Zompist Bboard Again

came up with a new orthography for german, because why not

consonants:
/m n ŋ/ <m n ň>
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
/pf ts tʃ/ <p̌ c č>
/s z ʃ ʒ/ <s z š >
/f v ç/x h/ <f v x h>
/j l r / <j l r>
(commonly borrowed foreign sounds: /dʒ ʒ w/ <ǰ ž w>

consonants are written as their underlying phonemes rather than their realization. in practical terms this means that, as in the current script, devoiced final consonants are written voiced. however, this new script is much stricter about this: /krais/ and /kraizə/ are written <kraiz> and <kraize>, whereas /ʊnt/ is written <unt> since it doesn't have an alternating form with a /d/. similarly, this script keeps the spelling of <ig> for /iç/ when it alternates with /ig/.

vowels:
/a ə ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ œ ʏ/ <a e e i o u ø y>
/aː eː ɛː iː oː uː øː yː/ <aa ee ee ii oo uu øø yy>
/aɪ aʊ ɔʏ/ <ai au oy>

stress is indicated with acute accents (í, óó, áú) if it falls on an "unexpected" syllable. standard (unmarked) stress is on the first syllable, unless the word begins with <be>, <cer>, <emp>, <ent>, <er>, <fer>, or <ge>, in which case it is on the second syllable (this is very strict; the german word we know as "gehen" is spelled <gééen>, not *<geeen>, which would be /gəˈeːn/)

the most common vowel alternations are indicated with umlauted characters:
/a aː/ -> /ɛ eː (ɛː)/ = <a aa> -> <ä ää> (deer zac, dii zääce; dii caal, ix cääle)
/ɛ eː/ -> /ɪ iː/ = <e ee> -> <ë ëë> (helfen, zii hëlft; ix šteele, duu štëëlst)
/ɪ iː/ -> /ai/ = <i ii> -> <ï> (viir visen, ix vïs; gebliiben, blïbt)
/ɔ oː/ -> /œ øː/ = <o oo> -> <ö öö> (das lox, dii löxer; gros, gröser)
/ʊ uː/ -> /ʏ yː/ = <u uu> -> <ü üü> (dii cunft, cünftig; das buux, dii büüxer)
/aʊ/ -> /ɔʏ/ = <au> -> <äü> (das hauz, dii häüzer)

the umlauted form is only used when it alternates with a non-umlauted form in inflections/conjugations/derivations, not otherwise: <štroom, štrööme> but <šøøn šøøne>. consequently this means that /zain/ "to be" is spelled <zïn> (alternating with <zint>), whereas /zain/ "his" is spelled <zain>.

common nouns are not capitalized

tbh i think the double-vowels are pretty ugly and part of me wants to switch to macrons. but i also think doubling or tripling up diacritics is also ugly. so idk what to do

Baišpiil:

Dii gešixte aler bishéérigen gezelšaft ist dii gešixte fon klasenkämp̌en.

Fraier unt sklaave, patríícier unt plebééjer, baróón unt laibaigner, cunftbürger unt gezel, kurc, unterdrýker und unterdrýkte štanden in šteetem géégenzac cu ainánder, fyyrten ainen ununterbróxenen, bald ferštekten bald ofenen kamp̌, ainen kamp̌, deer jeedesmaal mit ainer revolucionééren umgeštaltuň deer gancen gezelšaft endete, ooder mit deem gemainzamen untergaň deer kämp̌enden klasen.

In deen fryyeren epóxen deer gešixte finden viir fast yyberál aine folštändige gliideruň deer gezelšaft in feršiidene štände, aine manixfaltige apštuufuň deer gezelšaftlixen šteluňen. Im alten Room haaben viir patríícier, riter, plebééjer, sklaaven; im mitelalter foydáálheren, vazálen, cunftbürger, gezelen, laibaigene, unt nox dacuu in fast jeeder diizer klasen viider bezondere apštuufuňen.

Dii aus deem untergaňe deer foydáálen gezelšaft heerforgegáňene modéérne bürgerlixe gezelšaft hat dii klasengeegensäce nixt aufgehooben. Zii hat nuur noye klasen, noye bediňuňen deer unterdrýkuň, noye geštaltuňen des kamp̌es an dii štele deer alten gesect.

Unzere epóxe, dii epóxe deer buržwazíí, caixnet zix jedóx dadúrx aus, das zii dii klasengeegensäce ferainfaxt hat. Dii gance gezelšaft špaltet zix meer unt meer in cvai groose faindlixe Laager, in cvai groose ainánder dirékt geegenýýberšteeende klasen — buržwazíí und proletariáát.

Macron would fit with the look of some Eastern European languages, or you could use acutes for long stressed vowels and graves for short stressed vowels (and either not mark length when unstressed ,or use third diacritic)

You could use -h for either length or stress. It would also be sensible to get rid of those hacek letters.

What's wrong with hačeks?

Although they should be restricted to just the palatalised consonants. Plus I really dislike using <c č>

mèþru wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:10 amWhat's wrong with hačeks?

Nothing particularly, although it is arguable that one should observe a tendency towards the elimination of diacritics in one's orthography if possible.

mèþru wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:10 amAlthough they should be restricted to just the palatalised consonants.

Yes. p-hachek is unlikely to suggest /pf/, for example.

mèþru wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:10 amPlus I really dislike using <c č>

<c> is always problematic, as are <x> and <q>.

Your guide was instrumental in how I decided to romanise things actually

mèþru wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:10 am What's wrong with hačeks?

Although they should be restricted to just the palatalised consonants. Plus I really dislike using <c č>

1. Diacritics look messy and should be minimised
2. Haceks are ugly
3. Rogue haceks cause many display problems, as demonstrated in this thread
4. Haceks in most cases are not intuitive to most readers. Linguistically nformed readers may be ok with s-hacek, and can take a tentative guess at c-hacek, but beyond that they're in unfamiliar territory. Certainly once you go to the dark depths of p-hacek you won't be taking many readers with you

German feels the least un-Micronesian of all the languages of Europe, so

/m n ŋ/ <m n ng>
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
/pf ts tʃ/ <ph ts ch>
/s z ʃ/ <s z c>
/f v ç/x h/ <f v j h>
/j l r / <y l r~a>
/dʒ ʒ w/ <dj zj u>

/a ə ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ œ ʏ/ <a ę/e e i o u õ ũ>
/aː eː ɛː iː oː uː øː yː/ <aa...>
/aɪ aʊ ɔʏ/ <ai ao oũ>

Es ist dii zahe dea veenijstn, unabhengij tsu zain: - es ist ain foarejt dea ctaakng. Unt vea es feazuujt, aoj mit deem bestn rejte daatsuu, aba oone es tsu mũsn, bęvaist daamit, das ea vaacainlij nijt nua ctaak, zondan bis tsua aosgęlasnhait feaveegng ist. Ea bęgiipt zij in ain laabũũrint, ea feataozndfeltikt dii gęfaarn, velje das leebm an zij coon mit zij bringt; fon deenn es nijt dii klainste ist, das kaina mit aogng ziit, vii unt voo ea zij veaiat, veaainzamt unt ctũkvaize fon iagent ainm hõõlenminootaorus des gęvisns tsearisn viat. Gęzetst, ain zolja geet tsu grunde, zo gęciit es zo feane fom feactendnis dea mencn, das zii es nijt fũũln unt mitfũũln: - unt ea kan nijt mea tsuurũk! ea kan aoj tsum mitlaidn dea mencn nijt mea tsuurũk!

nb: it has been a few years and this is probably wrong in many places

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:08 pm 1. Diacritics look messy and should be minimised

Say no more.

/m n ŋ/ <м н ҥ>
/p b t d k g/ <п б т д к г>
/p͡f t͡s t͡ʃ/ <ҧ ц ч>
/s z ʃ/ <с з ш>
/f v ç/x h/ <ф в х һ>
/j l r / <й л р>
/d͡ʒ ʒ w/ <џ ж у>

/a ə ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ œ ʏ/ [ɐ] <а ъ е и о у ө ү ѫ>
/aː eː ɛː iː oː uː øː yː/ <аа ѧ ее ии оо уу өө үү>
/aɪ aʊ ɔʏ/ <ай ау оү>

Дас латайнишъ Алфабѧт ист ууѫшпрүҥлих дас цууѫ Шрайбуҥ деѫ латайнишън Шпраахъ феѫвендътъ Алфабѧт; ес виѫд ин диизъм Цузамънһаҥ аух рөөмишъс Алфабѧт гънант.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:08 pm 1. Diacritics look messy and should be minimised

Digraphs and trigraphs also look messy and should be minimised. As for adding new characters outright, that really is not traditional to do in Latin script; where there are "new" characters they are practically always modifications of existing characters and are few in number (not in how many times they show up in writing but how many such characters exist).

no diacritics, no digraphs

Daſ latænısə Alfabet ıſt uƣsprꞟŋlıx daſ cuƣ Sƣæbꞷŋ dɛƣ latænısən Spƣꜳxə fɛƣvɛndətə Alfabet; ɛſ vıƣt ın dizəm Cuzamənhaŋ ꜵx ƣømısən Alfabet gənant.

enjoy (-:

I prefer systematic diacritics over digraphs for representing a single phoneme and to avoid diacritics for anything else. I also favour 1:1 phonemic orthographies.

I often use a mixture of digraphs and trigraphs on one hand and diacritics on the other hand when there are too many dimensions to readily capture using one or the other, e.g. too many vowel qualities combined with multiple tones/registers. Overall I tend to mix the two (e.g. marking palatalization with diacritics and aspiration or ejectives with digraphs).

I wonder if there is some kind of consensus brewing in here which could eventually lead to a General Preferred Romanization For All Languages.

One size rarely fits all.