[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote: > Isaac A. Penzev wrote: > > Yes, I'll stick provisionally to "j". It will be a good reminder of its > > origin: /Z/ < CT */j/. > > E.g. _jол_ 'road', _jер_ 'land', _jазарга_ 'to write'. Nice, isn't it? > > Seen like this it actually looks a bit dyslectic. Does Serbian look > like that to a Russian speaker too? For and average reader - yes. Serbian with j, Ukrainian with i and i. But I've seen dozens of Cyrillic-based orthographies in my life, some of them looked like the were from Mars, and nothing can make me wonder. Also, the Azerbaycani Cyrillic orthography uses letter j, introduced in 1959 spelling reform to denote sound [j], instead of using traditional "soft vowels" ё, ю, я. > It depends on how easy you want to make it for Russian-Kuman bilinguals, > especially if these are more used to writing (and even speaking) > Russian than Kuman. Yes, they all speak and write Russian (and some speak Ukrainian too - in the Ukrainian territory). So the principle must be: as close to Russian spelling habits, and mostly write what you hear. > And now it looks like Baazraamani (same lang, new name) needs > an Avestanization! Avestanization??? > Does this mean that all free-standing /dZ/s in (Ottoman) Turkish are > in loanwords too? I think so. > > This happened too be true not only in phonology. Guys, Turkic dialects are > > really weird and chaotic... > > I was surprised to learn that (Ottoman) Turkish has an unconditional > change of /t/ > /d/ in initial position! If you mean _dil_ 'tongue' etc., some specialist like Starostin and Gadzhieva have another opinion. They (independently) think that Oghuz dialects (and Ott.Turkish is clearly Oghuz) retain more archaic consonantism, having voice opposition in anlaut, where Kypchak dialects lost this distinction. If I find time, I'll give more information. -- Y.