|
|
Spelling Reform Thread
I'm not sure why you're copying and pasting my posts but ...
Does my system make all the distinctions that Loch's makes? Most of them, yes, but I'm still working on "tenner" verses "tenor".
The words "herd", "bird" and "turd" all rhyme for you and I. They all have the [e:] sound in them for you and I. They're the same vowel for you and I. However, this is not the case for everybody. For some they are /herd/, /bird/ and /t^rd/ rather than just /he:(r)d/, /be:(r)d/ and /te:(r)d/.
Loch uses "er", "ir" and "ur". This leaves him with the odd looking "yr" for /..(r)/. Sould you adopt this? You don't have to: you could use "er" like I do (this is the norm in traditional orthography anyway). But you're using "er" for something else ...
This brings me to the next thing I'm not so keen on about your system. You respell "chair", "hair", "air", "pair", etc. as "cher", "her", "er", "per", etc. Loch and I leave them as they are. I think, for ease-of-reading's sake, they are better left as they are.
Jim, Loch's system spells ''hair'' as ''hair'' but spells ''hare'' as ''heir'' if you look at the proposal, why? I respell them both as ''her''.
Jim, should I adopt these to my proposal that are included in Loch's,
''er-herd
ir-bird, dirt
oar-[Or]-more, boar, pore, oar, store
oer-[Our]-four, court, pour
air-[e..(r)] vs. [eir] stairs, their, heir, hair, air
eir-[e..(r)]vs. [eir] vs. [Ar] stare, care, hare, scare, there
''ei-[A]-made, ate, days, pane
eo-[E]-tenner [as some Northern Irish distinguish it from ''tenor'' by using a longer vowel].
oa-[O]-toe, sole, groan, nose
oe-[Ou]-tow, soul, grown, nose
dd-tied, kneed, tried, allowed, stayed
kh-loch
lh-Welsh voiceless ''l''-Llwyd
rh-rouge ''voiced uvular fricative''. ''The parisian French pronunciation of the word''
hh-[?]-Hawai'ian becomes ''Hywiehhyn''
nn-grand prix
bh-Cuba-'''Spanish pronunciation of the name, different to [b] and [v].'' [ku:Ba:] ''voiced bilabial fricative''.
ll-belle ''Light ''l'' at the end of a syllable''. ''French pronunciation of the word different to ''bell''.''
Jim, How do you respell these words?
body
bodies
If your using ''ey'' for [A]. Loch talks about using ''yy'' = ''bodies'', ''bodyyz''.
Also, how do you respell this sentence?
''They wanted to buy a beige sofa but the other people wanted to buy a rouge sofa and they had a tenor and a tenner and they had only four more days left to buy that sofa that those people made and they were doing a lot of shopping at a lot of different stores those days and they were scared and went downstairs to the kitchen.''
''Two llamas from South America were being fed yesterday last Tuesday and Wednesday of last week which is a redundant sentence but I just wanted to know how it came out in your system so it got this way because of that and they went to see the sewer that was sewing by the sewer and they found some directions that lead to discovering another universe and explained how to get to other universes.''
''They went to Hawaii and Cuba and they returned and saw something with the French word ''belle'' and the Welsh word ''Llwyd'' on it.''
Loch's system respells it as,
''Dhai went too Hywiehhey and Kuebha and dhai reeturnd and sau sumthing with dha French wurd ''bell'' and the Welsh wurd ''Lhooid'' on it.''
Also, if your using ''oe'' and ''oer'' then how do you spell ''goer'' and ''blower''? As ''goaer'' and ''bloewer''?
Might Mick,
I don't reckon I'm any kind of pro but I'll give it a bash. You ask "Can you answer that question posed on 'two particular vowel sounds of O'?" Do you mean a question tha went along these lines. "If you're adding 'oer' for [Or] then how will you spell 'goer' and 'lower'?"
Words like "goer" and "lower" are problems I'm still working on. I had had a half decent solution but this was before I considered the /O/ verses /Ou/ distinction and the /o:(r)/ verses /Our/ distinction. Maybe I'll go with "goaer" and "blo-er" but it's not ideal.
You also ask "how would you write up the following sets? (in order to dinstinguish the various 'oo's)"
1) "good", "book"
2) "food", "hoot", "loom", "loo"
3) "tool" and other "ool" endings
In Antimoon's alphabet they're:
1) /gud/, /buk/
2) /fu:d/, /hu:t/, /lu:m/, /lu:/
3) /tu:l/
"Some Aussies pronounce 3) like 2) but others pronounce 3) like an elongated 1) vowel." you write. I think I'm the first kind but even for the second I get the feeling that this is not a phonemic distinction. I mean I think the "oo" in "tool" is just how /u:/ comes out before an /l/. In my respelling system they become.
1) "good", "book"
2) "fuud", "huut", "luum", "lu"
3) "tuul", etc.
Inglish Speling,
The thing about "hair" and "heir" is that they both look as if they're mean to be pronounced as they are, "her" doesn't.
Should you adopt the distinctions included in Loch's system? If you like. If you don't make these distinctions in spelling, then those who make them in pronunciation will have trouble with your system. If you do, the rest of us are going to have the trouble.
I think what's being shown here is the fact that a phonemic spelling reform is not that great an idea. I still like Loch's more than yours.
Words like "goer" and "lower" are problems I'm still working on, as I've mentioned above. Words like "bodies" are in the same boat. I had had a half decent solution for these too but this was before I considered the /A/ verses /ei/ distinction.
Surely you hear a totally different vowel in "hook" compared to "who".
Chop the "k" off "hook" to get "hoo". This "hoo" is a different vowel sound to "who"
Surely you hear a totally different vowel in "hook" compared to "who".
Chop the "k" off "hook" to get "hoo". This "hoo" is a different vowel sound to "who"
the "u" in /Huk/ Hook is different to the "uu" in /Huu/ Who. Even though "uu" is an elongated syllable or diphthong, it doesn't change the fact that it's a different sound element.
But, Why is in Loch's system ''hair'' spelled ''hair'' but ''hare'' is spelled ''heir''?
Loch's proposal
''air-[e..(r)] vs. [eir] stairs, their, heir, hair, air
eir-[e..(r)]vs. [eir] vs. [Ar] stare, care, hare, scare, there''
Yeah, "hook" rhymes with "book" and "who" rhymes with "loo".
1) "good", "pull", "crook", "book", "hook"
2) "food", "hoot", "loom", "loo", "who"
3) "tool", "pool", "rule", "mule", "fool"
Chop off the "t" from "hoot", on the other hand and you get a "hoo" which rhymes with "who".
The real question is what happens when we chop the final letters off "fool" and "food". Do we get the same "foo"?
If we chop the "l" off "pool" is the "poo" we get the same "poo" as the one we all know and love and flush down the loo?
Come to think about it. I can detect a difference between the /u:/s before /l/s and other /u:/. However, I believe the distinction not to be phonemic. They are allophones.
Some choices in Loch's system that I don't like.
''lh-Welsh voiceless ''l''-Llwyd
ll-belle ''Light ''l'' at the end of a syllable''. ''French pronunciation of the word different to ''bell''.''
bh-Cuba-'''Spanish pronunciation of the name, different to [b] and [v].'' [ku:Ba:] ''voiced bilabial fricative''.''
Why replace the ''welsh'' ''ll'' with ''lh'' and also I don't think these above phones should be included in a spelling reform.
I've seen [hw] called a phoneme before and I've also even seen people call [hj] a phoneme. I've even seen some spelling reform proposals spelling [hj] as ''yh'', ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'', ''humongous'' etc. become ''yhoomun'', ''yhooj'', ''yhoomer'', and ''yhoomungus'' etc.,'I don't like the idea.'', I think is a very bad idea.
I've even heard that some people use a ''voiceless ''y'' instead of [hj] in words like ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'' and ''humongous'', written in Sampa as [C]. [Cu:m..n], [Cu:j], [Cu:m..r] and [Cu:m^Ng..s]. So, for them I guess [hj] counts as a seperate phoneme.
I think that using ''yh'' in words like ''human'' looks really really really odd.
I'm a speaker of the first type. I pronounce [w] and [W] as [w].
This is why there can be problems with a spelling reform. It can look crazy. This is a good example of how it can look odd. Using ''yh'' for words like ''human'', ''huge'' etc. is a very bad idea.
>Chop off the "t" from "hoot", on the other hand and you get a "hoo" which rhymes with "who".< AGREED
>If we chop the "l" off "pool" is the "poo" we get the same "poo" as the one we all know and love and flush down the loo?< AHAH!
In this case, my "pool" is different! It isn't formed from the vowel in "poo". It's formed from the vowel element in "book" that I stretch out as in the American pronunciation. Do you see what I mean?
''Words like "goer" and "lower" are problems I'm still working on, as I've mentioned above. Words like "bodies" are in the same boat. I had had a half decent solution for these too but this was before I considered the /A/ verses /ei/ distinction.''
Jim, Perhaps it's time for you to start a new proposal because your old one's getting messed up.
Another problem with spelling reforms.
EA VS. EE
MEAT VS. MEET, ''LEAK'' VS. ''LEEK'', ''REAL'' VS. ''REEL'' AND ''SEA'' VS. ''SEE'' DISTINCTION MADE IN SOME PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
Some people in some part of the British Isles pronounce ''meat'' differently to ''meet''. They pronounce ''meat'' as [mi..t] and ''meet'' as [mi:t]. Spelling them the same might seem odd to them. That's another problem with spelling reform. Should we spell ''meat'' and ''meet'' differently in a phonemic reform?
Yeah, I agree. It's a different sounding /u:/, it's like a stretched out /u/ but isn't it still an /u:/? It's a different phone but isn't just the same phoneme? Don't we still have the same idea in our heads when we say it? Isn't it just warped by the /l/?
Kind of like our mind says a "pool" is just a "poo" plus an "l" but when it hits our mouth the "poo" is unpalatable before an "l" so in our mouth it gets warped.
I think it's like "code" verses "cold" it's the same vowel phoneme, /Ou/, (in the Aussie accent) but they sound different because of the /l/.
Another problem with spelling reforms.
EA VS. EE
MEAT VS. MEET, ''LEAK'' VS. ''LEEK'', ''REAL'' VS. ''REEL'' AND ''SEA'' VS. ''SEE'' DISTINCTION MADE IN SOME PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
Some people in some part of the British Isles pronounce ''meat'' differently to ''meet''. They pronounce ''meat'' as [mi..t] and ''meet'' as [mi:t]. Spelling them the same might seem odd to them. That's another problem with spelling reform. Should we spell ''meat'' and ''meet'' differently in a phonemic reform?
|