How to write sh-sound?

[Kevin Behrens]

 > But if we use ancient ways it is more authentic, and more fun. 
So, it is fun? ;)

Well, I don't want to insist on my version. I would go fine with <sj> aswell. 
But I will comment your comments on my comments. ;) 
The thing with English learners is, for them the "sh" is already really common and familiar.
And sure, <sh> could be devided into two syllables, but that should be clear when reading it. But there is no other possible pronounciation thinkable, except maybe an aspirated [s]. If we all decide about <sj> as to be [ʃ] we will always have the problem of ambiguation between [ʃ] and [sj]. For "foreign" people this might end in confusion. This is my biggest problem with this version. I already talked to Robert Pfeffer, the creator of the Gothic fonts, if he had time for creating and extended gothic font with added signs for not-gothic transcription. But he doesn't have the time for it. In the gothic wikipedia we have to big problem, that we don't have any rules of transcription from English to Gothic yet. I would be really happy if this discussion will go further and might end into a set of rules for a standardized transcription. If we could make changings on the gothic font, we could make a sign for <sj> that both letters are a bit more closer so that they appear more as belonging together. 

I would agree with your version:
𐍃𐌾  [sj]  > [sʲ]  > [ʃ] 

𐍄𐍃𐌾 [tsj] > [tsʲ] > [tʃ] 

𐌶𐌾  [zj]  > [zʲ]  > [ʒ] 

𐌳𐌶𐌾 [dzj] > [dzʲ] > [dʒ] 

To: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
From: everson at evertype.com
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:44:49 +0000
Subject: Re: [gothic-l] How to write sh-sound?


















 



  


    
      
      
      On 19 Mar 2012, at 21:29, Kevin Behrens wrote:



> But most of the people learning Gothic know English at least at an intermediate level.



So?



> I see in "sh" an international sign for [ʃ] as seen in the intuitive way of the users.



There's nothing intuitive about any collection of graphemes. One learns that Greek γγ and Gothic 𐌲𐌲 are pronoununced like NG. 



> "𐍃𐌷" cannot stand for anything else,



It cans tand for the sequence [s] followed by [h], as in the word "householder". 



> but "si" or "sj" could have another reading [sj] and I think it is hard to always distinguish them intuitivly without having the distinction made in written language. 



But [s][j] is closer to [ʃ] than [s][h] is. The J palatalizes the S nicely; compare [sj] > [sʲ] > [ʃ]. 



> But why does we have to make it historically rationable here?



Because if you don't then it is just a ham-fisted pastiche, as opposed to an artistic reconstruction. 



> The Goths haven't had contact with English people as far as we know. The need for finding transcription ways are just of today and so we could use modern ways. 



But if we use ancient ways it is more authentic, and more fun. 



Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





    
     

    
    






   		 	   		  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20120319/25d8e1fc/attachment.htm>