[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote: > > Mark G skrev: > > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@> wrote: > > >> The question how you should write /6\/ (open front rounded) > >> depends quite a bit on two factors, namely how you write > >> /9/ (half-open front rounded) and [2] (half-closed front > >> rounded) and your position wrt digraphs/polygraphs vs. > >> diacritics generally and how you use them. > >> > > > > Part of the issue with the way I write /6\/ and /2/ is that they don't > > actually appear as phonemes in this language > > But [9] and [2] do? It would be nice to have > a look at your whole phoneme and allophone > inventory! > This is something I actually intend to post up here eventually (along with other components of my GMP), but as yet, I'm actually reviewing my phoneme inventory and considering reworking it. If it's not already apparent, I'm still a fairly new conlanger (having not actually completed it yet), and rather lacking the resources and knowledge to work out my romlang just as I want it yet, I suppose, so I got way too excited to do the stupid things every rookie does and throw in things that are both useless and not very aesthetically pleasing, ultimately. You can probably guess that I was considering a Germanic-esque vowel schematic, but I wanted a very Eastern Romance feel, and the orthography was, a result of these two factors, out-of-control ugly. > > (although /Q/ does, I > > should add, and tentatively it is written �). > > Surely you mean å and not ä? > The new Walloon spelling uses å in words where some > dialects have /a/ and others /o/. > Hahaha, assuming that's a-ring, I considered that one, too. I actually got to a point (and this has doubtless been part of the problem) where I took on so many more vowels than VL that I considered introducing <y> as a new vowel (i.e., not another <i>) and <w> as a vowel as well! You can begin to understand what I mean by an ugly orthography! > > I'm certainly not closed > > to digraphs or diacritics, though. > > > >> If you use <oe> for /9/ then perhaps you can use > >> <eo> for /&\/. If this clashes with a diphthong > >> you may perhaps use <ëo> for the diphthong or a > >> sequence of two vowels which are not a diphthong. > >> > > I had played with <eo>, <ao>, and <oa>, and I haven't ruled out the > > possibility of any of them-- while I mentioned not loving the idea of > > making people distinguish between digraphs and diphthongs, > > I know the feeling! I'm usually all for diacritics, > but sometimes althistorical realism demands digraphs... > Too true, too true, and honestly, I rather like <oa> as a digraph... likely I could also introduce <oau> as a trigraph that's near <oa>, which I also find rather attractive... I can't altogether say why, though... :-P Many thanks again! Likely I'll report back when I have a less scattered blueprint prepared! Meantime, some of you will probably see me bouncing around on the other conlang boards, as I've already prepared a totally non-IE project to keep me occupied whilst I work on improving my knowledge of the Romance languages! :-P "Estad bien, estad sanos, estad felices."