From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:28:32 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <509071940909111253o24e4131as16bf2534772aadfe@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9108733c892b0a33fd35bb8df27e14@quanstro.net> <68F5914168759B188DF09A60@192.168.1.2> <509071940909111253o24e4131as16bf2534772aadfe@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] Simplified Chinese plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6d78ca44-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > lots of romance languages have exactly that characteristic, though > (maybe other languages, too). see C and G in italian. "ci" is simply > pronounced "correctly" as "chi". That's true but isn't exactly the same thing. "Irregularly" pronounced combinations are still valid combinations. I'd say the universal example for languages that are written in Latin alphabet or a variation thereof would be the (notorious) 'fgsfds.' It's an invalid combination because there is _no_ pronunciation at all--except 'figgis-fiddis' which is a really recent, and ground-breaking, invention ;-) With Japanese syllabaries one cannot produce unpronounceable sequences. Nonsense, yes, but nothing that cannot be uttered. --On Friday, September 11, 2009 15:53 -0400 Anthony Sorace wrote: > lots of romance languages have exactly that characteristic, though > (maybe other languages, too). see C and G in italian. "ci" is simply > pronounced "correctly" as "chi". >