holbuzvala wrote: ↑
05 Jun 2019 20:42
Is the thing you mark with C+w labialization, velarization, or labio-velarization?
Many Native American languages use <ł> to mark the lateral fricative. In Polish it has been a velarized lateral, nowadays its [w] though.
<rh> or <hr> is maybe the most typical way to mark a sonorant being devoiced. Few languages have them, so there is no convention.
You dont use the letter <c> at all?
<q> for /ɣ/ doesnt sound horrible to me, but somebody maybe disagrees. <g> with some line or dot above it is another choice. <gh> is also possible, but if you use <h> for devoicing, it maybe messy.
Do you have two different /ʋ̥/s? It's usually written with <v>.
1. C+w is labialisation.
2. <ł> seems like a good shout for the lateral fricative. It's neater than using an 'h' in front.
3. I like ŕ for the devoiced trill, as it's in aesthetic keeping with the rest of the accented letters.
4. I could use <c> for /t͡s/ and <ć> for /t͡ʃ/, but then what would be leftover for /dz/ and d͡ʒ? Perhaps I can use <c> for /ç/ and <ć> for /ʝ/. Hmmm....
5. I'll have to veto <q> for /ɣ/. I think I'll follow the trend and go with an accent: <ǵ>. Makes clusters like <tǵ> and <kǵ> not too horrible.
6. Only one /ʋ/ and /ʋ̥/ - I'm just undecided if I should use the <v> or the <w> for the voiced one. If I use <v>, then the corresponding voiceless will be <f>; otherwise the pair will be <w hw> or <w ẃ>.
Usually the distinction between /ʋ/ and /v/ is quite arbitrary, like that between all voiced fricatives and the corresponding approximants. Many languages have them as allophones of the same consonant. English has quite clear /v/ because it has to contrast with /w/, but many european languages have something /ʋ/ ~ /v/.
Voiceless approximants like /ʋ̥/ apparently are possible, but personally I don't see the difference from voiceless fricatives like /f/.
The natural solution for /j/ and /ʝ/ would be <y> and <j>, respectively, but if <j> is already preserved, there is a problem. One possibility is of course to use <i> in some positions as a semivowel/approximant.
I associate the acute on a consonant quite heavily with palatalization, but that's just my valuation.
<ǵ> or <ğ> could also be used for /d͡ʒ/. Esperanto uses <ĵ> for /d͡ʒ/.
Turkish uses <c> for /d͡ʒ/ and <ç> for /t͡ʃ/, but that's just odd.
/dz/ is such a rare phoneme in many languages that it is often written <dz> though there is a letter for /ts/.
If you have consonant clusters C+ɣ, should they be seen as velarization. Depends on your phonotactics.