Should Romanisations be "Necessary"?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3512
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Should Romanisations be "Necessary"?

Post by elemtilas » 11 May 2019 14:50

Vlürch wrote:
11 May 2019 06:01
A romanisation without IPA is still going to risk leaving the language unreadable; Esperanto uses <ĝ> for /d͡ʒ/ but it could just as well be used for /ɣ/ or whatever. Just because you can read a certain script as used for one language (or a dozen) doesn't mean you can read it as used for some other language. I mean, would anyone look at a word like ýaıym and immediately read it as /wɑjɯm/ except Nazarb- look at a word like xixëllonjë and immediately read it as /dzidzəˈɫɔɲə/ except Albanians?
..raises hand tentatively.. wayum! That'll have to be worded somewhere...

tshitshelonye ... maybe that one too!

Who's Nazarb?
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 193
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Should Romanisations be "Necessary"?

Post by WeepingElf » 11 May 2019 16:21

@Shemtov: There are good reasons not to use IPA for (conlangs that represent) reconstructed proto-languages - usually, the phonetic values of the phonemes in such languages are not known well (see, for instance, the ongoing discussion of the PIE laryngeals), so any IPA rendition would be overspecific.

@Vlürch: Oh, there is a point to conscript, as much as there is to conlangs! Literate people in a conworld are not really likely to use real-world scripts like Latin or Cyrillic, unless your conworld is an alternative history (such as Ill Bethisad), or a version of the real world with some languages added (as with mine). And even in the latter case it may be legitimate to assume that they have their own script.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3049
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: Should Romanisations be "Necessary"?

Post by Shemtov » 12 May 2019 03:39

WeepingElf wrote:
11 May 2019 16:21
@Shemtov: There are good reasons not to use IPA for (conlangs that represent) reconstructed proto-languages - usually, the phonetic values of the phonemes in such languages are not known well (see, for instance, the ongoing discussion of the PIE laryngeals), so any IPA rendition would be overspecific.

My thoughts are that I'm the conlanger, and so I "know" what the proto-languages phonetic values were.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 253
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Should Romanisations be "Necessary"?

Post by Vlürch » 12 May 2019 13:38

elemtilas wrote:
11 May 2019 14:50
..raises hand tentatively.. wayum! That'll have to be worded somewhere...

tshitshelonye ... maybe that one too!
What do you mean by "worded"?
elemtilas wrote:
11 May 2019 14:50
Who's Nazarb?
Nazarbayev, the former president of Kazakhstan who resigned immediately after pushing through a switch to the Latin alphabet. The (unfunny) joke was just that it was about to turn into a rant about how impractical and ugly the new orthograhpy is. :roll:
WeepingElf wrote:
11 May 2019 16:21
Oh, there is a point to conscript, as much as there is to conlangs! Literate people in a conworld are not really likely to use real-world scripts like Latin or Cyrillic, unless your conworld is an alternative history (such as Ill Bethisad), or a version of the real world with some languages added (as with mine). And even in the latter case it may be legitimate to assume that they have their own script.
True, and I get why others would do it, but I personally find it way too much work to come up with all the glyphs especially since I no longer have any software to make a font out of it (and truly free ones don't exist AFAIK, except one that only worked on XP), and because I want to be able to type everything, I have zero motivation to even try to make a conscript anymore.

Adding to that that I can't get serious about conworlding/conculturing, or at least nowhere near as much as I can about conlanging, it seems kinda pointless to force it just because other people might think the result is better or whatever. If the conlang is used in a book or short story or whatever, there's always the option to just describe what the language's script looks like if it's necessary or not describe it at all but mention that a different script is used while using a romanisation in the actual story... isn't that what even Tolkien did? I don't recall conscripts being used in the books, although it has been a decade since I read them (and have no idea where they ended up when my dad moved so I can't check), so maybe I just don't remember (or maybe they were used originally but not in the Finnish versions (although I don't remember much conlangy stuff in them at all tbh, so maybe my memory just sucks)).

Anyway, at least I've always assumed it to be the standard assumption that the languages set in completely different universes "actually" use different scripts even if they're written using Latin/Cyrillic/katakana/whatever in the work itself. It just seems like a logical assumption, especially assuming the main characters don't actually speak English/Russian/Japanese/whatever even though that's what the book/short story/whatever is written in. It's just more convenient to use real scripts.

...or maybe I'm just a lazy conlanger and justifying my laziness with the existence of other lazy conlangers. [:P]
Shemtov wrote:
12 May 2019 03:39
My thoughts are that I'm the conlanger, and so I "know" what the proto-languages phonetic values were.
Yeah, same, although I tend to not really bother with full-fledged proto-languages. I mean, for the conlang I'm currently working on, in the notes I've written stuff like "Historically, there may have been phonemic /æ/. Conically, this assumption is based on speculation owing to the occurrence of <э> after consonants in a number of words; although it was already pronounced identically to /e/ before Cyrillisation, the old orthography had such a distinction and the committee that devised the Cyrillic orthography chose to retain it" when in reality it's just a justification for having less homographs. [xD]

Post Reply