|
|
Spelling reform idea.
<<american nic, Canadian Raising is an interesting case in that it is not a true phonemic split in most cases, but rather is allophonic in nature. The "in most cases" part is that there are some words where [@I] has seemed to become phonemic at least here, such as in the word "spider" (["sp@:I.4@`]) and the surname "Schneider" (["Sn@:I.4@`]), as opposed to "rider" (["r\a:I.4@`]); at best this could possibly be considered a case of allophony which is sensitive to morpheme boundaries, but even then I am not exactly how such would be represented in writing, as morpheme boundaries themselves are clearly not marked in such. Consequently, I have simply denoted the digraph <ei> as referring to this anomalous [@I] which cannot be explained in terms of allophony caused by a following unvoiced consonant (with a possible interceding sonorant) or a following /r/, for use in dialects which actually have such a possibly phonemic or morphologically sensitive allophonic [@I]. Thusly, "rider" would be spelled <raider> but "spider" would be spelled <speider>.>>
That's interesting. For me, Canadian Raising only ever occurs before voiced consonant phonemes - so my "Schneider" and "spider" are not raised. In my speech, "Schneider", "spider", and "rider" all rhyme with each other, and none of them rhyme with "writer".
Sorry, I meant "unvoiced consonant phonemes" above.
<<Travis,
''pyld'' for ''pulled''? What does ''yl'' represent?>>
<yl> represents /l=/
<<How about these words:
...
How do you spell them in your system?>>
"wool": <wyl>
"full" : <fyl>
"bull" : <byl>
"bullet" : <byllit>
"boulevard" : <byllavaard>
<<What about these mergers and splits:
The ''fern''-''fir''-''fur'' merger: /E`/ vs. /I`/ vs. /3`/
...
This merger occurs everywhere except for Scotland and some parts of Ireland.
'''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''vane''-''vain''-''vein'' merger: /e/ vs. /{I/ vs. /eI/
...
Merged everywhere except for parts of Northern England and Wales.
'''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''toe''-''tow'' merger: /o/ vs. /oU/
...
Merged everywhere except for parts of Northern England and Wales.
'''''''''''''''''
The ''meet''-''meat'' merger: /i/ vs. /I@/
...
Occurs everywhere except for parts of Northern England.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''rode''-''road'' merger: /o/ vs /o@/
...
Distinct in parts of Scotland.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''mews''-''muse'' merger: /Iu/ vs. /y/
...
Distinct in parts of Scotland.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''kitty''-''committee'' merger: /i/ vs. /i:/
...
Distinct in various parts of Briton.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''bad''-''lad'' split: /{/ vs. /{:/
...
Distinct in parts of Southern England and Australia.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The ''brute''-''fruit'' merger: /y/ vs. /Y/
...
Distinct in parts of Scotland.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
It seems like your system doesn't distinguish them either.>>
No, none of these are distinguished by my system, but then, my system is not designed to represent anything beyond North American English, for starters. Furthermore, my main design, not my modified one, is designed, intentionally, to only necessarily represent Northern Inland American, Northern Central American, Western American, Californian American, and non-Atlantic Canadian English, even though it may also represent other dialects as well most likely. Hence, I would consider it rather unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in certain portions of Scotland to start with. My alternate version is for the sake of representing a wider range of North American English dialects, but it is still targeted at specifically North American English alone.
<<no, none of these are distinguished by my system, but then, my system is not designed to represent anything beyond North American English, for starters. Furthermore, my main design, not my modified one, is designed, intentionally, to only necessarily represent Northern Inland American, Northern Central American, Western American, Californian American, and non-Atlantic Canadian English, even though it may also represent other dialects as well most likely. Hence, I would consider it rather unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in certain portions of Scotland to start with. My alternate version is for the sake of representing a wider range of North American English dialects, but it is still targeted at specifically North American English alone.>>
So you that English spelling should change in North America only and that other countries should keep traditional orthography, right? Why is that? Wouldn't it be better for the whole world to participate in reforming the English language, or would it be best for North Americans alone to have the new orthography while others would be sticking to tradition?
What about these distinctions which exist in certain variaties of American English:
father vs. bother /A/ vs. /Q/
Mary vs. marry vs. merry /er/ vs. /{r/ vs. /Er/
mirror vs. nearer /Ir/ vs. /ir/
horse vs. hoarse /Or/ vs. /or/
hurry vs. furry /Vr/ vs. /3`/
wine vs. whine /w/ vs. /W/
upon vs. above /V/ vs. /@/
<<What about these distinctions which exist in certain variaties of American English:
father vs. bother /A/ vs. /Q/
Mary vs. marry vs. merry /er/ vs. /{r/ vs. /Er/
mirror vs. nearer /Ir/ vs. /ir/
horse vs. hoarse /Or/ vs. /or/
hurry vs. furry /Vr/ vs. /3`/
wine vs. whine /w/ vs. /W/
upon vs. above /V/ vs. /@/>>
Are any of those distinguished in your system?
Yes, all of those are distinguished or at least have the provision for being distinguished, in my alternate orthography. But anyways, you forget that the systems I have created are specifically *provisional* - they were never designed to serve all of English in the first place, and my initial orthography which the alternate orthography was created off of really was only meant to accurately represent the dialects spoken in southern Wisconsin phonemically. However, I later worked in provisions in my main orthography to allow the representation of a somewhat wider range of dialects, by allowing the representation of unmerged "Mary"/"merry"/"marry", "mirror"/"nearer", and "horse"/"hoarse"; note that my design actually originally created the provision for distinguishing "wine" and "whine", as there are older people here who do distinguish the two. For representing my own speech, informal or formal, I still use my main orthography, simply because practically all the distinctions worked into the alternate orthography do not exist here, and hence they would be of no use in describing my own speech.
<<no, none of these are distinguished by my system, but then, my system is not designed to represent anything beyond North American English, for starters. Furthermore, my main design, not my modified one, is designed, intentionally, to only necessarily represent Northern Inland American, Northern Central American, Western American, Californian American, and non-Atlantic Canadian English, even though it may also represent other dialects as well most likely. Hence, I would consider it rather unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in certain portions of Scotland to start with. My alternate version is for the sake of representing a wider range of North American English dialects, but it is still targeted at specifically North American English alone.>>
Travis, Is this because you that English spelling should change in North America only and that other countries should keep traditional orthography, right? Why is that? Wouldn't it be better for the whole world to participate in reforming the English language, or would it be best for North Americans alone to have the new orthography while others would be sticking to tradition? I'd say it's the former.
<<The only thing is that it does seem like the current orthography does
preserve some indications where unstressed [V] might be present.>>
<<Unstressed /V/ is present in these dialects where the unstressed vowel is
spelled with a ''u''. Also, these dialects pronounce ''what'' and ''was'' as
/w@t/ and /w@z/ with a stressed /@/ so that ''was'' doesn't rhyme with
''buzz'' /bVz/. The stressed /@/ does not occur elsewhere. ''cup'', ''son'',
''front'' and ''luck'' all have stressed /V/.>>
<<The stressed /@/ does not occur elsewhere.>>
Except for words like ''cart'', ''part'', ''start'' etc. which also have an unstressed [@] in these accents.
Quote-''However, I later worked in provisions in my main orthography to allow the representation of a somewhat wider range of dialects, by allowing the representation of unmerged "Mary"/"merry"/"marry", "mirror"/"nearer", and "horse"/"hoarse"; note that my design actually originally created the provision for distinguishing "wine" and "whine", as there are older people here who do distinguish the two.''
What about unmerged ''father''/''bother'' /A/ vs. /Q/ , unmerged ''furry''/''hurry'' /3`/ vs. /Vr/, unmerged ''upon''/''above'' /V/ vs. /@/ and unmerged ''forward''/''foreword'' /@`/ vs. /3`/. Does your system have provisions for distinguishing those?
father - /fAD@`/
bother - /bQD@`/
furry - /f3`i/
hurry - /hVri/
upon - /VpQn/
above - /@bVv/
forward - /fOrw@`d/
foreword - /fOrw3`d/ or /forw3`d/
These distinctions exist in some North American dialects as well as non-North American ones.
>>Travis, Is this because you that English spelling should change in North America only and that other countries should keep traditional orthography, right? Why is that? Wouldn't it be better for the whole world to participate in reforming the English language, or would it be best for North Americans alone to have the new orthography while others would be sticking to tradition? I'd say it's the former.<<
Puhleez, don't try reading into things too much. Such is provisional simply because it is not intended in the first place as a large scale orthographic reform in Real Life, and not even simply one limited to North American English. Furthermore, the reason why it is limited to a relatively narrow range of dialects is simply because my knowledge of the dialects in question is not wide enough to make any kind of wide range orthographic reform feasible on a personal level. I simply do not know enough about English dialects outside of North America to design a new orthography that would cover most English dialects overall effectively at this point.
<<No, none of these are distinguished by my system, but then, my system is not designed to represent anything beyond North American English, for starters. Furthermore, my main design, not my modified one, is designed, intentionally, to only necessarily represent Northern Inland American, Northern Central American, Western American, Californian American, and non-Atlantic Canadian English, even though it may also represent other dialects as well most likely. Hence, I would consider it rather unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in certain portions of Scotland to start with. My alternate version is for the sake of representing a wider range of North American English dialects, but it is still targeted at specifically North American English alone.>>
<<Hence, I would consider it rather unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in certain portions of Scotland to start with.>>
I assume you also meant to say that it would be very unlikely that it would consider distinctions that only exist in Northern England, Wales, Southern England and Australia, because ''portions of Scotland'' are not the whole of non-North America. I'm from Scotland and can certainly tell you that certain portions of it are not the whole of non-North America.
|