Re: A question on vowel orthography

Christophe Grandsire writes:
 > En réponse à Tim May <butsuri@...>:
 >
 >>[...]
 >
 >[...]
 >
 > I had the same problem with writing /a/ and /Q/. But since the Roman script was
 > only a transliteration (the native script is an ideographic one), I decided not
 > to look for an optimal solution and just use something simple that I could
 > remember easily. So I decided to use |á| (a-acute, ASCIIfied as |'a|) for /a/
 > and |a| for /Q/. Using a diacritic to mark /Q/ just looked not right to me (but
 > I admit that I never thought of a-ring. Just a problem with that one: how do
 > you ASCIIfy it?) and the connection between /a/ and /Q/ stayed obvious this
 > way. Also, the ASCIIfication fitted with the rest of the transliteration (which
 > has strange symbols like b-tilde, g-tilde and n-tilde, all transliterated with
 > a beginning tilde: |~b|, |~g| and |~n|).
 >
Well, for asciification of a-ring, I thought maybe &, which kind of
looks like a ring over a squashed miniscule alpha, if you squint at it.

 > As for the schwa, since it's not phonemic, it's normally not written, but to
 > emphasize the actual pronunciation it may be indicated by the apostrophe |'|.
 > Since the schwa never appears near a vowel, no ambiguity can arise.
 >
I _might_ adopt a similar strategy.  It's not clear yet whether the
schwa is phonemic in LC-01, and the ASCII representation of the
consonants isn't settled either.