[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John Cowan wrote:
There is no /N/ in Latin; [N] occurs as the realization of /n/ before /g/ and /k/ (written ng, nc), and as the realization of /g/ before /n/ (written gn). So we have /san-gwIs/ here, pronounced [saN-gwIs].
I guess that more or less of answers that part of my question, though it makes me think I'm getting my distinctions between phonemic and phonetic wrong. In any case, I was considering orthographies for my "alternate xeno-Latin" and wanted to have a single character for what my speakers perceive as the sound /kw/ and a single character for what they perceive as the sound /gw/, and was thinking about a single character for what they perceive as /N/. And then I realized that I wasn't sure how I would write things that appeared in historical Latin orthography as <ngu>, and thought I should learn more about how that was pronounced.
Still, from your phonemic representation /san-gwIs/, I'm thinking this is a case where my orthography would want to employ a character for the sound perceived as /n/ followed by the character for the sound perceived as /gw/, regardless of whether an actual sound [N] gets produced -- and like as not I need no character for N.
Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/