OP velar fricative orthography

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote:
> We are discussing the velar fricative. We wanted to solicit your comments
> on the various representations. WibthahoN.
>
> Some explanation:
>
> Ideally, we would prefer a single symbol for each sound. From the ULCC/UNL
> perspective, diacritics are seen as confusing to the adults who are not in
> a formal learning environment but who wish to be able to read the Omaha
> they already know – primarily the Fletcher and La Flesche text which does
> not mark the difference.
>
> The [gh] diagraph and using [q] present similar problems as the diacritics
> in probably being unrecognizable without instruction.
>
> The most recent proposal from the ULCC is the voiceless double [xx] and
> voiced single [x]. The reasoning being that regardless of sound quality,
> everyone would recognize the [x] and pronounce the word closer to correct
> than otherwise.
>
> Examples:
>
> xxude ‘gray’
> xxuga ‘badger’
> xage ‘cry’
> xebe ‘shallow’
> xthi ‘sore; pus’
> xthabe ‘tree’

KHagesoNga Mark:

I think Dorsey suggests also

waxxe 'white man'
gaxxe 'branch' (or maybe it was 'comb'?)

vs.

waxe (waaxe) ''make them'
gaxe (gaaxe) 'make'

One minor point.  Some people abhore double letters in initial places.
One anthropologist who shall remain nameless told me that tte would never
appear in anything he published.  I think folks of this persuasion dislike
tte and really dislike Tte or Xxude when capitalized.  The anthropogist in
question was written off long ago - present company excepted, Mark! - but
his sentiments were at least from the heart of an orthographically
conservative English speaker.  How does your committee feel about Xxude?

I don't particularly like gh, which smacks of the necessary but awkward
expediencies of NetSiouan, but at least it has an independent existance
and a historical precedent in English, though it has been eliminated from
pronunciation as such.  Too bad we can't use g, like Dakotanists with
their sleeves rolled up!  But, though kaga is workable, gage is not.

If we had to use one English letter not in use, I'd recommend y over q,
and if q is preferred, q should be the voiceless one, to avoid horrible
confusions looking at BAE Siouanist work (like Dorsey).

Past expedients for "voiced velar fricative" have included gamma -
actually now the standard choice among liguists, g with a bar through it
(easy on an old typewriter, too), g-hacek, g-dot, etc.

If people want something they can ignore, try dotting the voiced version.

Or maybe h-dot and g-dot or h-hacek and g-hacek are good compromises
because they gore everyone's oxen (in this case).

While it is true that some Omahas today are comfortable with the LaFlesche
system, Poncas tend not know it at all, and the number of people who are
at all literate in it is miniscule.  The only way you can really please
people used to the LaFlesche system [as mangled in Fletcher & LaFlesche]
is to stick to it.

The only major publications in this system are

a) Fletcher & LaFlesche (but not all of it)
b) LaFlesche's Osage dictionary (less Osagey) and Osage texts (more
   Osagey)
c) Swetland/Stabler

It would be very easy to reprint the last two of these and the Dorsey
texts as well as other things in a provisional edition in whatever system
is selected.  Two months of looking at them and any differences from the
LaFlesche System (or presence of haceks or whatever) will be no problem.
People who don't look at them will always complain about something.

Actually, it would be possible to print personal copies of everything for
everyone in their own choice of orthography, but I hope it doesn't come to
that.

I hope you will send out press releases as things go along!