Ebisedian orthography (which I believe was/is a romanization) is a bizarre
bestie. IIRC, the language name is pronounced /pIzde/ or something similar.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:26:34 +0200, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >On 15 October 2012 05:17, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:14:51 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >AFMCL, this is a transliteration of a not-yet-developed native
> >> orthography, using 18 letters.
> >> This is delightful! Essentially no-one designs native alphabetic
> >> orthographies to have any non-transparentness (even Maggel was written
> >> in the local Roman alphabet!)
> >Actually, Maggel is written in its own alphabet, which happens to be a
> >descendant of the Uncial script that also resulted in the Gaelic type, and
> >thus is similar to it, and yet different enough that it can be considered
> >separate alphabet rather than a form of the Roman alphabet (in any case,
> >that's what I advise you to say in the presence of Maggel speakers, at
> >least if you value your fingers! ;) ). Some of the main differences is
> >the Maggel alphabet has no capital forms, special ligatures, and features
> >letters that mandatorily attach to the next one while others forbid it (a
> >bit like the Arabic script, and unlike any cursive form of the Roman
> >alphabet). However, it also has less letters than the Roman alphabet, so a
> >one-to-one transliteration in the Roman alphabet (based on the historical
> >origin of each Maggel letter) isn't that difficult, even though it means
> >that some letters get strange values (for instance the letter
> >transliterated as <t> never has the value [t]!).
> *puts on my steel gauntlets* Alright, fine, Maggel uses a daughter script
> of Roman!
> But on further thought I shouldn't've excluded it from the contention, as
> whatever its script is, Maggel does use it in a way which wholly refuses to
> draw on European traditions. And that's what I really was getting at.
> There are people out there, mostly European althisters, who will specify
> that one of their consonant phonemes is spelled <ch> or whatnot because the
> Roman script is what they've got and the neighbouring langs use such
> strategies too. But beyond that, people don't do much. There's Maggel;
> there's BPJ's scripts with some nice instances of underspecification and
> whatnot; there's, umm, ...
> >*sigh* I wish Maggel orthography was as easy to describe as this!
> No you don't! Where would the fun be in that? :-p
> Far from contending for your crown, I was rather hoping that showing
> another non-bizarre system without a one-to-one letter-sound correspondence
> would make the notion of doing so seem more accessible. Making something
> like Maggel is intimidating...
> For those who read my description: embarrassingly, I entirely forgot the
> phoneme <kx> /kx/! And I forgot to note the behaviour of some of the other
> velars before <i>. In inflection one can get <ŋi> /Ji/, but the other
> velars are respelled, so e.g. <kx> + <i> = <tši>~<kti> /tSi/. (And I
> transcribe the esh lett