Orthographic quirks in natlangs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 826
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by Ælfwine » 11 Jul 2016 19:24

This is not used by any current natlang but is someone's attempted cyrillization of Old Norse that I found extremely odd, so I thought I'd share it anyway:

http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/onc.htm

This is so bad. What is up with the letter "la?" How does that intuitively represent [n], which is already represented by another letter? Why are there letters for /ja/ and /ju/ but not /jo/ or /jɔ/? Why is Ætt have two totally different phonemes? And why no rune for *R?
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3186
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by sangi39 » 12 Jul 2016 09:52

Ælfwine wrote:This is not used by any current natlang but is someone's attempted cyrillization of Old Norse that I found extremely odd, so I thought I'd share it anyway:

http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/onc.htm

This is so bad. What is up with the letter "la?" How does that intuitively represent [n], which is already represented by another letter? Why are there letters for /ja/ and /ju/ but not /jo/ or /jɔ/? Why is Ætt have two totally different phonemes? And why no rune for *R?
The "la" /n/ thing seems to be a typo, given the sample text. It should be /ll/.

Overall, I get the feeling that. The system in general seems like a bit of a bodge overall, splitting up phonemes some of the time and merging others, not to mention making odd choices like He for /h/ where Cyrillic <x> would have done equally well.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 826
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by Ælfwine » 13 Jul 2016 05:04

sangi39 wrote:
Ælfwine wrote:This is not used by any current natlang but is someone's attempted cyrillization of Old Norse that I found extremely odd, so I thought I'd share it anyway:

http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/onc.htm

This is so bad. What is up with the letter "la?" How does that intuitively represent [n], which is already represented by another letter? Why are there letters for /ja/ and /ju/ but not /jo/ or /jɔ/? Why is Ætt have two totally different phonemes? And why no rune for *R?
The "la" /n/ thing seems to be a typo, given the sample text. It should be /ll/.

Overall, I get the feeling that. The system in general seems like a bit of a bodge overall, splitting up phonemes some of the time and merging others, not to mention making odd choices like He for /h/ where Cyrillic <x> would have done equally well.
Old Norse *h was probably [x] anyway.

But yeah, I agree. It's a mess. I'm also tempted to make my own system that should be more intuitive.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

User avatar
HinGambleGoth
greek
greek
Posts: 459
Joined: 01 Jul 2014 04:29
Location: gøtalandum

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by HinGambleGoth » 13 Jul 2016 20:23

Ælfwine wrote: Old Norse *h was probably [x] anyway.
That is an interesting question unto itself, when did the shift x = h occur in germanic?

Seeing how intervocalic germanic x* was mostly lost in the medieval Germanic vernacular dialects it was arguably /h/ at the time. But in initial consonant clusters it was still /x/ in the medieval languages, hence the shift /xw/ = /kv/ in some norweigan dialects and latin spelling Chlodovechus for frankish *Hlodowig.

How were Greek loans with X spelled in Gothic?
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:

markski
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 15
Joined: 03 Jul 2016 18:33

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by markski » 13 Jul 2016 21:27

According to both the UT Linguistics Research center and Omniglot, a separate letter <X> named iggws was used for the purpose, thus Χριστος > Xristus.

opipik
runic
runic
Posts: 2760
Joined: 12 Mar 2015 19:41

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by opipik » 14 Jul 2016 17:57

Enga: /ɽ ʎ/ <l ly>

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4520
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by Creyeditor » 14 Jul 2016 18:53

Hiw /gʟ/ <r̄>
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 826
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Orthographic quirks in natlangs

Post by Ælfwine » 15 Jul 2016 00:08

HinGambleGoth wrote:
Ælfwine wrote: Old Norse *h was probably [x] anyway.
That is an interesting question unto itself, when did the shift x = h occur in germanic?

Seeing how intervocalic germanic x* was mostly lost in the medieval Germanic vernacular dialects it was arguably /h/ at the time. But in initial consonant clusters it was still /x/ in the medieval languages, hence the shift /xw/ = /kv/ in some norweigan dialects and latin spelling Chlodovechus for frankish *Hlodowig.

How were Greek loans with X spelled in Gothic?
Perhaps if there were any alternations between *k and *h in manuscripts can give us a good clue?

I believe they are spelt with an <x>.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of Man
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

Post Reply