On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, B.Philip.Jonsson wrote: > At 11:47 -0700 on 6.10.1998, charles wrote: > > > > I think I need to add the schwa vowel to the standard 5 > > in my projected conlang. Which letter (grapheme?) would be > > best to use for it? I've considered X, Y (Lojban), > > or using W for /u/ and U for schwa, or "-", and worse ... > > If you still haven't decided, here are two other schemes that I've used in > one of my langs: Oh, I've decided lots of times, and probably will again. > /i/ /e/ /E/ /@/ > SCHEME 1 y i e > SCHEME 2 i y e > SCHEME 3 y i e v > SCHEME 4 i y e v > > They are chronologically ordered, i.e. scheme 4 was the final one. The > lang had a bilabial/labiodental approximant phoneme written "w", and as can > be seen it acquired an open mid /E/ in the course of its development, which > called for a reassignment of "e" and a new schwa letter. The mapping of > "y" to /e/ was based on the usual Romanization of Ukrainian: the Ukrainian > vowels corresponding to Russian (Romanized!) "y" /@/ and "e" /E/ are > phonetically [e] and [E], or close enough. It does seem that "y" is the best choice for 6th vowel; if a 7th is needed then "w" seems too wide and ugly, and maybe "v" becomes the next best option. At one time I wanted to keep many of the 13 or so English vowels, but now 5 to 7 feel more comfortable somehow. Similarly, I have moved away from consonant clusters.