Print

Print


I personally prefer a more phonemic approach, because it makes it easier
for me to see words with the same root, and it's assumed that the speakers
of this language will know the alternation rules anyway and will usually be
able to deduce/remember them given the phonemic word.

On 31 May 2016 at 22:49, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I am working on a new conlang. The culture was pre-literate, but during
> encounters with "developed" world folk, they adopted the Roman alphabet,
> with some diacritics, for their language. There is a lot of assimilation in
> the conlang: vowel harmony, consonant (de)voicing, gemination. The nouns
> take case and honorifics, and the inflections can cause
> such assimilation in the word. I am wondering whether to: (1) write
> everything phonetically as it is pronounced; or (2) write it without the
> assimilation because that makes the stems clearer. I do not really care
> what would occur in real life as much as I want to make it easy for other
> conlangers to use the language, either in spoken form or in translation
> (such as relays). What are the crowd's opinions?  --Jeffrey
>