Talk:Latin Pinyin

r == z doesn't seem likely a likely choice for a Latin speaker of Imperial times, as Latin grammarians say that z is pronounced sd or ds, and it is frequently used in Vulgar Latin inscriptions for the reflex of dj < dĭ, dĕ before a vowel, so you get spellings like zabvlvs for diabolus and even Zodorvs for Theodorus! Later it was even used for palatalized g and affricized j — witness the name of the pretender Maximinus, whose cognomen is variously written Daia and Daza, presumably pronounced [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 [dz] or possibly [dʒ], and something [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 [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 [o] when it occurs is merely an allophone of /ɤ/ which is normally written e. In fact Pinyin o outside uo or ou occurs only after labial, e.g. bo, where it writes [uo], or at any rate /uɤ/. Many older transcriptions use o for uo or for some instances of /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 duo, but avoid ou, and then o is the choice, IMHO, in order to keep it distinct from u.

I also have the feeling that ü should be written iu, since y was generally merged with 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!

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. —Muke Tever | ✎ 20:10, 15 July 2006 (PDT)

Just wondering why the <o> in <ionle> not <iunle>. Anyone help? :-) 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|. —Muke Tever | ✎ 16:05, 4 January 2007 (PST)