cmloegcmluin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:32 am
Ah ha! So that's what the hexadecimal character code was about.
No. That tells what character the glyph was mapped to — what is called the "code point" in these days of Unicode. The extended ASCII characters I'm referring to, can be seen in the "Mixed short ASCII representation" column of http://sagittal.org/Sagittal2_character_map.pdf
Well, I've gone over this thread and I have to say I'm a big fan of Sagispeak. The only thing I might like to change is the use of "k" as opposed to "c".
Generally I prefer "k" because its less ambiguous, always making the /k/ sound, whereas "c" makes /k/ ("fact"), /s/ ("face"), /ʃ/ ("special"), or /tʃ/ ("fettuccine").
Yes. That's one reason why we didn't use "c".
However, since in Sagispeak the consonants always appear before an "a", and in these contexts "c" always makes /k/, it's not an issue.
An interesting point. I wasn't aware of that rule. I agree it checks out. Does it apply in languages other than English, that use the Latin alphabet?
However, another reason we didn't use "c" is that "c" doesn't look anything like
while "k" does.
And when its corresponding flag is doubled (
) and we do the effect where the doubled letter is replaced with the letter and an "h" ("cc" -> "ch") the better choice is "c", because "ch" is a productive and distinct formation in more languages than "kh" is.
Which is why we allow "ch" as an alternative spelling, with a corresponding alternative pronunciation as /tʃ/. And there is some resemblance between "c" and
(if you ignore the shaft).
So in my notes I've retained "k" and "kh" as options, pronouncing "kh" as /x/ as in the German pronunciation of "Bach", but I prefer using "c" and "ch", pronouncing "ch" as /tʃ/. My plan is to soon prepare tooling and educational materials for Sagittal using these notes, so please let me know if you have opposing opinions.
Those two spelling options and pronunciation options are exactly what we suggest for
. Note that both kh and ch can be pronounced /x/, but only ch can be pronounced /tʃ/. It should not be spelled "ch" in French as this would be pronounced /ʃ/ which would conflict with sh for
. There was a suggestion to deal with that, in a previous post in this topic, namely spelling it as "tch" in French. I've now added that to the table.
But I don't want "c" as an option for
, for the reasons given above.
Oh yeah, I did have another thing — I noticed that
may be spelled either "sr" or "sl" however
is only given one spelling option of "r". I assumed that was an oversight since there's no conflict in offering "l" as a spelling for
The "sl" spelling was allowed for
because there is no consonant blend "sr". At least not in English. https://kiddymath.com/worksheets/sr-blend
we have the problem of "l" not looking like the downward symbol
(you have to imagine the "r" rotated 180°), and we want a definite character for its short-ASCII, which is "r". However I have now added the text: "(may be pronounced ℓ)". Thanks for that.
Oh wait, actually there was one more thing. On the New Olympian diacritics forum thread
the Olympian diacritics are moved from the right side of the symbol to the left. I don't see this explicitly acknowledged there, but I assume that analogously they become prefixes now instead of suffixes? I see that
is spelled "mi-ai" so it seems like this is indeed the case (by the way, are the hyphens necessary? I might prefer miao myself, and I don't see that introducing any ambiguity).
I don't see the hyphen as necessary. This move from suffix to prefix was not discussed with George. It creates a possible problem when a mina diacritic is followed by a schisma diacritic, which gives mii mio, moi, moo, which may lead to the schisma diacritic not being clearly articulated. Any suggestions? Magrathean diacritics might also be considered.
I'm eager to hear opposing opinions, really. The only thing I was slightly disappointed about on this thread was that most of the talk was about the shorthand characters, and not the pronunciation (I didn't see anyone debating the "k" vs. "c" choice already). Maybe I'm a bit of a pronunciation geek and I was hoping for more entertainment!
Ha! Sorry. It's a shame you weren't around when we were designing it. We might have got there a lot quicker.