Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on December 10, 2019, 01:53:33 AM
How about a good place to start is to convert l'Overstéir so it gives "Marcel's Provisional Standard" spelling as well as the Classic and Common ones?

I've looked at the code and my God it's a mess. Maybe it's possible to add a third option but it wouldn't be easy.

Oh by the way Iac, I found a few more bugs as well. try conjugating pevar in the past tense and with both spellings enabled!

QuoteWho ran that?

Alèx S I believe

El glheþ schi tent 'n aisþetică, mas c'e'n aisþetică... special à ça. Come en zía-si, quirkească.

Yup, I wasn't wrong.

Quote from: Lüc on December 09, 2019, 11:08:53 AM
Yes, I didn't really want to use Discord because of off-site login and off-site storage. However, there seem to be some cool tools for embedding Discord which also allow for guest access, which would remove the login concern. I'm now investigating this.

Marcel, imma need you to give me permissions on the Discord server (or stay in contact with me while we set this up together)

Aucün problüm.

Quote from: Lüc on December 09, 2019, 07:48:09 AM
Shoutbox update: unfortunately all mods I found were either outdated, paid or have off-site login. For example, there's a nice shoutbox (SMFPacks Shoutbox Pro if you want to look it up) which costs 19$ one-off. Embedding Chatzy also requires a subscription though, which would be as much as 129$ per year (unsustainable).

As standard Chatzy doesn't require to buy Premium, for the time being I have added a redirect under the Chat Room board. We might need to do something custom if we don't want to pay for a shoutbox.

We could embed the Discord server, no?

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 09, 2019, 04:12:14 AM
I do think it is safe to assume /c/ for ‹q›, or at least a palatalised /kʲ/, and that the annotation as "kj" was only a crutch, because "c" was used for /ts/ and other IPA symbols were not available (e.g."ëS" for [əʃ].
A few years back, I had the discussion of whether "qátor" wasn't supposed to be /cator/, because it is derived from the Insular (p-)Celtic word for the numeral, which has a palatal velar stop. Cresti, if I remember correctly, seemed to agree.

Sir Tomás gives [katër] as the pronunciation of qator in his 1999 addenda/errata to the ScurzGram (link), though I wouldn't mind allowing ['kjatər] or ['kjator] as long as we can all agree that its spelled with a Q. Though if I'm honest, I thought qator was derived from quattuor as a replacement of the former Celtic form ceatháir [kahër] (which, as you said, should've had [c]).

QuoteInteresting. I am not sure however to interpret the part with "posh/mush", because that does not rhyme for me even with the shwa. ScGr2 says: "When the ending is stressed, it is pronounced [aS]. When unstressed, it is pronounced [ëS]. [...] Two irregular verbs have aberrant endings, but still end in -rë. These aberrant verbs are irë [iëS] [...]"
Personally, I interpret this as Madison not understanding how i-stem verbs work. I will shrug at that for the moment, but I would suggest either a spelling reform to "íar(h)" and "tíar(h)", or actually using a spelling pronunciation.

It's really annoying that talossan.com insisted on using Englishy pronunciation guides instead of the IPA because of stuff like this. In General American, "posh" and "mush" would be pronounced as [pɑʃ] and [mʌ̟ʃ] respectively, which would be clumsy approximations of [aʃ] and [əʃ]. Not really a fan of "pronunciation reforms" honestly.

QuoteI mean, I do not really care. Both seem valid and logical, but the "-rh" is somewhat unique, and worth keeping as an infinitive suffix, too.

-rh for the infinitive was probably the second most controversial aspect of the 2007 reform, right after Î-gate. Personally I'm just glad that there was an agreement one way or the other.

QuoteBy the way, one correction I do have, I checked again, is that "acestilor" should have a [ʃ] for the "s", because ScGr2 lists it as "aCeSCëlër".

Right, my mistake. I'll fix that right away.

QuoteAs to the /l/ → [ð], I think there may be a case for the /l/ becoming a voiced interdental fricative intervocalically, at least optionally, because ScGr2 says:

QuoteOther peculiar phonetic features include the fronting of word-initial [l] to [D] (as in English "this") between vowels: the phrases la divertà ("the fun") and la livertà ("the liberty") are pronounced alike: [la Diverta]. This innovation has even crept into a few word-medial situations, e.g. fodiclâ [foDiklë], "follicle".

I'm not sure. For me it's pretty telling that Ben felt the need to respell it with a D even back then. Ben seemed to think it was just an exception to the rule. I mean, I guess we could go and ask him sometimes.

EDIT: For the purposes of this temporary short-term standard though, I'd rather stay as safe as humanly possible and leave the big reforms to the Unified Standard.

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 08, 2019, 07:13:49 PM
Marcel, why:

• do you have /k/ for q, when all materials actually show that "q" is a distinct phoneme [c~kʲ],

I don't. I have /kj/ for <q>, as suggested by the ScurzGram/Treisour (which both say its [kj]) and talossan.com ("q is pronounced as the beginning of the English words "cue" and "cute"."). There are some words where <q> is irregularly pronounced as /k/ though, and I got those directly from the ScurzGram and the 1997 Treisour.

Quote

• do these words show a glide: "cioveci" (which should be [t͡ʃoˈvet͡ʃ]), "(t)irh" (which should be [(t)i(ː)ʃ]),

This is intentional. "cioveci" might be up for debate (ScurzGram explicitly says [CovejC] and I remember reading that on kingdomoftalossa.net as well, but talossan.com suggests [tʃoˈvetʃ]), but literally all Glheþ materials say (t)ir is to be pronounced [(t)i.əʃ] (ScurzGram has "irë [iëS]" and "tirë [tiëS]", talossan.com states that all verb infinitives, including the ones in -irh, rhyme with "posh", or "mush" if unstressed, which suggests [(t)i.əʃ] as well)

Quote

• do you write -r [ʃ] for the infinitive, but the future suddenly has a -h- inserted before the suffixes, when pronunciation of the /r/ as [ʃ] does not change?

Because reverting the infinitive to -r was agreed upon by both sides of the aisle and the -rh- spelling was something that both sides already had anyway. The way I personlly make sense of it is that the H is a remnant of an older future auxiliary (cf. Spanish hablaré, from earlier *hablar he) though I'll admit there are some verbs where this doesn't work (säperéu with a medial [r], for instance).

Quote from: Lüc on December 08, 2019, 12:32:55 PM
Look at this beauty. Temporary Wittenberg! Hah, if only Q knew...

Yeesh. That aged like milk.

Oh, something that we have to get done ASAP once SIGN has formed is updating talossan.com, urgently.

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 08, 2019, 10:24:02 AM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on December 08, 2019, 08:30:02 AM
Yeah, L has a bunch of different pronunciations...

I am pretty sure /l/ is [ð] in intervocalic position, and not just word-initally after a vowel (which is "Vl", so that is not strictly word-initally, but I guess this means "#Vl"?).

What I meant by "word-initally after a vowel" is "word-initially only if the preceding word ends in a vowel", like in la livertà (Scurz. Gram., page 13). The Talossan Pronunciation PDF that Miestră attached above and the Introduction to the 1997 Treisour (link, page 13) share my interpretation.

talossan.com and Hool say that /l/ > [ð] always occurs between vowels, but Cresti disagrees: link.

I don't know, it looks to me like /l/ > [ð] / V_V was just a misinterpretation on Hool's part that somehow managed to get into talossan.com unnoticed.

Yeah, L has a bunch of different pronunciations...

Some off-the-cuff ideas I had at 1:30am:

Setup:

   
• Automatic membership for (former) CÚGers when they ask for it, to make the transition easier
• As little bureaucracy as possible: there's no need for (sub)committees or strict hierarchies when we're only ~4 people
• Voting on proposals as they come up: the CÚG used to collect proposals into 'packages' of sorts to be voted on before a fixed date (that being Llimbaziuă) which strikes me as superfluous as of now

Methodology:

   
• Emphasis on descriptivism: despite my constantly annoying people around me because of spelling stuff, SIGN should not walk around and proclaim what is and isn't correct, that's the speakers' job. the Scurzniă Gramatică explicitly stated that only the CÚG can authorise the introduction and use of new words which is painfully ass-backwards. At most SIGN should recommend stuff for consistency's and/or good style's sake, no more and no less.
• Research on older forms of Talossan: does anyone know what, say, mid-80s Talossan look like? Wouldn't it be useful to know what it looked like in at least some circumstances? We should definitely try to research that more.

What else?

Lüc noticed the new Witt supports multiple languages and suggested we localise it into Talossan. I love the idea, but which spelling do we use? If more than one person works on a localisation, we'd either have different conflicting spellings next to each other or we'd have to agree on which system to use consistently.

In the meantime other things in the kingdom need translations too, and again, which spelling do we use?

At the very very least, we could agree on some kind of makeshift solution until the big "Unified Standard" is finalised. Like, we could just directly compare how each of us spells stuff (one of the reasons why I made the PDF in my signature, I advise that you guys have something like that as well) and find a common denominator that way. Please?

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on December 06, 2019, 02:37:13 PM
I think that whichever of you guys actually wants to take responsibility for getting SIGN started and making policy on orthography and everything else will be recommended for the Order of the Purple Tongue by myself.

Sadly, everything I saw over the last term was everyone saying "no not me" and ducking for cover, while agreeing that someone else should do it.

I didn't see that, I saw people who couldnt agree on much, if anything.

Setting up SIGN and declaring spelling reforms is really easy. The most important and difficult part is to actually convince everyone else to actually follow the spelling reforms you declared, because what's the point of having official spelling rules if nobody follows them?

I could just set up SIGN and declare that the spellings that I outlined in the PDF in my signature are now the One True Orthography(TM), but unless everyone else involved has a sudden change of heart, this would get us nowhere. It'd probably piss people off and make the job even more difficult in future. Though if you think that unilaterally declaring stuff is not only fine but actually the way to go, I will happily do just that.