[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
----- Original Message ----- From: Isaac Penzev To: <conlang@hidden.email> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Is that Ladino? > Shaul Vardi wrote: > > <<< Thanks for the corrections and explanations! >>> > > You are welcome. They were necessary because the language is not a > spontaneous mix of Spanish and Arabic, but a conhisoricly grown naturalistic > system, a result of numerous diachronic developmants. > > <<< The relationship between the > Arabic and Latin script versions is interesting. >>> > > Speaking correctly, there is no Latin version. Yesterday night I revised > totally my previous version of Romanization, coming to something more e-mail > friendly. Now it is fully compatible with Latin-3 encoding (I hope), using > only additional Esperanto and Maltese characters. If I have more time, I'll > post a message with Ajami alphabet and LTS (Latin Translit Scheme). But I > need to emphasize, that LTS is ***completely unofficial***, and exists only > in our timeline just for convenience of reading - not many people can read > Arabic even if they are linguists ;) It is neither transliteration not > precise transcription, but rather a mnemonic tool. > > <<< For example سلام and تود > for salamo and todo - would you pronounce the words the same way reading > both scripts? >>> > > [s6"lamo], ["tODo] in standard dialect, if being precise. Western dialect > would say [s@"lamU], ["tOdU]. Both Arabic spelling and LTS are to certain > extent interdialectal. > > <<< I can see leaving سلام like that since it's an Arabic word, > but why تود and not تودو ? >>> > > Because the first /o/ is stressed, and the second is not. Spelling is > designed so that it could make stress more predictable. It also reflects the > fact that Arabic /i/ and /u/ > Ajami /e/ and /o/ when unstressed, but > remained /i/ and /u/ when stressed. This pattern is used in spelling Romance > words too. > > <<< It's also interesting that you write ke rather than que - my guess is > because you want to leave "q" for transliterating Arabic ق (right?) Actually > that does make it look a bit Ladino-like - I recall that Latin alphabet > renditions of Ladino (or some of them, anyway) also use k. >>> > > Right. I need |q| because it behaves differently than |k|, though sometimes > it is realised as [k], indeed. > > <<< Anyway I look forward to seeing more Ajami. >>> > > To be continued... > > Ĥeyro a-ti, > -- Yitzik > (NB: spelt with capital Y - that's my trademark!)