Print

Print


Charlie wrote (to Christian):

(re depiction of epenthetic schwa)
> In the original study I use an epsilon; easy to write, a tiny
> backward 3.  I had originally used e diaresis (as in Albanian), &
> would have used it here, but I can't make it!!!  I can make  &
>  &
> , but not the e or the o.  What is that all about?  I'm using Alt
> with the 3-digit ASCII numbers.  Hmmmm, now that I think about it,
> maybe  would be subject to less misunderstanding.

 is sometimes hard to make out, depending on font.   is Alt 0235,  is
0246. (Your computer may differ, but it shouldn't :-(  I could be wrong, but
every character from #0192 to 0255 should be available, and viewable by all
or most of us.)
>
> <<BTW, what's wrong with not writing epenthetic schwas?
> You're under no obligation to present your language in
> a phonetic spelling.  In fact, many of us like obscure
> orthographies.  ;o)>>
>
> I guess the native speakers don't write it because they know when to
> insert it.  Rather like speakers of Hebrew not needing the vowel
> points because they know which vowels to use.  In any case, there is
> no grapheme for it.  I use one when transliterating as an aid to
> those
> who are not fluent in Senyecan.

Right. You and your "speakers" know which clusters are and aren't permitted;
the casual reader may not. (There are epenthetic schwas in Kash too, but the
phonotactics are much simpler, and I don't indicate them, except in phonetic
transcription.)