs such
          > as <ou> for /u/.
          >
          >> If you have nothing against diacritics
          >> and you use é and è similar to how they are used in
          >> French then you might use something like
          >>
          >> Front Back
          >> Unrounded Rounded Rounded
          >>
          >> Half-closed é �` ó
          >>
          >> Half-open e ö o
          >>
          >> Open è ȍ ò
          >>
          >> If you want to stay within Latin-1 you may use ö ô õ
          >> to get three varieties of non-closed front rounded
          >> vowels. Swedish dialect spelling uses the circumflex
          >> as a general laxing-centralizing diacritic so that
          >> you get
          >>
          >> â î ô û ŷ
          >> for [a] [I] [&\] or [3\] [8] [Y]
          >>
          >> versus a i o u y
          >> for [A] [i] [o] or [O] [u\] [y]
          >>
          >> If you are on Windows I suggest you download BabelMap
          >>
          >> <http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Software/BabelMap.html>
          >>
          >> and some suitable Unicode fonts (look at
          >>
          >> <http://wiki.frath.net/Help:Free_Unicode_fonts>
          >>
          >> for links). Browsing the Latin script ranges of
          >> Unicode will almost certainly turn up something
          >> which is to your liking.
          >>
          > I actually have Babelmap, and my unicode fonts run the gamut of the
          > Latin extensions-- I suppose the question was more on orthodoxy than
          > simple lack of resources, though you answered both very well.
          >
          > I'm actually having trouble reading most of your diacritics, though--

          Yes the Unicode got badly garbled.

          > reading about this before, though, I'm guessing it's because I'm using
          > the web interface to read this message, so I'll work on correcting
          > this for myself before I ask about another way to see them. By your
          > suggestion to refer to French, though, and what little bit I can see,
          > I'm getting the idea thus far.

          I meant

          e-acute o-double-acute o-acute
          e o-umlaut o
          e-grave o-double-grave o-grave

          > Thanks for your help!
          >

          Nau fia renniade!

          /Bendetx
        • Eric Christopherson
          ... This should be [& ]... ... And so should this. (I just wanted to take away a source of confusion.) [snip] ... So the bottom line would be [a] [& ] [Q]?
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sep 1, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
            > First of all: have a look at <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>
            > for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this
            > list (and other offshoots of CONLANG). It is more
            > convenient to write [\&]

            This should be [&\]...

            > and [9] since the diphthongs
            > [OE] and [oe] do actually occur in languages...
            >
            > The question how you should write /6\/

            And so should this.

            (I just wanted to take away a source of confusion.)

            [snip]
            > If you have nothing against diacritics
            > and you use é and è similar to how they are used in
            > French then you might use something like
            >
            > Front Back
            > Unrounded Rounded Rounded
            >
            > Half-closed é ő ó
            >
            > Half-open e ö o
            >
            > Open è ȍ ò

            So the bottom line would be [a] [&\] [Q]?
          • Mark G
            ... This is something I actually intend to post up here eventually (along with other components of my GMP), but as yet, I m actually reviewing my phoneme
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
              >
              > Mark G skrev:
              > > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@> wrote:
              >
              > >> The question how you should write /6\/ (open front rounded)
              > >> depends quite a bit on two factors, namely how you write
              > >> /9/ (half-open front rounded) and [2] (half-closed front
              > >> rounded) and your position wrt digraphs/polygraphs vs.
              > >> diacritics generally and how you use them.
              > >>
              > >
              > > Part of the issue with the way I write /6\/ and /2/ is that they don't
              > > actually appear as phonemes in this language
              >
              > But [9] and [2] do? It would be nice to have
              > a look at your whole phoneme and allophone
              > inventory!
              >
              This is something I actually intend to post up here eventually (along
              with other components of my GMP), but as yet, I'm actually reviewing
              my phoneme inventory and considering reworking it. If it's not already
              apparent, I'm still a fairly new conlanger (having not actually
              completed it yet), and rather lacking the resources and knowledge to
              work out my romlang just as I want it yet, I suppose, so I got way too
              excited to do the stupid things every rookie does and throw in things
              that are both useless and not very aesthetically pleasing, ultimately.
              You can probably guess that I was considering a Germanic-esque vowel
              schematic, but I wanted a very Eastern Romance feel, and the
              orthography was, a result of these two factors, out-of-control ugly.

              > > (although /Q/ does, I
              > > should add, and tentatively it is written �).
              >
              > Surely you mean å and not ä?
              > The new Walloon spelling uses å in words where some
              > dialects have /a/ and others /o/.
              >
              Hahaha, assuming that's a-ring, I considered that one, too. I actually
              got to a point (and this has doubtless been part of the problem) where
              I took on so many more vowels than VL that I considered introducing
              <y> as a new vowel (i.e., not another <i>) and <w> as a vowel as well!
              You can begin to understand what I mean by an ugly orthography!

              > > I'm certainly not closed
              > > to digraphs or diacritics, though.
              > >
              > >> If you use <oe> for /9/ then perhaps you can use
              > >> <eo> for /&\/. If this clashes with a diphthong
              > >> you may perhaps use <ëo> for the diphthong or a
              > >> sequence of two vowels which are not a diphthong.
              > >>
              > > I had played with <eo>, <ao>, and <oa>, and I haven't ruled out the
              > > possibility of any of them-- while I mentioned not loving the idea of
              > > making people distinguish between digraphs and diphthongs,
              >
              > I know the feeling! I'm usually all for diacritics,
              > but sometimes althistorical realism demands digraphs...
              >
              Too true, too true, and honestly, I rather like <oa> as a digraph...
              likely I could also introduce <oau> as a trigraph that's near <oa>,
              which I also find rather attractive... I can't altogether say why,
              though... :-P

              Many thanks again! Likely I'll report back when I have a less
              scattered blueprint prepared! Meantime, some of you will probably see
              me bouncing around on the other conlang boards, as I've already
              prepared a totally non-IE project to keep me occupied whilst I work on
              improving my knowledge of the Romance languages! :-P

              "Estad bien, estad sanos, estad felices."
            • old_astrologer
              ... I think it depends on your languages s fictional history and where it s supposed to be spoken. In Rumanian, when they switched from Cyrillic to Latin they
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Mark G" <codename_gimmick@...> wrote:
                >
                > One of the phonemes in my current romlang is /Å'/
                >
                > -- any ideas how I might be able to represent in a way that's a
                > little more original but not beyond convincing?
                >
                I think it depends on your languages's fictional history and where
                it's supposed to be spoken.

                In Rumanian, when they switched from Cyrillic to Latin they had a free
                hand in deciding on how to write /ɨ/, settling on <î>. In my Liburnes,
                when they switched from Glagolitic, they used <y> for /ɨ/ because they
                followed the the local majority language (Slavonic Orsinian). If they
                had always used the Latin alphabet, they would have written "luna"
                rather than "lyna".

                In a word like "brach" (arm), the Liburnese spelling reformers felt
                that "brač" was too Slavonic, "braci" with a silent <i> was too
                etymological, and "bratx" was ugly, but <h> as a modifier could be
                used across the board: pulgh (flea), fulh (leaf), anh (year), nerh
                (black).

                David
              • Benct Philip Jonsson
                ... Except that modifying backslashes **should** go **before** the thing they modify... The long story is that I ve added a whole slew of CXS-like codes for
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 7, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Eric Christopherson skrev:
                  > On Sep 1, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
                  >> First of all: have a look at <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>
                  >> for the system of ascii-transliterating IPA current on this
                  >> list (and other offshoots of CONLANG). It is more
                  >> convenient to write [\&]
                  >
                  > This should be [&\]...

                  Except that modifying backslashes **should** go
                  **before** the thing they modify...

                  The long story is that I've added a whole slew
                  of CXS-like codes for entering Unicode IPA
                  characters to my compose file in Ubuntu, and
                  for technical reasons I had to use leading
                  backslashes instead of trailing ones.

                  >
                  >> and [9] since the diphthongs
                  >> [OE] and [oe] do actually occur in languages...
                  >>
                  >> The question how you should write /6\/

                  & is Shift+6 y'know... But a rounded [6] *is*
                  probably one of the values of the Swedish
                  vowel traditionally transcribed [&\] -- with me
                  it definitely is in the vicinity of [3\].

                  >
                  > And so should this.
                  >
                  > (I just wanted to take away a source of confusion.)

                  'tis OK.

                  > [snip]
                  >> If you have nothing against diacritics
                  >> and you use é and è similar to how they are used in
                  >> French then you might use something like
                  >>
                  >> Front Back
                  >> Unrounded Rounded Rounded
                  >>
                  >> Half-closed é ő ó
                  >>
                  >> Half-open e ö o
                  >>
                  >> Open è ȍ ò
                  >
                  > So the bottom line would be [a] [&\] [Q]?
                  >

                  No, [& &\ Q].
                • Henrik Theiling
                  Hi! ... Why? Everything in X-Sampa and thus CXS that modifies goes after the thing it modifies. Just like the modifiers in Unicode and in IPA itself. So if
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 8, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi!

                    Benct Philip Jonsson writes:
                    >> This should be [&\]...
                    >
                    > Except that modifying backslashes **should** go
                    > **before** the thing they modify...

                    Why? Everything in X-Sampa and thus CXS that modifies goes after the
                    thing it modifies. Just like the modifiers in Unicode and in IPA
                    itself. So if the backslash was before things, it would be
                    inconsistent.

                    (And CXS is not a programming language and the \ does not quote
                    anything...)

                    **Henrik
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.