Hallo conlangers!

On Wednesday 29 May 2013 18:36:26 BPJ wrote:

> 2013-05-29 03:13, Herman Miller skrev:
> > I've been thinking for some time that it might be better to spell
> > out Tirelat affricates as <ts> and <dz> instead of <ċ> and <ż>.
> > For one thing, natlangs never pronounce these as /ts/ and /dz/,
> > and for another, spelling them as <ts> and <dz> makes the
> > pronunciation obvious.
> 
> Indo-Aryanists actually use <ċ> and <ż> (or <ĉ> and <ẑ>)
> for /ts/ and /dz/, and I've seen them so used for Tibetan too.

The scholarly romanization of Armenian uses <c> and <j> for
these sounds (and the caronized versions thereof for the
postalveolar affricates), which I feel is quite nifty. The
only drawback is that many people *will* pronounce them
wrongly.
 
> > Now I'm starting to think that I should just simply avoid the
> > letter <x> in any of my languages. I've been thinking about the
> > name "Xora Xhoan Daxos" from the "Game of Thrones" series. If it's
> > meant to be pronounced "Zora Zoan Daksos", as the actors do, why
> > not just spell it that way? If it's meant to be pronounced
> > differently, no one can know which of the many pronunciations of
> > <x> is intended.

Yes, <x> has so many values that it is perhaps best to avoid
this letter, though it is a handy way of writing /x/.
 
> > The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
> > mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
> > else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
> > excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
> > any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
> 
> How do you write other fricatives and affricates?

Indeed, this question must be answered.  You cannot really
give advice about the romanization of a phoneme without
knowing the full phoneme inventory and what kinds of letters
are to be used for all those phonemes.  If Tirelat does not
have /h/, there is nothing wrong with using <kh> for /x/ and
<gh> for /ɣ/.  These are pretty common conventions.
 
> > So, what about other potential changes?
> > 
> > 1. <rh> for /r̥/ (voiceless r).
> > 
> > 2. <ng> for /ŋ/.
> > 
> > 3. <y> for /j/. Spelling /j/ as <y> would leave <j> free to
> > represent /dʒ/,

Or to represent /dz/, see above.

> >     which exists in some conservative dialects. But
> > there's nothing much wrong with <dž>, and I'd need a new spelling
> > for /ɨ/, which I'm currently writing as <y>.

Sure.

> > 4. <lh> for /ɬ/.
> > 
> > 5. Double letters for long vowels.
> > 
> > Any thoughts on these conventions? My inclination is to go with
> > <ts>, <dz>, <kh>, <gh>, and <rh>, but keep <ŋ>, <j>, <ł>, and <h>
> > for long vowels.
> 
> I would certainly think twice before mixing +h digraphs and
> diacritics, and certainly before using different strategies for
> /r̥/ and /ɬ/!

<rh> and <lh> look quite nice for /r̥/ and /ɬ/, and <ng> for /ŋ/;
I am doing the latter in Old Albic, too, and the former in those
Albic languages that have voiceless liquids.  The only drawback of
<ng> for /ŋ/ is that you have to write /ŋg/ as <ngg>, which is
a bit clumsy.

>       I empathize with your reservations about <x>. I
> have myself used it for almost every voiceless fricative
> between /χ/ and /ʃ/ as well as for voiced coronal affricates;
> to be sure there are precedents of sorts for all these usages,
> but this very ambiguity introduces an uneasiness about the
> letter. In the 'Romanization' of Sohlob, which goes back to
> Latin-1 days, I use both diacritics and single letters with odd
> 
> values as well as digraphs:
> |   <æ>   /æ/
> |   <c>   /tɕ/
> |   <ç>   /ɕ/
> |   <e>   /ɨ/
> |   <j>   /dʑ/, [ʑ]
> |   <hl>  /ɬ/
> |   <ng>  /ŋ/ (<nk nx nq> [ŋk ɴχ ɴʁ])
> |   <ny>  /ɲ/
> |   <o>   /ɒ/
> |   <q>   /ʁ/
> |   <x>   /χ/
> |   <y>   /j/

Fair.  Only <e> for /ɨ/ and <q> for /ʁ/ rub me as "wrong".
 
> plus, in the sister language Cidilib <hm hn hng hny hr> for
> voiceless sonorants and <ngg> for /ŋg/. I would like to make it
> more consistent, and would preferably use <ħ/ꝁ> /χ/, <ǥ> /ʁ/, <ł>
> /ɬ/, <ɍ> /r̥/, <ŋ> /ŋ/ and maybe even <ɉ> for /dʑ/, but there
> just isn't any way I could consistently represent the voiced and
> voiceless quadruplets of nasals with existing precomposed 
> characters. The closest I can get is not right at all:
> 
> |   <m>     /m/     <ṃ>     /m̥/
> |   <n>     /n/     <ṉ>     /n̥/
> |   <ň>     /ɲ/     <ṋ>     /ɲ̊/
> |   <ṅ>     /ŋ/     <ṇ>     /ŋ̊/

Indeed not.  It is unsystematic!
 
> I could live with <m ṃ n ṇ ň ṇ̌ ŋ ŋ̇ l ḷ r ṛ> if I only could
> get them all precomposed!

Precomposed characters are nice, but this kind of thing is
what combining diacritics are made for, so don't be shy of
using them.

> Moreover most fonts have a <ǥ>
> struck through the tail, while I like it struck through the
> (upper) bowl.
> 
> I've tried to go all in the other way with digraphs, but those
> certainly rub me the wrong way. The words just don't look right!
> 
> |   <æ>     <e>
> |   <c>     <ch>
> |   <ç>     <sh>
> |   <e>     <y>
> |   <j>     <jh>, <zh>
> |   <q>     <gh>
> |   <x>     <kh>
> |   <y>     <j>

<y> is, I think, a more intuitive spelling for /ɨ/ than <e>,
and <gh> is likewise better than <q>.
 
> /bpj

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1