This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
phonology_and_orthography [2018/08/25 22:38] ob [Discussion] deleted my own section |
phonology_and_orthography [2019/04/20 10:27] ob [Vowels] Hybrid of variants 0b and 1b |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
* unused letter, e.g. **c** like in Lojban or **x** like in Catalan and Portuguese? | * unused letter, e.g. **c** like in Lojban or **x** like in Catalan and Portuguese? | ||
* diacritic symbol on another letter, e.g. **ŝ** like in Esperanto? | * diacritic symbol on another letter, e.g. **ŝ** like in Esperanto? | ||
- | * **sc**, | + | * **sc**, |
* **sj**? (would have the mildly adverse effect of blurring the distinction between [ʃ] and [sj]). | * **sj**? (would have the mildly adverse effect of blurring the distinction between [ʃ] and [sj]). | ||
* [x ~ χ] ([ç] as well???)? | * [x ~ χ] ([ç] as well???)? | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
A controversial subject is the question about long and short vowels: | A controversial subject is the question about long and short vowels: | ||
+ | * Remark: The vowel E has three values, i.e. long, short, and schwa. It must be decided whether - and how - the short value and the schwa are to be distinguished. | ||
== Variant 0a: No distinction == | == Variant 0a: No distinction == | ||
Line 126: | Line 127: | ||
* not common in Germanic languages | * not common in Germanic languages | ||
* not easy to write (especially in case of symbols that already have a diacritic ornament like å and ü (if existent in the alphabet)) | * not easy to write (especially in case of symbols that already have a diacritic ornament like å and ü (if existent in the alphabet)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Hybrid of variants 0b and 1b: Optional indication and no minimal pairs == | ||
+ | * like variant 1b in that an accent is used to denote long vowels (e.g. acute) but the lexicon is designed so there are no (or only a few) minimal pairs for the short-long distinction. | ||
+ | * This means that if you don't put the accents on, there is no (or only a tiny amount of) ambiguity. This is just like variant 0b. If you can't (or are too lazy) to put the accents on, it's okay. Dictionaries would always include the accents. | ||
+ | * advantages and disadvantages associated with 0b and 1b, including reduced ambiguity (adv.) but reduced lexicon size (disadv.) | ||
== Variant 2: Implicitly on consonant doubling/ | == Variant 2: Implicitly on consonant doubling/ | ||
Line 236: | Line 242: | ||
* [w] is not included | * [w] is not included | ||
* [x]/[χ] is not included | * [x]/[χ] is not included | ||
- | * **C/c** for [ʃ] — whether this one is used in normal words will be decided later | + | * **C/c** for [ʃ] — whether this one is used in normal words will be decided later. [[User_Ob]] says: I believe it was me who proposed this, but maybe it's too weird/ |
* it is allowed to pronounce the letters a little different, for example **v** as [ʋ] or **s** as [z], where the sounds from above are the default | * it is allowed to pronounce the letters a little different, for example **v** as [ʋ] or **s** as [z], where the sounds from above are the default | ||
If you've got strong arguments against any of these decisions, feel free to add them here or visit the IRC-channel! | If you've got strong arguments against any of these decisions, feel free to add them here or visit the IRC-channel! | ||