Print

Print


>From: "Rex F. May" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: International Auxiliary Languages <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Euroclones
>Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:35:37 -0600
>
>Raghav Krishnapriyan wrote:
>
> > >Again, you can argue that, but it's an extremely close approximation,
>like
> > >German 'tsch' for Eng 'ch'.  I maintain that if Z didn't have the 'c'
> > >letter
> > >to deal with, he'd not have felt a 'ts' phoneme necessary.
> >
> > Of course, there's no way to know, but remember that Esperanto has
>strong
> > Slavic influences -- I think that Z was trying to look for a place to
>put
> > 'ts', not the other way 'round.
>
>Do you really?  That had never occurred to me.  In any case, it was a
>really bad choice.  As a native Eng speaker, even I initially had
>trouble with the 'sc' cluster, and I imagine it's a real pain for most
>everybody else.  It's reminscent of that horrid Russian 'shch' sound.
>Indeed, it's the palatized version of it.  Far better choice would have
>been to use 'c' for 'c^' and 'x' for 'S^', and just not have the
>'sc' combination, which is hardly worth the limited number of roots
>that it makes recognizable.

I think Z only wanted to assign letters that were already used to sounds. (I
don't think that made much sense). That's why he used c for 'ts' -- because
in a lot of Slavic languages written in Roman script, c is used for that
sound. (See Croatian)


>http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
>See my cartoons daily at:
>http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp