2010-09-23 17:59, R A Brown skrev:
> On 23/09/2010 14:11, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>> On 23 September 2010 14:44, R A
>> Brown<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> That was the point. I could've picked a piece of Manx,
>>> I guess, or Cornish in one its more "unceltic"
>>> spellings (there are AFAIK 4 different main varieties
>>> of revived Cornish). There ain't a "Celtic
>>> orthography!"
>> Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that
>> Breton went for _k_ for the voiceless velar plosive
>> instead of _c_. I wonder how much was usefulness (how
>> many words in Breton have a /kh/ cluster?) and how much
>> was simply wanting to do something different from
>> French...
> Probably wanted to express /k/ by the same letter in all
> environments. Actually _k_ is not at all uncommon in 'Celtic'
> spelling; it was widely used in Middle Welsh, especially before _e
> i y _. All spellings of Cornish use it; most use both _c_ and _k_,
> the latter before front vowels. But the variety of Cornish known
> as Kemmyn uses _k_ exclusively for /k/.
> ------------------------------------------------
> On 23/09/2010 16:08, BPJ wrote:
> [snip]
>  > What surprises me is that they went for _c'h_ rather than
>  > _kh_. To me the former looks like /kh/ and the latter
>  > like /x/ rather than the other way around!
> Yes, _c'h_ IMO is particularly ugly. They couldn't, of course use
> _ch_ as that has the value /S/ in Breton (and _j_ = /Z/). As most
> occurrences of _c'h_ (about 80% IIRC) are in fact _voiced_, I've
> always thought _gh_ would have been better.

Actually my brain wants to read _c'h_ as an aspirated version
of whatever _c'_ might be; years of dealing with Latinized
Sanskrit has taken its toll!

> The "Orthographie Universitaire" which was introduced in 1955 but,
> AFAIK, never caught on, voiced _c'h_ was to spelled simply as _h_
> and _c'h_ was to be reserved only for the voiceless sound. A major
> improvement IMO - but, as I say, it never caught on.

Isn't _h_ used otherwise?  IIRC the _zh_ is /h/ in one dialect
and /z/ in the others (reflex of */T/ which went > /h/ here
and > [D] > /z/ there I'd guess -- alas I'm forgetting things
at an alarming rate...)

Anyhow if all of /h x G S Z/ exist and they want 'French'
defaults then why on earth not use _h kh gh ch j_.  After
all _kh_ is the usual Frenchy, as Englishy, transcription
for /x/X/.

(On the freak side I once saw _rh_ used for /G/ in a French
context in an old book.  Happily that practice never caught
on/died out, though *if* I were using a lot of _-h_ digraphs
(but, as you may remember, I actually dislike 'em!) I might use
_rh_ for /R/ vs. something /r/-ish.)