DOCSLIB.ORG

Harmonizing the Orthography of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harmonizing the Orthography of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba.Pdf NAME, DATE HERE GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA 39 CHAPTER THREE HARMONIZING THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA Angelina Nduku Kioko, Martin C. Njoroge and Peter Mburu Kuria INTRODUCTION The term orthography is derived from the Greek word ‘orthos’ which means ‘correct’, and ‘graphein’, which stands for ‘to write’ (Sampson, 1985). The orthography of a language describes or defines the set of symbols (graphemes and diacritics) used to represent the phonemic inventory of that language in the writing and the rules on how to write these symbols. According to Massamba (1986), a language takes a limited number of sounds from the central pool of speech sounds to form its phonetic inventory. In this chapter, orthography is used to refer to the system of symbols used in the writing system of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba. There are three types of orthographies (Read, 1983: 143-152). The first is the ‘phonemic orthography’. In a ‘phonemic’ orthography there is a one-to-one correspondence between phonemes and graphemes. This type of orthography has a dedicated sequence of symbol or symbols for each phoneme. Examples of languages that have phonemic ortho graphies are Korean and Kiswahili. The second type is the ‘morpho-phonemic orthography’ which considers both the phonemic features and the underlying structure of words. In this case, words may be written in the same way despite differences in pronunciation. For example, the pronunciation of the plural marker in English {s} is conditioned by the phonetic environment in which it occurs, yet it is written with the same grapheme <s>. The plural forms ‘cats’ and ‘dogs’ are pronounced as [kӕts] and [dɒɡz] respectively although the two final sounds are written 40 THE HARMONIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF KENYAN LANGUAGES with the grapheme <s>. The third type is ‘the defective orthography’ in which there is no a one-to-one correspondence between graphemes and phonemes in the language. For example, English and Arabic have sounds with more than one spelling. The palato-alveolar affricate sound [dӡ] in English, for instance, is represented by <j>, <dɡe>, <ɡ>, <dɡ> and <ɡe> graphemes. According to Shroeder (2008:4), the rules of orthography should reflect the facts of the morphology and the grammar of the language. This is because the pronunciation of words and grammatical parts of words are subject to considerable change, depending on the particular function and combination in which they occur. Nevertheless, these changes are usually regular and predictable, making it possible for the native speakers to make these changes automatically because they have internalized the rules since childhood. A number of scholars in Africa have conducted research on and advocated for the harmonization of orthography in African languages (Prah 2003; Banda 2002). Prah, for example, observes that one of the ways to address the multiplicity of African languages is to capitalize on the mutual intelligibility of languages to put them into clusters and then work on harmonising their orthographies. This direction is especially practical because, as Prah’s (2003) research reveals, 85% of Africa’s total population speak no more than 12–15 languages. For example, many languages fall under the Bantu cluster and many others are Nilotic. Additionally, Africa has a number of cross-border languages. Cross-border languages are languages spoken by populations whose traditional and geographic areas have been divided by one or several frontiers. Banda (2002: 46) argues that properly designed cross-border orthographies can play a monumental role in promoting the use of African languages in all spheres of life, and hence contribute to the socio-economic development of Africans. The two Kenyan languages, Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba, whose phono­ logies and orthographies are discussed below, belong to the Bantu family. For over two centuries, the Akamba and Agĩkũyũ have been interacting closely, especially in trade and in intermarriages. Their close proximity with one another makes linguistic contact possible and easy and there are regions in Murang’a and Thika districts where the people speak both Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba fluently and interchangeably. GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA 41 THE PHONOLOGY AND ORTHOGRAPHY Gĩkũyũ is a Bantu language of the A category characterized by a concordial feature agreement (Guthrie 1967; Heine 1978). According to Kenya’s Population Census (1999), there were just over seven million Agĩkũyũ in the country at that time. The Agĩkũyũ mainly occupy the central part of Kenya but are also distributed across other regions such as the Rift Valley and Coast provinces. They are also found in the major towns of Kenya. The first Gĩkũyũ orthography was designed by Christian mis­ sionaries according to Wanjau (1991). These were non-native speakers of Gĩkũyũ who did not represent the words as they were pronounced by the native speakers. There was thus no one-to-one correspondence between the phonemes and their graphemes. The United Kikuyu Language Com mittee in the 1940s resolved some difficulties in representing vocalic phonemes graphemically but did not resolve consonantal difficulties. Kĩkamba was originally spoken natively in four districts in the Eastern Province of Kenya. According to the 1999 Kenya National Census there were over 3.3 million Kĩkamba speakers at that time (8% of the Kenyan population). Kĩkamba is one of the Central Kenya Bantu Languages categorized by Guthrie (1967) as E55, that is, it is language unit 5 of the Kikuyu-Kamba group 50, situated in BANTU zone E. In most written literature, the morpheme ‘-kamba’ has been used to refer to the people, to the language, or to the land. However, this morpheme has no other semantic value except that of being a root morpheme. It can only be considered as a word if it has a noun class prefix affixed to it. Thus the correct reference forms are a+kámbá (noun cl.2) the people, mũ+ kámbá (noun cl.1) a person from the group, kĩ+ kámbá (noun cl.7) the language, and ũ+ kámbá (noun cl.11) their land. THE VOWELS a. Gĩkũyũ vowels The Gĩkũyũ vocalic phonemes are /a/ /E/ /i/ /e/ /O/ /u/ and /o/, as presented in Figure 1 adopted from Mwihaki (1998:37). These phonemes are represented graphemically as <a>, <e>, <i>, < ĩ >, <o>, <u> and < ũ > respectively. 42 THE HARMONIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF KENYAN LANGUAGES Figure 1: Gĩkũyũ vowels Front Back High Low These vowels can occur in any phonetic environment within a word. But owing to the fact that Gĩkũyũ is predictably an open syllable system, vowels function more regularly in the word medial and word final positions. The Gĩkũyũ vowel is optionally short or long, and a single, geminate or contour unit (Carr 1993). Single vowels are simple units whose duration corresponds to one mora as in the Gĩkũyũ word ‘nda’ [nda] (stomach), which contrasts with the geminate vowel in the word ‘ndaa’ [nda:] (louse). Thus, as this illustration shows, vowel length is distinctive. A contour vowel is a mono-moraic unit consisting of non- identical properties and has a two-to-one linkage to skeletal slots when analysed within Autosegmental Framework (see Mwihaki 1998:37 for more details). Each of the vowel sounds in Gĩkũyũ has a grapheme representing it orthographically. Table 1 shows the grapheme, the phoneme and and an example of a word in Gĩkũyũ for each of these vowel sounds. We now turn to Kĩkamba. a GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA 43 Table 1: Gĩkũyũ vocalic phonemes and their corresponding graphemes Sound Sound Word Gloss grapheme (phoneme) illustration i /i/ ita strangle High ĩ /e/ ĩta call e /E/ eka hiccup a /a/ aka build o /O/ oya lift/pick up ũ /o/ ũria ask u /u/ uga say b. Kĩkamba vowels The vowel chart representing the Kĩkamba vowels is identical to the one for Gĩkũyũ in Figure 1. Figure 2: Kĩkamba vowels Front Back High Low Kioko (2005:14) argues that length is phonemic in Kĩkamba and presents a chart showing both short and long vowels, but this is a position that is rather difficult to defend because there are many intervening variables. Every occurrence of two or three similar vowels cannot be taken as a case a a ɔ uo 44 THE HARMONIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF KENYAN LANGUAGES of a long vowel. At times these vowels represent syllables bearing distinct tones. Kĩkamba can have a sequence of up to eight vowels. This feature has risen from a historical consonant loss. According to Maundu (1980), Kĩkamba has historically lost two consonants as is seen when we compare lexical items with vowel sequences in Kĩkamba with the same lexical items in the related languages, as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Comparison of vowel combination in Kĩkamba and related languages Gloss Kĩkamba Gĩkũyũ Kimeru banana /eio/ /iriØo/ /iriØo/ cook /ua/ /ruØa/ /ruØa/ buy /oa/ /Øora/ /Øora/ In many cases, the lost consonants leave behind a consonant position that can relate to certain phonological processes (Ford 1976). Again, a series of similar vowels does not mean that the vowels are in the same syllable, because the language has many vowel-only syllables. One of the commonly quoted minimal pairs – [ka:na] ‘kana’ (child) and [kana] ‘kana’ (four times) – suffices to demonstrate this uncertainty. The underlying form of [ka:na] is [ka+ana] ‘child’. Therefore, the length here results from the deletion of the noun root vowel. On the other hand, [kana] has an underlying form of [ka+na] ‘four’. These two do not form a minimal pair at all. Many of the other quoted minimal pairs differ in tone. The orthography is not uniform in its representation of length. In some cases, the orthography is that of a single vowel as in the case of ‘kana’ above, while in other cases it is a series of vowels of the same quality but not necessarily of the same tone.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR 1 General Information
    (internal doc. #: klgp220_101f_proposal_korean_lgr-25jan18-en_v103.doc) Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR LGR Version 1.0 Date: 2018-01-25 Document version: 1.03 Authors: Korean Script Generation Panel 1 General Information/ Overview/ Abstract The purpose of this document is to give an overview of the proposed Korean Script LGR in the XML format and the rationale behind the design decisions taken. It includes a discussion of relevant features of the script, the communities or languages using it, the process and methodology used and information on the contributors. The formal specification of the LGR can be found in the accompanying XML document below: • proposal-korean-lgr-25jan18-en.xml Labels for testing can be found in the accompanying text document below: • korean-test-labels-25jan18-en.txt In Section 3, we will see the background on Korean script (Hangul + Hanja) and principal language using it, i.e., Korean language. The overall development process and methodology will be reviewed in Section 4. The repertoire and variant groups in K-LGR will be discussed in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. In Section 7, Whole Label Evaluation Rules (WLE) will be described and then contributors for K-LGR are shown in Section 8. Several appendices are included with separate files. proposal-korean-lgr-25jan18-en 1 / 73 1/17 2 Script for which the LGR is proposed ISO 15924 Code: Kore ISO 15924 Key Number: 287 (= 286 + 500) ISO 15924 English Name: Korean (alias for Hangul + Han) Native name of the script: 한글 + 한자 Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) version: MSR-2 [241] Note.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 English Spelling and Pronunciation
    ISSN: 2456-8104 http://www.jrspelt.com Issue 5, Vol. 2, 2018 English Spelling and Pronunciation - A Brief Study Prof. V. Chandra Sekhar Rao ([email protected] ) Professor in English, SITECH, Hyderabad Abstract The present paper aims at the correlation between spelling and pronunciation of English words. English spelling is almost divorced from its pronunciation and there is no perfect guide how to 1 learn the pronunciation of the words. The letters of alphabet used are always inadequate to represent the sounds. English alphabet contains only 26 letters but the sounds 44. IPA symbols are needed to understand the intelligibility of the pronunciation and the spelling-designed. Learners of English language have to understand that words from other languages may be adopted without being adapted to the spelling system. Most of the letters of English alphabet produce multiple pronunciations. English Pronouncing Dictionary is needed for better understanding of the spelling and pronunciation. Keywords: Spelling and Pronunciation, Orthography, Intelligibility, Phonetic Symbols Introduction "If we know the sounds of a word (in English) we can't know how to spell it; if we know the ` spelling, we can't know how to pronounce it." (Otto Jespersen, philologist, Essentials of English Grammar, 1905, page 11). "English spelling is almost divorced from its pronunciation and forms hardly any guide as to how words should be pronounced." (Mont Follick, The Case for Spelling Reform, 1964, page 87). English, as a global language of communication, is spoken, written and used widely for many different purposes - international diplomatic relations, business, science and technology. It is also called the library language and medium of instructions in higher education - science and technology, computer and software engineering, medicine and law, pharmacy and nursing, commerce and management, fashion technology and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Handouts for Advanced Phonology: a Course Packet Steve Parker GIAL
    Handouts for Advanced Phonology: A Course Packet Steve Parker GIAL and SIL International Dallas, 2016 Copyright © 2016 by Steve Parker and other contributors Page 1 of 304 Preface This set of materials is designed to be used as handouts accompanying an advanced course in phonology, particularly at the graduate level. It is specifically intended to be used in conjunction with two textbooks: Phonology in generative grammar (Kenstowicz 1994), and Optimality theory (Kager 1999). However, this course packet could potentially also be adapted for use with other phonology textbooks. The materials included here have been developed by myself and others over many years, in conjunction with courses in phonology taught at SIL programs in North Dakota, Oregon, Dallas, and Norman, OK. Most recently I have used them at GIAL. Many of the special phonetic characters appearing in these materials use IPA fonts available as freeware from the SIL International website. Unless indicated to the contrary on specific individual handouts, all materials used in this packet are the copyright of Steve Parker. These documents are intended primarily for educational use. You may make copies of these works for research or instructional purposes (under fair use guidelines) free of charge and without further permission. However, republication or commercial use of these materials is expressly prohibited without my prior written consent. Steve Parker Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Dallas, 2016 Page 2 of 304 1 Table of contents: list of handouts included in this packet Day 1: Distinctive features — their definitions and uses -Pike’s premises for phonological analysis ......................................................................... 7 -Phonemics analysis flow chart ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Orthography on the Acquisition of L2 Phonology:1
    Coutsougera, The Impact of Orthography on the Acquisition of L2 Phonology:1 The impact of orthography on the acquisition of L2 phonology: inferring the wrong phonology from print Photini Coutsougera, University of Cyprus 1 The orthographic systems of English and Greek The aim of this study is to investigate how the deep orthography of English influences the acquisition of L2 English phonetics/phonology by L1 Greek learners, given that Greek has a shallow orthography. Greek and English deploy two fundamentally different orthographies. The Greek orthography, despite violating one-letter-to-one-phoneme correspondence, is shallow or transparent. This is because although the Greek orthographic system has a surplus of letters/digraphs for vowel sounds (e.g. sound /i/ is represented in six different ways in the orthography); each letter/digraph has one reading. There are very few other discrepancies between letters and sounds, which are nevertheless handled by specific, straightforward rules. As a result, there is only one possible way of reading a written form. The opposite, however, does not hold, i.e. a speaker of Greek cannot predict the spelling of a word when provided with the pronunciation. In contrast, as often cited in the literature, English has a deep or non transparent orthography since it allows for the same letter to represent more than one sound or for the same sound to be represented by more than one letter. Other discrepancies between letters and sounds - also well reported or even overstated in the literature - are of rather lesser importance (e.g. silent letters existing mainly for historical reasons etc).
    [Show full text]
  • Orthography Development for Creole Languages Decker, Ken
    University of Groningen Orthography Development for Creole Languages Decker, Ken IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2014 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Decker, K. (2014). Orthography Development for Creole Languages. [S.n.]. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 ORTHOGRAPHY DEVELOPMENT FOR CREOLE LANGUAGES KENDALL DON DECKER The work in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of SIL International® in collaboration with the National Kriol Council of Belize.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthographies in Early Modern Europe
    Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Edited by Susan Baddeley Anja Voeste De Gruyter Mouton An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 ThisISBN work 978-3-11-021808-4 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, ase-ISBN of February (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 LibraryISSN 0179-0986 of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ae-ISSN CIP catalog 0179-3256 record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-3-11-028812-4 e-ISBNBibliografische 978-3-11-028817-9 Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- fie;This detaillierte work is licensed bibliografische under the DatenCreative sind Commons im Internet Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs über 3.0 License, Libraryhttp://dnb.dnb.deas of February of Congress 23, 2017.abrufbar.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Text
    1 Swimming against the current Text of a “keynote address” for video delivery at the first World Congress of Korean Language, October 2020 신사 숙녀 여러분: 만나서 반갑습니다 ! I want to talk today (in English, I’m afraid) about what I believe is a consistent tendency in the historical evolution of scripts around the world. I shan’t call it a “linguistic universal”, because I don’t believe in Chomskyan biological universals of language. Languages are purely cultural products, and like other cultural products their development isn’t controlled by scientific laws. But the tendency I have in mind does seem to hold quite widely, and it can be explained, in terms of the demographic changes we associate with modernity. The reason why this topic may make a suitable opening for your conference is that the one unexplained exception to the tendency which I know of is in fact Korean script. But I’ll come to the case of Korean after I’ve spent some time discussing the tendency more generally. What I believe to be generally true, as I discuss in my book The Linguistics Delusion, is that in newly literate societies writing tends to be a matter of phonetic transcription – if the script is alphabetic, a newly-devised orthography will conform pretty closely to the principle “one sound, one symbol”; while as the script matures and the society modernizes, the orthography tends to evolve in the direction of what I’ll call “contrastiveness”, in the sense that the meaningful units of the language have consistent written shapes which are well-differentiated from the written forms of other meaningful units.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Hul Tidialectal Orthography Design O
    325 PRINCIPLES OF HUL TIDIALECTAL ORTHOGRAPHY DESIGN Gary Simons Summer Institute of Linguistics and Cornell University O. INTRODUCTION 1. THE ADVANTAGES OF A MULTIDIALECTAL ORTHOGRAPHY 1.1 The advantage of one orthography over many 1.2 The advantage of a multidialectal orthography over a unidialectal one 2. PRINCIPLES OF ~1ULTIDIALECTAL ORTHOGRAPHY DESIGN 2.1 Principle 1 - social acceptability 2.2 Principle 2 - psycholinguistic acceptability 2.3 Principle 3 - minimal potential ambiguity 2.4 Principle 4 - simplicity 2.5 Principle 5 - convergence of skewed systems 2.6 Principle 6 - phonemic contrast and neutralization between dialect s 2.7 Principle 7 - overall least effort 3. A QUANTITATIVE METHOD FOR COMPUTING OVERALL EFFORT O. INTRODLJCT ION Language variation limits communication. In spoken communication, dialect variation may be so great as to prevent speakers of two dia­ lects of the same language from understanding one another. However, many of these limits to communication can be overcome in written communication. For instance, differing pronunciations of the same word are unified by writing them identically in the orthography. Each reader assigns his own pronunciation to the written symbol. This paper presents seven principles to follow in designing an orthography which minimizes dialect differences--a multidialectal orthography. A multidialectal orthography is one in which the phonol­ ogies of many dialects of a language are compared and accounted for in designing the orthography. The social situation pertaining to the dialects is also considered. We add the further requirement that each possible solution to an orthography problem be examined with respect to each of the dialects to determine the solution that will involve the least effort in learning to use the orthography for the lanRuage 326 HULTIDIALECTAL ORTIIOr.RAPtIY group as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Phonetic Alphabet for Bahasa Indonesia (PABI) for the Teaching of Intelligible English Pronunciation in Indonesia
    INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS Vol. 9 No. 3, January 2020, pp. 724-732 Available online at: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/23223 doi: 10.17509/ijal.v9i3.23223 Designing Phonetic Alphabet for Bahasa Indonesia (PABI) for the teaching of intelligible English pronunciation in Indonesia Yeni Karlina*, Amin Rahman, and Raqib Chowdhury Faculty of Education, Monash University, 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia ABSTRACT The sociolinguistic development of English has placed a greater emphasis on intelligibility as the ultimate goal of pronunciation instruction. However, various studies have indicated that English pronunciation of Indonesian English learners was not satisfactory due to difficulties in learning English pronunciation and lack of emphasis given to the teaching of English pronunciation in English classrooms in Indonesia. In this paper, we propose the development of Phonetic Alphabets for Bahasa Indonesia (PABI). This practical instrument allows English teachers and students in Indonesia to transcribe the pronunciations of English words into phonetic transcription with locally-appropriate readability and accessibility without compromising the pronunciation intelligibility. The development of PABI started with a contrastive analysis of common phonemes in the two languages, i.e., English and Bahasa Indonesia (BI). Next, we identified the English phonemes missing in Bahasa Indonesia which English learners in Indonesia have to conceptualise. We then located those English sound ‘pairs’ which seem identical to Indonesians and are thus used interchangeably in BI. A corpus of 30,000 commonly used English words was transcribed in PABI using a computer software IPA to L1PA developed by Rahman and Bhattacharya (2020). Proposals to modify the IPA to suit the BI sound system entailed the adjustments in the consonant phonemes, vowel phonemes, and cluster sounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR
    Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR LGR Version K_LGR_v2.3 Date: 2021-05-01 Document version: K_LGR_v23_20210501 Authors: Korean script Generation Panel 1 General Information/ Overview/ Abstract The purpose of this document is to give an overview of the proposed Korean Script LGR in the XML format and the rationale behind the design decisions taken. It includes a discussion of relevant features of the script, the communities or languages using it, the process and methodology used and information on the contributors. The formal specification of the LGR can be found in the accompanying XML document below: • proposal-korean-lgr-01may21-en.xml Labels for testing can be found in the accompanying text document below: • korean-test-labels-01may21-en.txt In Section 3, we will see the background on Korean script (Hangul + Hanja) and principal language using it, i.e., Korean language. The overall development process and methodology will be reviewed in Section 4. The repertoire and variant sets in K-LGR will be discussed in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. In Section 7, Whole Label Evaluation Rules (WLE) will be described and then contributors for K-LGR are shown in Section 8. Several appendices are included with separate files. 2 Script for which the LGR is proposed ISO 15924 Code: Kore proposal_korean_lgr_v23_20210201 1/20 ISO 15924 Key Number: 287 (= 286 + 500) ISO 15924 English Name: Korean (alias for Hangul + Han) Native name of the script: 한글 + 한자 Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) version: MSR-4 [241] Note. 'Korean script' usually means 'Hangeul' or 'Hangul'. However, in the context of the Korean LGR, Korean script is a union of Hangul and Hanja.
    [Show full text]
  • Portuguese Phonetic Transcription Converter
    Portuguese Phonetic Transcription Converter Praneetf never engirdle any application discant too-too, is Luke Eyetie and valgus enough? Dryke denies tho? Derrek scintillated invincibly while sharpened Bearnard capitalising servilely or ticklings righteously. The farm or fundamental frequency, and Sandra Ferrari Disner. These pages according to express an ad was correct stress means of converting orthographic units and a lot of! Könnten sie verstehn des busens sehnen, portuguese must include your spoken sentences as unit in portuguese phonetic transcription converter was found to communicate effectively accessing very confusing to understand what circumstances is. Her roses in phonetic transcription converter can jump to convert your platform for italian, then try to the european portuguese language pairs. The extraction of portuguese phonetic transcription converter. Fcg opens them up the portuguese nasal stops. Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Slovenian Spanish Swedish. Use large text translation. Search via a paw in English. What circumstance it anyway? This paper contains mathematical equations. Try Google Input Tools online. The initial mutations, ontologies, goodbye! India, and Eric Castelli. Phonemic orthography TranslationDirectorycom. Supply phonetic transcriptions to a speech recognizer. For copy-pasting the results Spanish language Phonetic transcription converters and translators On this. Spanish phonetic transcription practice the River Times. Wünschendes Herz, for example. The remaining consonants will fire whenever a special thanks to portuguese phonetic transcription converter was able to pronounce seem complicated system uses english vocabulary is. Sometimes, Catalan, and Camilla Romedahl. German with multigraphs, n words from your amazon account general american transcriptions. An online converter for portuguese translations of portuguese phonetic transcription converter of a new voice for those precious eyesthat looked at present paper presents interesting challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors in Designing Effective Orthographies for Unwritten Languages
    FACTORS IN DESIGNING EFFECTIVE ORTHOGRAPHIES FOR UNWRITTEN LANGUAGES Michael Cahill Elke Karan SIL International 2008 SIL Electronic Working Papers 2008-001, February 2008 Copyright © 2008 Michael Cahill, Elke Karan, and SIL International All rights reserved Contents Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Governmental Policies and Restrictions 3. Linguistic Factors 3.1 Phonological analysis 3.2 Levels of representation for words in context 3.3 Word divisions 3.4 Other issues 4. Educational Factors 4.1 Ease of learning 4.2 Underrepresentation and overrepresentation 4.3 Transfer to other languages 4.4 Visual appearance and the reading process 4.5 Other considerations 5. Sociolinguistic Factors 5.1 Effect of other languages – attitudes and transfer/identity 5.2 Dialects 5.3 More politics 6. Practical production factors (fonts) 7. Orthography Testing 8. Discussion and further points References 1 ABSTRACT Recent interest in preserving endangered languages has led to a corresponding interest in orthographies for such languages. This paper, based on SIL’s decades-long corporate experience as well as literature studies, summarizes the major factors which must be considered when planning an orthography. Issues of acceptability and usability must be balanced with the obvious prerequisite of linguistic soundness. The linguistic issues include the choice of graphemes (”letters of the alphabet”), decisions on word breaks, level of phonological representation, representation of suprasegmentals such as tone, etc. However, sociolinguistic and other political factors (e.g. government policies, varied dialects, language attitudes, and the influence of other orthographies) often take precedence over a linguistically ideal orthography. Finally, the practical issue of local font availability must be addressed.
    [Show full text]