Print

Print


On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 01:56:56PM -0700, Stone Gordonssen wrote:
> I'm curious to know indivual's perferences with regards to using the latin
> alphabet for certain orthographic mappings.
>
> E.g.
> [ts] could be rendered _ts_ or _z_ so long as any reader is prewarned of
> either mapping and orthographic ambiguities could be resolved. The same with
> [S] as _x_ or _sh_, etc.
>
> However, which is more pleasing to the eye, assuming the goal is to be
> readily apparent rather than obscured?

For aesthetic pleasure, <c> for /ts/ is another popular choice,
with <c^> (Unicode <č>) for /tS/ as in the Americanist tradition.
In my most recent bout of Latinization, I decided to extrapolate
from those choices thus:

ASCII           Unicode
<c>     /ts/
<c^>    /tS/    <č>    /tʃ/
<j>     /dz/
<j^>    /dZ/    <ǰ>    /dʒ/
<s^>    /S/     <š>    /ʃ/
<z^>    /Z/     <ž>    /ʒ/

For obviosity, though, I'd go with digraphs (and one trigraph)
wherever there was no ambiguity:

<ts>    /ts/
<ch>    /tS/    /tʃ/
<dz>    /dz/
<dzh>   /dZ/    /dʒ/
<sh>    /S/     /ʃ/
<zh>    /Z/     /ʒ/

-Mark