Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Nov 22, 2017 4:50:15 GMT -6
We can perhaps start by clarifying: does the current CÚG orthography authorise the use of the breve to mark final -a in feminine noun/adjectives? It does! That was part of the 2012 Arestada (which is not yet on the CÚG web site due to my own delinquency). The Arestada noted that the breve may be omitted, or a circumflex used in its place, when its use is inconvenient or impractical. I used the breve in the Prüms Päçen handout in accordance with A2012. Two thousand and TWELVE Good heavens - I thought I was slow round here...
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Nov 22, 2017 5:18:39 GMT -6
The English language has a standard spelling - just look at all those USA and British and Australian dictionaries which agree.... oh, they don't. And they don't even agree on the semantics. Or the idioms, Or the pronunciation. Or the punctuation. And yet, we still understand each other.
Dialects exist - that's an inevitable truth about language. Idiolects exist - that's an inevitable truth about humankind. Even in France they can't avoid that. So let us here, in Talossa, welcome those differences, and not reject them in fury. We can have (yes, let's - it's great fun!) a central body which prescribes an official spelling and pronunciation, like they do in France... ...and we can in everyday life ignore their edicts - just like they do in France - and elsewhere, for that matter.
My suggestion (FWIW) is that each individual should spell as they wish, and pronounce as they wish - and, over time, spelling and pronunciation will "coagulate" into mutually comprehensible clusters. Use the old form(s) or the new form(s) or any mixture of them, or any of your new inventions - and if you are not understood, then you will (perhaps grudgingly) give in to the vox populi.
And let's go on discussing it here (and elsewhere), with tongue in cheek, and without fury and without personal recrimination. We can try and unify and make edicts - but if the people as a whole don't accept any particular central decision, then that decision effectively didn't happen.
Regularity? Ha! Language is just not like that!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 22, 2017 7:13:43 GMT -6
It does! That was part of the 2012 Arestada (which is not yet on the CÚG web site due to my own delinquency). The Arestada noted that the breve may be omitted, or a circumflex used in its place, when its use is inconvenient or impractical. I used the breve in the Prüms Päçen handout in accordance with A2012. Two thousand and TWELVE Good heavens - I thought I was slow round here...Also: that was a siiiiick burn...
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Nov 22, 2017 16:41:15 GMT -6
Oh good. So what else bugs me about post-2007 orthography? - the endings of infinitives; - the loss of ë and î - the loss of -ească as the feminine of -esc and -escù I can learn to live with the first two but I would like to fight a rearguard action for the latter. Like Epic said, A2007 didn't touch -easca. As of SG, -eascâ was the feminine equivalent of -esc, and -escù did not inflect for gender. A2007 did change the gender inflection of -éu words, however--they go to -éa instead of just -a (which prevents stress from shifting in the feminine). Regarding the infinitive ending, from time to time I've floated the idea that the pronunciation of r in the infinitive ending may actually be regular, and thus would not need to be marked in writing. Regarding vowels î and ë, I mounted a pretty vigorous defense of î back in 2007 and would be open to resurrecting it (subject to concerns about how to mark stress as mentioned previously), but there are some pretty strong feelings on both sides of that question. I'm less convinced that the abolition of ë was a mistake, because I'm not sure Ben had quite thought things through in how he used and described the various forms of e. Can I also ask whether "så" has just become "sa", and if so, can we accent it, like "sá"? Talossan's cousin language, French, often puts stress marks on monosyllables to distinguish homophones. A2007 did contemplate disambiguating monosyllabic homophones with stressmarks, as in some other Romance languages. Its guidance about how to do so was vague, however. Hool made some judgment calls regarding which words got stressmarks in l'Översteir, but I think a new Arestada (or Pienamaintsch) to clear things up may be in order. In l'Ö, "så" became "sa" while "sâ" (the old conditional marker) became "sà". The reflexive pronoun "se" stayed as-is while the possessive marker "së" became "sè". Pre-2007 disambiguation-via-stressmarking was retained on "a" (3rd person singular feminine subject pronoun) and "à". For the most part he retained stressmarks on the monosyllables that had them historically where they would be useful for disambiguation. I've thought about whether this disambiguation could be regularised based on considerations like prosodic stress, along the lines of monosílabos tónicos y átonos in Spanish, but that may not be feasible without departing too much from historical practice.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Nov 22, 2017 16:47:10 GMT -6
Two thousand and TWELVE Good heavens - I thought I was slow round here... Well, you are now part of the storied tradition of the UC failing to issue a decision in this case.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 22, 2017 18:54:59 GMT -6
Regarding the infinitive ending, from time to time I've floated the idea that the pronunciation of r in the infinitive ending may actually be regular, and thus would not need to be marked in writing. Regarding vowels î and ë, I mounted a pretty vigorous defense of î back in 2007 and would be open to resurrecting it (subject to concerns about how to mark stress as mentioned previously), but there are some pretty strong feelings on both sides of that question. I'm less convinced that the abolition of ë was a mistake, because I'm not sure Ben had quite thought things through in how he used and described the various forms of e. ... A2007 did contemplate disambiguating monosyllabic homophones with stressmarks, as in some other Romance languages. Its guidance about how to do so was vague, however. Hool made some judgment calls regarding which words got stressmarks in l'Översteir, but I think a new Arestada (or Pienamaintsch) to clear things up may be in order. In l'Ö, "så" became "sa" while "sâ" (the old conditional marker) became "sà". The reflexive pronoun "se" stayed as-is while the possessive marker "së" became "sè". Pre-2007 disambiguation-via-stressmarking was retained on "a" (3rd person singular feminine subject pronoun) and "à". For the most part he retained stressmarks on the monosyllables that had them historically where they would be useful for disambiguation. I've thought about whether this disambiguation could be regularised based on considerations like prosodic stress, along the lines of monosílabos tónicos y átonos in Spanish, but that may not be feasible without departing too much from historical practice. Then, could a possible consensus/Reunision Arestada be written up: 1) restoring the spelling of the infinitive to -r from -rh; 2) restoring î in some form (maybe spelling it with Turkish dotless i, who knows); 3) disambiguating monosyllabic homophones with stressmarks? If all those could be done, I would consider the matter settled (although dunno what Tomás G. would think). What do the SIGN crew think?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 22, 2017 19:13:49 GMT -6
Regarding the infinitive ending, from time to time I've floated the idea that the pronunciation of r in the infinitive ending may actually be regular, and thus would not need to be marked in writing. Regarding vowels î and ë, I mounted a pretty vigorous defense of î back in 2007 and would be open to resurrecting it (subject to concerns about how to mark stress as mentioned previously), but there are some pretty strong feelings on both sides of that question. I'm less convinced that the abolition of ë was a mistake, because I'm not sure Ben had quite thought things through in how he used and described the various forms of e. ... A2007 did contemplate disambiguating monosyllabic homophones with stressmarks, as in some other Romance languages. Its guidance about how to do so was vague, however. Hool made some judgment calls regarding which words got stressmarks in l'Översteir, but I think a new Arestada (or Pienamaintsch) to clear things up may be in order. In l'Ö, "så" became "sa" while "sâ" (the old conditional marker) became "sà". The reflexive pronoun "se" stayed as-is while the possessive marker "së" became "sè". Pre-2007 disambiguation-via-stressmarking was retained on "a" (3rd person singular feminine subject pronoun) and "à". For the most part he retained stressmarks on the monosyllables that had them historically where they would be useful for disambiguation. I've thought about whether this disambiguation could be regularised based on considerations like prosodic stress, along the lines of monosílabos tónicos y átonos in Spanish, but that may not be feasible without departing too much from historical practice. Then, could a possible consensus/Reunision Arestada be written up: 1) restoring the spelling of the infinitive to -r from -rh; 2) restoring î in some form (maybe spelling it with Turkish dotless i, who knows); 3) disambiguating monosyllabic homophones with stressmarks? If all those could be done, I would consider the matter settled (although dunno what Tomás G. would think). What do the SIGN crew think? İ think Marcel’s and my position are clear on the alphabet: we want î, and we want å; as distinct and distinguishable graphemes and phonemes, but no matter which exact graphemes. I am… askance about “restoring” the pronunciation of infinitives to /r/. I quite like the fricative infinitive.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 22, 2017 20:03:39 GMT -6
I am… askance about “restoring” the pronunciation of infinitives to /r/. I quite like the fricative infinitive. No-one's suggesting that. We're just suggesting returning to the older authography. In any case, this wasn't supposed to be about random Talossan speakers putting their hands up and saying "I want such-and-such a change in the orthography". This was supposed to be creating a consensus between CÚG, SIGN and pre-2007 Talossan speakers on the orthography. I would like to see SIGN come to a consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Nov 23, 2017 2:35:51 GMT -6
Offtopic: I recently found a thread "Cyrillic Talossan (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/4453)" where there was an attempt made to cyrrilize Talossan language. It's a brave attempt but I, as a Russian, see it could be done better and more precise. I'll get to that sometime this week and propose my own cyrillic script for Talossan.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 23, 2017 3:52:36 GMT -6
I am… askance about “restoring” the pronunciation of infinitives to /r/. I quite like the fricative infinitive. No-one's suggesting that. We're just suggesting returning to the older authography. In any case, this wasn't supposed to be about random Talossan speakers putting their hands up and saying "I want such-and-such a change in the orthography". This was supposed to be creating a consensus between CÚG, SIGN and pre-2007 Talossan speakers on the orthography. I would like to see SIGN come to a consensus. Speakers of Talossan are a small-enough group to allow for an extra-organisational discussion. After all, if there are those who disagree with your suggestions, they will continue using their own orthographies. And your objective will be nullified.
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Nov 23, 2017 5:54:22 GMT -6
Offtopic: I recently found a thread "Cyrillic Talossan (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/4453)" where there was an attempt made to cyrrilize Talossan language. It's a brave attempt but I, as a Russian, see it could be done better and more precise. I'll get to that sometime this week and propose my own cyrillic script for Talossan. Oh, haven't you seen *my* cyrillisation of Talossan? Кликец айчи
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Nov 23, 2017 7:20:56 GMT -6
ooh I didn't know about this! Hey, I'll review it and (if you are interested of course) we could collaborate to improve it. Out of the box, why ӯ for ü? ü is 100% just 'ю'/
EDIT: ooh, I see, I would do vowels absolutely differently I think I would take time to propose my own way to do this. My approach would be to minimize diacritics and only use them when absolutely needed.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 23, 2017 8:23:45 GMT -6
ooh I didn't know about this! Hey, I'll review it and (if you are interested of course) we could collaborate to improve it. Out of the box, why ӯ for ü? ü is 100% just 'ю'/ EDIT: ooh, I see, I would do vowels absolutely differently I think I would take time to propose my own way to do this. My approach would be to minimize diacritics and only use them when absolutely needed. Why would Russian /ju/ be Talossan /y/? Every language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet and has /y/ as a phoneme uses some sort of letter that has nothing to with Ю,ю.
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Nov 23, 2017 9:06:16 GMT -6
We already have a fricative infinitive.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Nov 23, 2017 9:09:31 GMT -6
Ю is only [ju] in initial position. In other positions it's pronounciation is similar to [ü]. For example, Nürburgring is Нюрбургринг. No special letters needed for that. Similarily, ä is я, ö is ё.
|
|