[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> Preferable in the interest of symmetry and consistency. If there's a single > symbol for /tS/ then there should also be one for /dZ/, and there isn't > enough alphabet for it. And, as I said above, there are several other such > combinations that would seem to deserve their own symbols, too. Yes, but then you're leaving the door open for the use of any combination of oclusive+sibilant (ts, tx, dz, dj, ps, bz, ks, gz, kx, gj...), because if you allow for tx, why not allowing also for ts (necessary for slavic roots), ps and ks (greek), kx and gj (sanskrit), etc...? > I wasn't clear. In 'ctcin,' the first c makes the t into a th sound, the > second t makes the i into a short i. I intend this not to be an actual part > of Txeqli, just as in English we represent German umlauts by following them > with 'e.' I'd expect the c option to really almost only be used for foreign > names. To germanpe kyam ta gcorciq. The German's name is Goering. I would prefer to see Goering written just as Goering, if not "Göring". I wouldn't like at all being forced to change the orthography of my own name --so that I'd have to "rename" myself as something like "chabyer bacryo fernandect"...argh!!!--. I think proper names should be allowed to keep their native orthography or official roman transliteration, because everybody already knows who "Michael Jackson" and "William Shakespeare" are, but just imagine if they found them written as "maykl djäksn" and "wìlyëm shäkspiër", would anybody recognize them that way? > And you're right when you suggest that there may not be a need for this. > It's just a matter of deciding something useful for C to do. And of course > the values of c+whatever would be arbitrary. You'd want to pick the volues > most likely to be needed. Yes, but the value [T] would have no use at all for the Chinese, who would find it much more useful to have a way of writing the retroflex t and thus show the difference between the pairs j/zh and q/ch. It would be impossible to decide which additional values would be "most likely to be needed" if we consider it at a global scale. Best regards, Javier