Even among languages that have /ŋ/, some very important ones like English and (Mandarin) Chinese don't allow it in the onset of a syllable.
I mean, isn't that already ?
* as alternatives to other sounds
† all the tina diacritics
I mean, isn't that already ?
Thanks for that. In that case, I don't feel too bad about using /ŋ/, except for the fact that Stoic is meant to be an alternative to Athenian (which subsumes Spartan) and so it should have common easy-for-everyone phonemes. But we have "ph" = "f" in Spartan, and I note that's not on your list of consonants more common than /ŋ/. We do however allow that "ph" can be pronounced /pə h/ in languages that don't have /f/.
We want to be as international as is reasonable. Whatever that means.Of note is that Sagispeak uses /w/ as an alternative to a consonant pair (one that includes /t/ at that) and /j/ as an... alternative to some very uncommon sounds like /ʒ/. I'm not exactly sure what our goals for internationality are, so I can't exactly judge this any further.
Good point. The /nə g/ option should solve that. But some might prefer /ɪŋ/, /ɪŋg/, /ɐŋ/ or /ɐŋg/at the start of a word. We could allow some or all of those too.Even among languages that have /ŋ/, some very important ones like English and (Mandarin) Chinese don't allow it in the onset of a syllable.
Yes.I mean, isn't plus already ?
Athenian Stoic ------------------------------------------------------- |( nai |( nai [existing] )|( ranai |(( ? ~|( sanai |((( ? /| pai /| pai [existing] |) tai /|( panai [unproblematic] |\ (| kai and jai /|(( ? (|( janai /|((( ? //| phai //| phai [existing] /|) pajai or gai //|( phanai [unproblematic] /|\ pakai or vai //|(( ? (|) jatai or wai //|((( ? (|\ jakai or dai ///| ?
I've been following the recent surge in activity on the forum with interest but am busy with other things at the moment. I have starred everything and plan to respond eventually!
almost all use only open syllables CV, if we construe e.g. pangai as pa + ngai, rather than as pang + ai.|( nai [existing] |(( ngai |((( ngnai /| pai [existing] /|( panai /|(( pangai /|((( pangnai //| phai [existing] //|( phanai //|(( phangai //|((( phangnai ///| phpai
And that is what we have done. We have definitely favoured constant spelling over constant pronunciation. The canonical spelling has very simple and consistent rules for deriving it from the flags making up the symbols.Dave Keenan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:20 pm We are hoping to have fixed spelling across all languages that use latin/roman characters, and in order to do so we are happy to allow different pronunciations, with "j" being probably the widest. It has at least four different pronunciations, e.g. english /dʒ/, french /ʒ/, german /j/ (english "y") and spanish /h/. That then means we can't use any other letter that has the same pronunciation, in any language, as any of those.
In reality I think we will have to allow a limited number of pronunciations for each letter, and then recommend alternative spellings for some languages.
That's a good point about the German "pf". Also in "pfennig", the German penny, now slang for a Euro cent.cmloegmcluin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:47 am In the case of triple-p, I think it should be acceptable to collapse either the first two p's or the second two p's, i.e. I think either php or pph (fp or pf) should be allowed. It seems so far on this thread we've only looked at the first of these two options. That's unsurprising because as English speakers it is more natural for us to put fricative consonants like /f/ or /s/ before plosives like /p/. But it's not always the case. For example, in German, the word for arrow is Pfeil, where the plosive comes first.
OK. We're agreed on that.As for the double- and triple-n, I agree that we should reserve the use of the vowel a for representing the shaft, and that spellings of ngai and ngnai (or nngai, per the above) are the way to go, while allowing for any arbitrary insertions of schwas (/əŋ gaɪ'/, /nə gaɪ'/, etc.) to make it work pronunciation-wise.
That was a good thought. But I think the danger of a silent "m" in "mn", like the danger of a silent "p" in "pf", and the lack of any serious problem with "ngn", means that we should not use "m" here.My only alternative suggestion here is to consider a visual solution: that two n's could collapse to an m. We already use m for minas, but there it always pairs directly with an i or an o, like mi or mo. Here we would have mai and mnai. In English, the cluster "mn" is usually pronounced just as /n/, as in mnemonic, but in the original Greek they pronounce both the m and the n, so we could allow for that too. I'm not saying this suggestion is better than the ng approach. It's all I've got though.
Not that I'm aware of. Thanks for that.Did I miss anything?
Yes, I was suggesting that.
Interesting point. Probably not.So far we've allowed alternative pronunciations to reduce the number of spellings, and we've allowed alternative spellings to reduce the number of pronunciations. But allowing both pf and fp proliferates both spellings and pronunciations.
Is the fact that Germans find "pfai" easier than "fpai", a good enough reason to do that?
Also a good point. So that's a risk we shouldn't take. So we shouldn't use pf/pph in general.....if you listen to anyone other than a German pronounce "pfennig", the "p" just gets dropped.
Compare the German and Spanish males here: https://forvo.com/word/pfennig/
In which case "pfai" would be indistinguishable from "fai" .
Whereas fpai seems likely to always be pronounced fəpai and so remain distinct from from fai.
Right. I don't know German well enough to say whether or not /fp/ as an initial consonant cluster is productive for German speakers. Even if not, it's not for English speakers, so Germans could use an intervening schwa to make it work, as we do. So let's not use pf/pph at all.Do we allow the "pf" spelling and pronunciation only for Germans? We require "tch" in place of "ch" only in French. But that doesn't change the pronunciation. It preserves it.
Agreed with that too, so never mind about the nn → m idea....I think the danger of a silent "m" in "mn", like the danger of a silent "p" in "pf", and the lack of any serious problem with /ngn/, means that we should not use "m" here.