Print

Print


On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:27:42 -0500, Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I see most of the lovely tildes did not come through. Any suggestions on an
>alternative orthography for the copious nasal vowels? 

Yeah, I'd leave it alone if I were you.  If the neolithic technology level
of the list is your only reason to change the orthography, 'ts not a great
reason.  

>I can't use /m/ or /n/
>without ambiguity, and I can't use double vowels. 

What's wrong with 'm' or 'n'?  Your language appears to be CV, so the only
potential confusions would be a nasal vowel followed by an oral vowel.  For
those, my approach would just be to write the zero onset explicitly: perhaps
<ane> /ane/
<anhe> or <an'e> or <an-e> or whatever /a~e/
(and of course <anne> /a~ne/)

>Maybe /ng/ or /q/? 

'ng' is heavy -- two characters?  'q' doesn't suggest nasality to me (okay,
it bārely does, given that it seems often to be pressed into service for [N]).

>Should I end the oral vowels in /h/?

What, and leave the nasal vowels unmarked?  Certainly not!

>This is a work in progress, courtesy of the PIL (Polycosmic Institute of
>Linguistics); I was going to have to translate the Babel Text anyway, so I
>started with it. Any errors are due to PIL missionaries' inexperience. One
>interesting sociolinguistic note: the name of the LORD God (ungkutu - mihi
>placet!) cannot be put in the absolutive case, since that would imply he
>could be acted upon.

Or act in a way that doesn't affect another thing (e.g. be subject of an
intransitive)?  Or have a property?  Or be somewhere?  Or ...   

Alex