Print

Print


2009/10/20 Craig Daniel <[log in to unmask]>:
> 2. <c> presently only exists in the digraph <ch> (representing /x/),
> which seems odd to me.

Well, <c> in German is essentially limited to <sch ch ck>; it hardly
ever occurs on its own. (Which is why German Braille felt free to
re-use it as an abbreviation for the <en> sequence; if you do need a
single <c> you have to escape it.)

> (All instances of /k/ are represented by <k>,
> including /k:/ being <kk>.)

You have phonemically long/geminate consonants? That's unusual for a
German-alike IMO, though an interesting twist.

> Options I am entertaining:
>
> 1. No change; <c> is just weird.
> 2. <ch> becomes <c>, which seems odd.
> 3. <ch> gives way to a different grapheme, possibly due to Slavic
> influence, and the letter <c> falls out of use entirely.

<h> seems the only other obvious character to me for /x/, but I
presume you're already using that for /h/. Not sure whether you want
to use a character that's ambiguous between /h/ and /x/. (I presume
you don't want to go non-ASCII, though many natlangs did go that
route.)

But Slavic influence could just as well preserve <ch>; IIRC, at least
Czech and Polish use that combination for /x/ (Polish together with
plain <h>).

> 4. <c> is used to spell /tS/, solving two problems at once but not in
> a way I think likely for a 19th-century orthographic system. (Again,
> I'd blame Slavic influence.)

Slavic would be more likely to influence <c> towards /ts)/, in my
mind. (Do you have that sound in your language? It's fairly common in
German, after all. And is, indeed, spelled with <c> in some loan-words
:D - though less so nowadays since many occurrances got re-spelled
with <z>.)

> 5. Potentially alongside any of the above (and without increase in
> orthographic ambiguity) <kk> becomes <ck>, raising the frequency of
> <c> a bit.

That would make it look more German/English and less Danish/Dutch. I
don't know who else uses <ck> for /k/, off-hand.

> Aesthetically, I'm going for something that looks a lot like German
> while still being recognizably not German at a glance (hence little
> things like sch instead of sh and some weirdness with the vowels).

Off-hand, I'd say keep <ch> and <kk>; the "<c> hardly occurs by
itself" is attested in "real" German, and the <kk> will contribute to
making it distinctly not-Germany. (And is something that I think would
make the spelling more regular anyway; why <pp tt> but not <kk>? Not
to mention the behaviour in traditional German orthography that <ck>
is hyphenated as <k-k>, which makes things harder for computers. The
revised orthography side-stepped that by hyphenating it as <-ck>, but
that's pretty odd IMO and also drops the syllable-closing marker
function of the double consonant.)

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>