My Language's Romanization

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
User avatar
Üdj
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24

My Language's Romanization

Post by Üdj »

Hello!

I'm having trouble getting my romanization to look right. Here are my language's consonant phonemes:

/p b t d k g/
/m n ɲ/
/ʦ ʧ/
/f s ʃ x/
/ɬ/
/ɾ r/
/w l j/

I'm currently using <ñ> for /ɲ/ and <lh> for /ɬ/. I'm also spelling /r/ as <rr> and /ɾ/ as <r>. I try to avoid using too many diacritics, so I won't use any more for this language.

Word-initial rr looks kind of odd, but it is distinct from /ɾ/, so it's a necessary evil. However, what I'm really struggling with is /x/. I don't like <kh>, <gh>, <x>, or ḧ/ĥ (all spellings I've used for it before), and I'm already using <ch> for /ʧ/. How should I spell it?

(Also, I don't know if it's natural to make the voicing distinction in stops but not anywhere else, so I'd like help with that too.)
/ɸ/, /ʍ/, and /ɴ/ are great sounds, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

Native: :usa: Conversational (on a good day): :bra: Moderate: :epo:
User avatar
Lorik
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 97
Joined: 27 Nov 2021 12:30
Location: Brazil

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Lorik »

You could have /x/ as <ch> if you change /ʧ/ to something else, such as <cs>, <tch> or <tsh>, for example.
Native: :bra: | Fluent: :eng: :fra: | Intermediate: :rus:
User avatar
Üdj
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Üdj »

That's a good idea, though if I have /ʧ/ and something is spelled <ch>, it's going to be /ʧ/.
/ɸ/, /ʍ/, and /ɴ/ are great sounds, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

Native: :usa: Conversational (on a good day): :bra: Moderate: :epo:
User avatar
Üdj
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Üdj »

What about using <q> for /x/? Is that possible, or is it as dumb as it sounds?
/ɸ/, /ʍ/, and /ɴ/ are great sounds, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

Native: :usa: Conversational (on a good day): :bra: Moderate: :epo:
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3998
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by qwed117 »

My recommendation is to figure out how you want the language to sound in terms of its phonology and phonotactics. Romanization can come later. Do you have CC clusters? does the distinction between /ɾ r/ neutralize initially? Does /x/ only appear in a position that /ʧ/ doesn't? And then the way you can find out if /x/ <q> is dumb is by trying it out on the words you get themselves.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

The SqwedgePad
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4603
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Creyeditor »

I might have missed something but why not use simple <h> for /x/? Of course, this might depend on your phonotactics, as qwed said.
Üdj wrote: 08 Sep 2022 03:16 (Also, I don't know if it's natural to make the voicing distinction in stops but not anywhere else, so I'd like help with that too.)
Definitely natural [:)]
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]
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2888
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by sangi39 »

Creyeditor wrote: 08 Sep 2022 10:57 I might have missed something but why not use simple <h> for /x/? Of course, this might depend on your phonotactics, as qwed said.
That would have been my suggestion too. If there are no clusters like /ʦx/ (I'm assuminig <c> for /ʦ/) or /lx/, then you could get away with plain <h> for /x/ without any potential ambiguity. Saying that, even if there were, you could still use <h> as the default for /x/ and then something like <> only after <l> and <c> to distinguish it from the digraphs <lh> and <ch>,i.e. <lh ch> /ɬ ʧ/ vs. <lḥ cḥ> /lx ʦx/. That would mean you might also have <lhh chh> /ɬx ʧx/, but, again, that'll depend on the language's phonotactics, what clusters are allowed and where. For example, if you don't allow syllable-final /ʧ/, you won't have to worry about seeing things like <chh>, and, similarly, if /ʦ/ can't appear syllable-finally, then having to think about distinguishing /ʦx/ vs. /ʧ/ becomes a non-issue

But, yeah, <h> is a nice easy option, and what that ends up actually looking like in practice will depend on syllable structure and what sounds can appear where and in what combination
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.
User avatar
Üdj
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Üdj »

I have the phonotactics defined, and the only problem with <h> for /x/ is that there would not be a distinction between /sx/ and /ʃ/.

*The syllable structure is (C)(w, j, l, r, ɾ)V(C).
/ɸ/, /ʍ/, and /ɴ/ are great sounds, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

Native: :usa: Conversational (on a good day): :bra: Moderate: :epo:
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 9231
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by shimobaatar »

Üdj wrote: 08 Sep 2022 03:50 What about using <q> for /x/? Is that possible, or is it as dumb as it sounds?
If, by "possible", you mean "attested in the orthography of a natural language", Mi'kmaq apparently uses <q> for /x/. As for whether or not it's "dumb", I'd say that it's totally up to you to decide whether or not you like the look and feel of it in your language.

Another option might be <j> /x/, as in Spanish, if you aren't already using <j> for /j/ or something else. Xhosa apparently uses <rh> for /x/. If you want to keep <ch> /t͡ʃ/ and don't mind using an apostrophe, perhaps you could do something akin to Breton's <ch> /ʃ/ vs. <c'h> /x/.

Welcome to the board, by the way! [:D]
User avatar
Üdj
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 22
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Üdj »

Thanks.

/ʦ/ is just spelled <ts>, and <j> is also being used (for /ʒ/, which I didn't have when I first made this thread).

However, this problem has been resolved. I altered the phonology a bit (I make a romanization at about the same time as the phonology), and in the end there wasn't an /x/ phone. Sorry for none of this actually being consequential, but I appreciate the help and will almost certainly use this later. Romanization is one of my favorite parts of conlanging (I don't know why, but it is).
/ɸ/, /ʍ/, and /ɴ/ are great sounds, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

Native: :usa: Conversational (on a good day): :bra: Moderate: :epo:
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4134
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: My Language's Romanization

Post by Ahzoh »

Oh, you could have used <ḫ> for /x/ and <ś> for /ɬ/ and <ṙ> for /ɾ/
Image Śād Warḫālali (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Post Reply