[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In txeqli@y..., Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > I'm beginning to wish the C controversy had never come up. Well, I've > learned a lot from it. I'm just about to revert to the 'C is for Ceqli' > version for the following reasons, exclusive of the problem of what to do > with C itself. > > A great many languages, including Mandarin, English, Hindustani, German, > Russian, Japanese, have /tS/ and /S/ as separate phonemes. None of these > languages have /dZ/ and /Z/ as separate phonemes. The only languages I can > dig up that do are Esperanto and (just barely) English. So the symmetry of > tx, x, dj, j is maybe more graphic than real. For one thing, I was > considering the minimal pairs ji and dji, and I didn't want to use them at > all. didn't sound different enough. But tx and x seem just fine. Is it > just me, or is that a language universal, pretty much? It's just you. ;) 'dji' and 'ji' sound plenty different enough to me. Either assign separate glyphs to all of 'dj', 'j', 'tx', and 'x', or only to 'j' and 'x'. Similarly, assign separate glyphs to all of 'dz', 'z', 'ts', and 's', or only to 'z' and 's'. Balancing symmetry with the arguments you've made recently leads us, IMO, to separate glyphs for 'dj', 'j', 'tx', 'x', 'z' and 's', and dropping 'dz' and 'ts'. dj ==> q? j ==> j tx ==> c x ==> x z ==> z s ==> s If q must be engwa, and c must be included in the glyph set, then drop separate glyphs for 'dj' and 'tx', and let 'k' be represented by c if we want the Latin connection. Also, I strongly recommend sticking to an unaccented, undigraphed glyph set. My 1.24 cents. --Larry