View source for Talk:Latin Pinyin

''r'' == '''z''' doesn't seem likely a likely choice for a Latin speaker of Imperial times, as Latin grammarians say that {{sc|z}} is pronounced {{sc|sd}} or {{sc|ds}}, and it is frequently used in Vulgar Latin inscriptions for the reflex of {{sc|dj < dĭ, dĕ}} before a vowel, so you get spellings like {{sc|zabvlvs}} for '''diabolus''' and even {{sc|Zodorvs}} for '''Theodorus'''!  Later it was even used for palatalized {{sc|g}} and affricized {{sc|j}} — witness the name of the pretender Maximinus, whose cognomen is variously written '''Daia''' and '''Daza''', presumably pronounced {{IPA|[dadʒa]}}.  (One wonders where the name came from.  Can it have been Illyrian?)  These spellings suggest that if one goes for 'Latin' letter values '''z''' must be something like {{IPA|[dz]}} or possibly {{IPA|[dʒ]}}, and something {{IPA|[z]}}-like won't be likely at all.
(Also note that all of Italian, Old High German, Old French and Old Spanish use '''z''' for dental affricates!)  FWIW I've always found the ''r'' mapping to be the main attraction of Pinyin (and GR! {{-)}})  I think a Roman would definitely hear {{IPA|[ɻ]}} as '''r''' — a strange '''r''' to be sure, but definitely not a '''z'''.

These considerations of course affect the spellings of ''z, c, zh, zh''.  It doesn't seem right to me to conflate ''c'' and ''s'' — if anything should be conflated it is the ''zh'' series vs. ''z'' series distinctions, since that is not observed by quite a lot of Chinese speakers.  Therefore I suggest:

{|
| ''z'' || '''t(i)/z''' || || ''c'' || '''th(i)/z''' || || ''s'' || '''s'''
|-
| ''zh'' || '''t(i)''' || || ''ch'' || '''th(i)''' || || ''sh'' || '''s(i)''' || || ''r'' || '''r'''
|}

NB '''z''' as alternative spelling for both ''c'' and ''z'': the Romans would probably regard aspiration as simply unexpressable after '''z'''!

BTW wouldn't it be better to use '''u''' rather than '''v''' as an initial?  After all that is the more authentic Latin spelling: '''V''' as capital and '''u''' as minuscle.

As for the finals I would use '''o''' for ''ou'', since {{IPA|[o]}} when it occurs is merely an allophone of {{IPA|/ɤ/}} which is normally written ''e''. In fact Pinyin ''o'' outside ''uo'' or ''ou'' occurs only after labial, e.g. ''bo'', where it writes {{IPA|[uo]}}, or at any rate {{IPA|/uɤ/}}. Many older transcriptions  use '''''o''''' for ''uo'' or for some instances of {{IPA|/ɤ/}}.  Taking Latin and Vulgar Latin orthographic values into account I think it likely to adopt '''uo''' which at least occurred in some Latin words like {{sc|duo}}, but avoid '''ou''', and then '''o''' is ''{{sc|the}}'' choice, IMHO, in order to keep it distinct from '''u'''.

I also have the feeling that ''ü'' should be written '''iu''', since {{sc|y}} was generally merged with {{sc|i}} in Latin, and ''iu'' of course would be '''io'''.  I definitely feel '''cy''' for ''qu'' against '''cu''' for ''ku'' is somewhat weird, but I also appreciate that weirdness may be something to appreciate.

As for ''ng + t'' the obvious solution is '''nchth''', since that is how a Greek γχθ would have been rendered in Latin — NB that χτ was unorthographic in ancient Greek.  I remain to be convinced that a stop before an aspirated stop was actually released and aspirated, but that was at any rate how they were written!

BTW IMO your '''Author''' box merits a template!

[[User:Melroch|BPJ]] 07:36, 15 July 2006 (PDT)

:Well, this whole deal is something I haven't touched in some time (and I know a lot more about Latin phonology and the spelling of borrowed foreign words in later periods by now).  As for V/u, that's really more a medieval thing: the classical period didn't have minuscules, and modern spelling (at least, so far as I'm familiar with) uses V as consonantal and U as vocalic (or for labiovelars, as in ''quo'' and ''sanguis'').  The other things are reasonable.  —[[User:Muke|Muke Tever]] | [[User Talk:Muke|✎]] 20:10, 15 July 2006 (PDT)




Just wondering why the <o> in <ionle> not <iunle>. Anyone help? :-) [[User:Xipirho|Xipirho]] 17:41, 3 January 2007 (PST)

:Because at the time I didn't understand the reconstructed classical Latin phonetic system well enough to know [ʊ] sounded more like short |u| than a kind of |o|.  —[[User:Muke|Muke Tever]] | [[User Talk:Muke|✎]] 16:05, 4 January 2007 (PST)