Print

Print


On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:59:44 -0800, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> In my normal Romanization of Tirelat
>> (and other recent languages), I tend to use diacritics so
>> that each phoneme of the language is represented by a single
>> letter. E.g. [...]
>> 
>> But recently I've been working on a map of the world, with
>> lots of tentative names for places where I don't even know
>> what languages are spoken. I decided to use a consistent
>> spelling for all place names, rather than trying to figure
>> out the phonology for all the languages ahead of time. E.g.,
>> there's a name "Lanyamets", but I don't have a clue whether
>> "ny" represents two phonemes /nj/ or a single phoneme /ɲ/
>> in whatever language is spoken there, or whether "ts" is
>> considered as one or two phonemes.
>
>You don't necessarily need to know, either. Just keep in the back of your
>mind who the cartographer is: if it's the semi-omniscient you, then you
>will at least have a clue that the NY is something to consider when it
>comes to making the language that goes with that country. If the map was
>drawn from the perspective of a Tirelatian cartographer, then I'd suggest
>that the names will be in good Tirelat orthography, but perhaps mangled
>with respect to their native names, e.g., Bangkok v. Krung Thep.

Ah, this was going to be my question exactly, too!  There seems to be a lot of linguistic uniformity among the names on your map.  I was wondering if it was because they'd all been Tirelatized, but Tirelat doesn't seem to have e.g. any ‹ö› or ‹ü›.  But e.g. there are (by Earthly standards) quite a lot of voiced fricatives; there's scarcely any indication of tone (have you just dropped it?); ...

Alex