''Bob, if we are to take his word for it, makes a phonemic distinction that most of us don't make. The [Q] is Bob's own invention for this sound he claims to use.''
Is the distinction I make really so rare? I didn't know it was that rare? If it's so rare I might stop making it. Should I stop making the distinction so that I sound like most English speakers?
qu,
Truespel doesn't distinguish "Mary", "marry" and "merry". Don't use Truespel as your yard-stick.
I let Tom explain why he left out the distinctions he did:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5718.htm
[W] is the voiceless consonant spelt "wh" in "where", "when", etc. that is used by some.
Bob,
If you really do make this distinction, I don't really care whether you keep doing so or not. You make yourself understood, right? That's the main thing.
''If you really do make this distinction, I don't really care whether you keep doing so or not. You make yourself understood, right? That's the main thing.''
Well, what I was asking is, is it really so rare to make the distinction?
Some people have told me before that my accent sounds archaic.
I don't think truespel is right to leave out [Q]. Shouldn't (if spelling is to reformed), a spelling reform proposal favour all accents and thus shew all the distinctions made in all dialects? (or should it merge the rare distinctions)?
''Truespel doesn't distinguish "Mary", "marry" and "merry". Don't use Truespel as your yard-stick.''
Why should it? Those words are homonyms.
I disagree that spelling reform should favor including the [Q] phoneme that Bob uses because it's so rare and the same goes for [W].
Jim, do you make the [Q] distinction? I'm curious as to what words [Q] would be in.
"Mary", "marry" and "merry" are homonyms for some (not all) Americans.
Would I be questioning whether this so-called distinction exists if I made it?
''Would I be questioning whether this so-called distinction exists if I made it?''
I guess not. Do you also question whether the so-called distinction exists between [w] and [W]?
I don't believe that [Q] and [W] are really any different phonetically from [kw] and [hw].
Phonetically different they may be but from a phonological point of view, they are the same.
''Would I be questioning whether this so-called distinction exists if I made it?''
I always similarly question whether the so-called ''bad/lad'' vowel distinction exists and whether the ''w/wh'' distinction exists. I believe that both these distinctions and Bob's [Q] distinction exist but should be ignored in a phonemic spelling reform.
''Phonetically different they may be but from a phonological point of view, they are the same.''
How I pronounce these words,
quit-[Qit]
kwanzaa-[kwa:nz..]
whine-[Wain]
Huang-[hw@N]
There not phonetically the same for me. How do you pronounce the following words?
Bob, you are wrong, [Q] and [W] and also [kw] and [hw] are the same phonemically and phonetically.
I believe spelling reform should be ignored.
quit-[kwit]
whine-[wain]
kwanzaa & Huang - I've never pronounced them.
''I believe spelling reform should be ignored.''
Why? Or in my suggested spelling reform idea, (H)wei?
Spelling is very illogical. Why should ''oo'' for example represent both [u:] as in ''food'' and [wo:] as in ''book''? Shouldn't since those are different sounds, they should be written differently?
You, Willy, are very illogical.