Am 15.03.02, Herman Miller yscrifef: > So I'm thinking that Gjarrda in English should just be called Jarda, and > pronounced in the obvious manner as ['dZAr\d@] (instead of ['J\arda]). It's > not clear what the name for Tirylhat should be, but ['tI48Kat] isn't an > option in English! I might settle for Tirethlat, or not bother trying to > represent the lateral fricative and just use the original name Tirelat. I would probably settle for the latter: Tirelat. No foreign sounds; no unusual spellings. Same for Jarda. > The question is how far to go in Anglicizing conlang names. I used to be in > the habit of spelling the long [i] sound as "ee" in English representation > of words like "Zireen" and "Neesklaaz". It's workable. We used to spell Hindoo et al that way. > After switching to "i" for a while, > I compromised, and now typically use "ie" for this sound. On the other > hand, a word like "Zirien" risks being mispronounced as a three-syllable > "zi-ri-en". So does it make sense to go so far as "Zireen" to avoid the > chance of misinterpretation? Or would conlangers, who tend to be more > familiar with languages than the average English speaker, assume this is > meant to be pronounced [zire:n]? I would assume /zIRiEn/ for the former and /zIRin/ for the latter. The double letter spellings look oh so English. :) Padraic. -- Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.