Not sure if this counts as a "quick question" since it's pretty long, but... I have a question about the plausibility of a language having this phonology and orthography when it's set in what's IRL Sardinia and Corscia in an alternative world where things are probably mostly similar to the IRL world:
The sounds in parentheses only (or at least mostly) occur in loanwords and/or as allophones.
/m n (ɲ ŋ)/ <m n nj ng>
/p b t d k g (ʔ)/ <p b t d k g ʻ>
/t͡s t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ <c č ǧ>
/s z ʃ ʒ/ <s z š ž>
/f v (θ ð) j x (ɣ h)/ <f v s z j h g h>
/r l (ʎ)/ <r l lj>
/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>
/a e i o u/ are [ɑ ɛ i ɔ u] in open syllables
/a e i o u/ are [æ ə ɪ ɞ ʊ] in closed syllables
There's some other allophony, but that's not really relevant.
I did come up with an alternative orthography that'd be more fitting to that region, which I like just as much (if not more), but have no idea how to handle consonant clusters in a way that looks nice and
keep it looking "neat":
/m n (ɲ ŋ)/ <m n n(i) ng>
/p b t d k g (ʔ)/ <p b t d c(h) g(h) ʻ>
/t͡s t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ <c c(i) g(i)>
/s z ʃ ʒ/ <s z sc(i) j>
/f v (θ ð) j x (ɣ h)/ <f v s z i h~ch gh h>
/r l (ʎ)/ <r l gl(i)>
With Italian rules on when to use the letters in parentheses, so eg. /ket͡ʃed͡ʒiʃi/ would be <checegisci> and /ʃakaʎu/ would be <sciacagliu>. Like I said, consonant clusters become a problem since eg. writing /ibd͡ʒarʃt/ as <ibgiarscit> would look like /ibd͡ʒarʃit/ and <ibgiarisct> like /ibd͡ʒariʃt/, etc. I considered <ç j ş> or <ç dj ş> for coda /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/, but that doesn't look very fitting with the overall aesthetic. Compare <kečeǧiši>, <šakalju> and <ibǧaršt>, although these aren't actual words in the conlang (at least yet) but just ones to easily demonstrate the difference
(The thought was that /x/ is <h> in native words and <ch> in some loanwords.)
The language has influence from Arabic, Latin and Greek especially lexically, but it's a priori with some similarities to various languages in a way that's meant to be the kind of "possibly distant relation, possibly ancient contact" type of thing. My possible justification for the original orthography would be that they had an orthographic reform in recent times and for some reason looked to I guess Eastern Europe for inspiration, but that doesn't sound like something that could ever happen in the real world so I don't know if it's justifiable for a conlang that's supposed to be naturalistic...
I mean, it might have used Arabic script at least at some point in the past, but even in that case looking at romanisations of Arabic for inspiration on the orthographic reform wouldn't really make sense; there's just no way for <č ǧ š ž> to look fitting in that region, yet I like the simplicity of using them and they fit the phonology really well. Still, again, the Italian-influenced orthography looks nice and also has the benefit of fitting that region, if only the issue of consonant clusters was solvable... and I'm also not sure if I like how long it makes short words look.
One option would maybe be using <ì> or <ĭ> in clusters, so eg. /ibd͡ʒarʃt/ <ibgiarscìt> or <ibgiarscĭt>, but that could get a bit messy and it'd make <i> the only letter using the grave or breve and I don't really like that.
Anyone have any suggestions on whether I should stick with the unfitting orthography or if I go with the second one, how to handle consonant clusters?
(Phonology-wise, the only real doubt I have is about retaining /θ ð/ and a distinct /h/ in loanwords, but I don't think that's that weird. Oh, and I guess [ɞ] is significantly weirder, but...)
Omzinesý wrote: ↑02 Apr 2021 23:14
What's your opinion?
I'd also prefer A.