4 ms·

Not necessarily. Maybe this is less than optimal for loanwords, but why have consonants in your alphabet that you never use? Might also have grammatical meaning

Not necessarily. Maybe this is less than optimal for loanwords, but why have consonants in your alphabet that you never use? Might also have grammatical meaning (e.g. t staying t in every form of a word) For example, in Russian pronunciation, you might definitely confuse 'ti' for 'si'. If Russian wouldn't have the real 's' consonant (or 'ц'), it would make sense to transliterate 's' as 'ti'.

knodi123 10y ago
I don't understand. If the people of kiribati (pronounced KEE-ree-bas) have an S sound, then it makes sense to romanize their language so that words endings with an S sound end with an S letter... If they have a "ti" sound as well, then by all means keep the T and the I, or even glyph them together... But english is (more or less) a phonetic language. If you're romanizing a foreign language, and it doesn't come out more or less phonetic, then.... try again. It doesn't cost anything to keep an "s" in the prospective alphabet.
- niftich 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology the "s sound" (IPA [s]) is essentially an allophone of their "t sound" (IPA [t]) before 'i'. Since they don't perceive them to be distinct phonemes, there's no need for a separate letter.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  It does cost you to have letters in the alphabet that you don't use (as in, you have minimal pairs with that letter). You don't understand how to pronounce it and it becomes confusing. For example, Italian doesn't use k, j, y, x, w except in loanwords. And 'z' sound in Italian means two different consonants; in English it also means two different consonants, both also different from both Italian ones. Both are "phonetic".
- emmelaich 10y ago
  I agree with you mostly but ... shrug. If we went with that then the Q in Chinese wouldn't be pronounced 'ch' (or something very close to that) A not entirely irrelevant fact about "Kiribati" is that is the same word as Gilberts -- as in Gilberts Islands.

knodi123 10y ago

I don't understand. If the people of kiribati (pronounced KEE-ree-bas) have an S sound, then it makes sense to romanize their language so that words endings with an S sound end with an S letter... If they have a "ti" sound as well, then by all means keep the T and the I, or even glyph them together... But english is (more or less) a phonetic language. If you're romanizing a foreign language, and it doesn't come out more or less phonetic, then.... try again. It doesn't cost anything to keep an "s" in the prospective alphabet.

niftich 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology the "s sound" (IPA [s]) is essentially an allophone of their "t sound" (IPA [t]) before 'i'. Since they don't perceive them to be distinct phonemes, there's no need for a separate letter.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
It does cost you to have letters in the alphabet that you don't use (as in, you have minimal pairs with that letter). You don't understand how to pronounce it and it becomes confusing. For example, Italian doesn't use k, j, y, x, w except in loanwords. And 'z' sound in Italian means two different consonants; in English it also means two different consonants, both also different from both Italian ones. Both are "phonetic".
emmelaich 10y ago
I agree with you mostly but ... shrug. If we went with that then the Q in Chinese wouldn't be pronounced 'ch' (or something very close to that) A not entirely irrelevant fact about "Kiribati" is that is the same word as Gilberts -- as in Gilberts Islands.