Print

Print


Ah. I see what you're saying now.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On 30/07/2017 23:33, Gage Amonette wrote:
>
>> I know of no other natlang orthographies that use _c_ exclusively to
>>> denote /k/.
>>>
>> Old English uses it pretty exclusively, although it is a dead language.
>>
>> No, Old English did not use _c_ exclusively to denote _k_.  What we find
> is:
>
> 1. /k/ is normally written as _c_, but occasionally is written as _k_
> (i.e. /k/
> is normally but not exclusively witten as -c_).
>
> 2. Written _c_ is _not_ always pronounced as /k/.  It was used also to
> denote /tʃ/.
> It is true many _modern_ editors mark the latter with a superscript dot or,
> more rarely, a caron or cedilla - but those were not used in Old English
> (indeed the caron and cedilla hadn't been invented then!).
>
> I do not say that no other natlang besides Irish & Scots Gaelic and
> modern Welsh use _c_ *exclusively* to denote /k/; but I do not know of
> any.  Old English certainly is not one.
>
> Also strictly speaking Classical Latin is not one either for although,
> after _G_  had been established as a separate letter in Old Latin around
> 230 BC, the letter _C_ was then exclusively pronounced /k/, the phoneme /k/
> was also written as _K_ fairly regularly in some words; and, of course, /k/
> before /w/ was _Q_  (though some consider _QV_ a separate phonmeme /kʷ/).
>
> In the modern world _c_ is used among the world's languages to ddenote a
> very great variety of quite unrelated sounds. This has been discussed
> before so I wont attempt to list them here.
>
> Ray
>