<html>
<body>
Hi,<br><br>
Besides <b>1.</b> glottal stop, <b>2.</b> the l -r contrast and
<b>3.</b> the voiced/unvoiced versus aspirated/unaspirated mismatch which
Chris mentions, <b>4.</b> Cia-cia also has implosive b and d as distinct
phonemes. Perhaps they use Hangul doubled consonants for
those?. But of course, Korean pp and tt are "tense"
(glottalized? faucalized? lengthened?) consonants, not implosives.
(BTW, according to Greenberg 1970 "Some generalizations concerning
glottalic consonants", IJAL 36:123–145, there is a universal
correlation of implosion with
<u>laxness</u>.) <br><br>
<b>5.</b> Also, Korean is like English in that /ng/ occurs only at the
end of syllables. My understanding about Hangul, however, is that
the same symbol (a circle) is used to represent both /ng/ (when it occurs
as the final of a syllable block), and zero (when it occurs as the
initial of a syllable block) (that is, representing a syllable without
any onset consonant). Since Cia-cia allows /ng/ at the beginning of
syllables, and also has syllables without consonant onsets (not to
mention syllables with glottal stop onset), I'm not sure how they
would/could represent the difference in Hangul. (To be fair to
Sejong the Great, these were originally different symbols, but over time
merged graphically so that now it is considered just one
"letter".)<br><br>
<b>6.</b> Finally, Korean syllables have at most only one onset
consonant, whereas Cia-cia has prenasalized consonants mp, mb, nt, ns,
nd, ngk, & ngg, as in the words <i>ndoke </i>'monkey' and
<i>nggaanggaa</i> 'crow'. Hmm, would these require some
innovative Hangul consonant digraphs, or resurrecting some obsolete
ones? I'm not sure about that. <br><br>
If I'm wrong about anything I've said about Hangul I hope someone will
correct me. <br><br>
David Mead<br><br>
<br>
At 8/7/2009 11:46 AM -0700, Christopher Sundita wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I am able to read/write
Han'geul/Korean script and going by the words for the numbers 1-10 in
Cia-Cia, it looks like that they're probably had to make some
modifications in the script.<br>
<br>
For example, in Korean, the distinction between voiced and unvoiced
consonants is not phonemic; instead it's aspirated & unaspirated (as
well as "tense" sounds) When transliterating foreign words into
Korean, voiced sounds are represented by the unaspirated letters and the
unvoiced ones, the aspirate ones.<br>
<br>
Looking at the words for 4 (pa'a) and 6 (no'o), I wouldn't know how they
would write a glottal stop in Han'geul.<br>
<br>
Also, it looks like /r/ and /l/ are sounds in Cia-Cia, however in
Han'geul they are written with the same letter. Korean has both sounds,
but only in allophonic variation.<br>
<br>
I see a photo of the book they published:
<a href="http://photo-media.daum-img.net/200908/06/yonhap/20090806063009295.jpg">
http://photo-media.daum-img.net/200908/06/yonhap/20090806063009295.jpg</a>
It says "bahasa cia-cia" on the cover. I
think "bahasa" looks right, but I wonder why they wrote
"cia-cia" with the letters they did. <br>
<br>
--Chris Sundita<br><br>
<br>
--- On <b>Fri, 8/7/09, John Ulrich Wolff
<i><juw1@cornell.edu></i></b> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>From: John Ulrich Wolff <juw1@cornell.edu>
<dd>Subject: [An-lang] Korean script for Cia-Cia
<dd>To: an-lang@anu.edu.au
<dd>Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 7:01 AM
<dd>Re: John Bowden's citation of the article in the Jakarta Globe about
<dd>the Korean script to transcribe Cia-Cia. Does anyone know how
<dd>adequate the Korean script is to transcribe Cia-Cia?
<dd>John Wolff
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>