R A Brown wrote:
> <deinx nxtxr> wrote:
>> maikxlx wrote:
>>> I think it looks oddball to use <x> for _any_ vowel, but we're trying to
>>> achieve the same thing, i.e., to regularize the orthography while
>>> inconveniences, and that means recycling unused basic letters.
>> The idea wasn't new. Rick Harrison had already used it for languages
>> like Vorlin and Jigwa so I just borrowed the idea.
> That is true. I had the impression, maybe mistakenly, that this was
> taken from the use of <x> in algebra to represent an unknown and was
> thus thought appropriate for the "neutral vowel" [ə].
Keep in mind, IPA uses a tiny "x" as the symbol for centralization.
> But AFAIK this use of <x> = [ə] is found only in conlangs. In natlang
> orthographies <x> has been used for a whole variety of sounds, but
> always consonant sounds; see:
One of the several romanizations for Thai uses <x> as a vowel (ISTR
[ɔ], the inherent vowel in the Thai abugida), but that's about the
only example I know of.
>> In the case of SASXSEK, maximum machinability was a high priority so I
>> had to keep it all within the ASCII range. Deini uses its own script
>> but there are cases where I need Romanizations, and didn't mind using
>> full Unicode there. Normally I'd probably use <y> for <ə>
> Presumably that should be [ə]
Yes. I considered <ə> too.
>> but it was taken up by /1/.
> Welsh gives good natlang precedents for <y> being used for both [ə]
> ('obscure y') and  ('clear y') :)
They are distinct phonemes in Deini.
>> I don't mind an orthography that looks "odd". To some extent any
>> foreign orthography looks that way to some degree or another. I don't
>> think <x> for /ə/ is any worse than Welsh's use of <w> as a vowel.
> Ouch! That surely is a bit of anglocentricity!
> While <x> was originally used in the Roman alphabet for [ks], and has
> been used ever since in natlang orthographies for some _consonant_
> values, that is *not* true of <w>.
> In fact, <w> was not originally part of the Roman alphabet; it is a
> medieval invention, being formed - as indeed its English name shows -
> from <uu> which, in capitals was VV.
> This was at a time before V and U were differentiated;the letter V
> (uncial <u>) was used *both as a vowel and as a consonant* (as indeed it
> was in ancient Roman orthography. It seems to me that the Welsh use of
> <w> to represent both the consonant [w] and the vowels [u] and [u:] is
> pretty close to the letter's origin.
I know about <w>'s origins but Welsh is unique. It's not really
anglo centric. Most of the languages that use it, assign it to
either [w], [v] or something close to those.
>> <q> is one I've found multiple uses for. In SASXSEK it's /ŋ/, Deini
>> is /ɣ/. I have one conlang using it for /dʒ/ and I've seen in used by
>> others for /tʃ/ and even /θ/.
> Yep - <q> is also a letter that natlang orthographies have found
> multiple uses for, cf.
> The use for /tʃ/ is similar to its use in Chinese Pinyin spelling. I've
> not encountered <q> = /θ/ in conlangs (but that does not mean it's not
> used that way, but it is often conventionally used in Net
> transliterations of Greek to represent the Greek θ (theta), which in
> modern Greek is pronounced /θ/.
I haven't seen any Greek transliterations using <q>. I've always
seen theta as <th>, even on signs in Greece.
>>> As far as /S/, my main project Mull has <c> for /S/, but my side
>>> usually have <x> for /S/. I find the latter _much_ more attractive
>>> than the