how are you?
Spelling reform idea.
>>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? <<
*As I have already said*, my alternate system does already include provisions for representing those differences except /@`/ versus /3`/. Hence those would rather normatively be, in dialects that distinguish all of the above, in my preexisting alternate system:
"father" : <faadher>
"bother" : <bodher>
"furry" : <ferri>
"hurry" : <hurri>
"upon" : <uppon>
"above" : <abbav>
I have added a way for representing /@`/ versus /3`/, in dialects which would represent it, which would be making /3`/ be <eir>/<eir> and /@`/ be <er>/<err>. Hence,
"furry" : <feiri>
"forward" : <foorwerd>
"foreword" : <foorweird>
(Assume a dialect without a "horse"/"hoarse" distinction, as in dialects with such, the above would change to using "foar" rather than "foor".)
But anyways, why are you pressing this entire issue so much, when I have already said that all of this is specifically provisional to start with, is specifically intended to only be design for a limited range of dialects, and is also not meant to serve as an actual practical orthographic reform in the first place?
*As I have already said*, my alternate system does already include provisions for representing those differences except /@`/ versus /3`/. Hence those would rather normatively be, in dialects that distinguish all of the above, in my preexisting alternate system:
"father" : <faadher>
"bother" : <bodher>
"furry" : <ferri>
"hurry" : <hurri>
"upon" : <uppon>
"above" : <abbav>
I have added a way for representing /@`/ versus /3`/, in dialects which would represent it, which would be making /3`/ be <eir>/<eir> and /@`/ be <er>/<err>. Hence,
"furry" : <feiri>
"forward" : <foorwerd>
"foreword" : <foorweird>
(Assume a dialect without a "horse"/"hoarse" distinction, as in dialects with such, the above would change to using "foar" rather than "foor".)
But anyways, why are you pressing this entire issue so much, when I have already said that all of this is specifically provisional to start with, is specifically intended to only be design for a limited range of dialects, and is also not meant to serve as an actual practical orthographic reform in the first place?
Dammit, <eir> won't work, as I have already reserved <ei> for another purpose; make that <eur> instead. Hence, the aforementioned words affected would become:
"furry" : <feuri>
"forward" : <foorwerd>
"foreword" : <foorweurd>
But then, again, this orthography is specifically designed to fit the phonology of the dialect here, to an insane degree; hell, I reserved a specific digraph, <ei>, to mark a few seemingly anomalous instances of [@I] which could not be easily explained allophonically in the dialect in the area I'm from, which is going quite far when it comes to fitting an orthography to the specifics of the phonology of one's dialect.
"furry" : <feuri>
"forward" : <foorwerd>
"foreword" : <foorweurd>
But then, again, this orthography is specifically designed to fit the phonology of the dialect here, to an insane degree; hell, I reserved a specific digraph, <ei>, to mark a few seemingly anomalous instances of [@I] which could not be easily explained allophonically in the dialect in the area I'm from, which is going quite far when it comes to fitting an orthography to the specifics of the phonology of one's dialect.
Travis,
<above> would be <abbuv> rather than <abbav> in dialects with the ''above''-''upon'' distinction, because there's also a distinction in these between stressed /@/ in ''what'', ''was'' and words ending in ''-art'' and stressed /V/ in ''but'' and ''buzz''.
For me, ''was'' is /w@z/ and ''buzz'' is /bVz/.
<above> would be <abbuv> rather than <abbav> in dialects with the ''above''-''upon'' distinction, because there's also a distinction in these between stressed /@/ in ''what'', ''was'' and words ending in ''-art'' and stressed /V/ in ''but'' and ''buzz''.
For me, ''was'' is /w@z/ and ''buzz'' is /bVz/.
<<But anyways, why are you pressing this entire issue so much, when I have already said that all of this is specifically provisional to start with, is specifically intended to only be design for a limited range of dialects, and is also not meant to serve as an actual practical orthographic reform in the first place?>>
Does ''anyways'' mean the same thing as ''anyway''? Such a word as ''anyways'' doesn't exist in my dialect, so I'm curious if ''anyways'' means the same thing or something a little bit different to ''anyway''.
Does ''anyways'' mean the same thing as ''anyway''? Such a word as ''anyways'' doesn't exist in my dialect, so I'm curious if ''anyways'' means the same thing or something a little bit different to ''anyway''.
I'm just curious as to how ''berry'' /bEri/ in unmerged ''Mary''-''marry''-''merry'' merging accents would be represented, because it seems like your spelling ''battery'' /b{t@`i/ as ''baterri''.
<<But anyways, why are you pressing this entire issue so much, when I have already said that all of this is specifically provisional to start with, is specifically intended to only be design for a limited range of dialects, and is also not meant to serve as an actual practical orthographic reform in the first place?>>
No spelling reform is likely to succeed. People think we should keep traditional orthography even with it's absurd spellings like ''one'' and ''two''. So is any spelling reform idea meant to serve a practical orthographic reform in the first place?
No spelling reform is likely to succeed. People think we should keep traditional orthography even with it's absurd spellings like ''one'' and ''two''. So is any spelling reform idea meant to serve a practical orthographic reform in the first place?
<<But anyways, why are you pressing this entire issue so much, when I have already said that all of this is specifically provisional to start with, is specifically intended to only be design for a limited range of dialects>>
Well, it's because I was not able to distinguish ''forward'' and ''foreword'' in your system, which are distinct for me in speech. But I guess I can distinguish them now:
<foarwerd> vs. <foorweurd>
So, that problem I had with your system is gone. I can now write my accent better in your phonemic system.
Well, it's because I was not able to distinguish ''forward'' and ''foreword'' in your system, which are distinct for me in speech. But I guess I can distinguish them now:
<foarwerd> vs. <foorweurd>
So, that problem I had with your system is gone. I can now write my accent better in your phonemic system.
Another thing that I'm curious about, is how does your system write ''go'' and ''gocart''? I assume they'd be ''go'' and ''gookart''. But, ''gocart'' is a compound word and it would seem strange to write it as if it were not. Similar thing goes with ''blow'' and ''blowhole'', which it seems that you'd spell ''blo'' and ''bloohool''.
>>Travis,
<above> would be <abbuv> rather than <abbav> in dialects with the ''above''-''upon'' distinction, because there's also a distinction in these between stressed /@/ in ''what'', ''was'' and words ending in ''-art'' and stressed /V/ in ''but'' and ''buzz''.
For me, ''was'' is /w@z/ and ''buzz'' is /bVz/.<<
Tis true. I should say that I should not be good at representing in terms of phonemes that simply don't exist in my own dialect or any dialects close to mine.
>>Does ''anyways'' mean the same thing as ''anyway''? Such a word as ''anyways'' doesn't exist in my dialect, so I'm curious if ''anyways'' means the same thing or something a little bit different to ''anyway''.<<
I'd think that would be probably be a yes myself.
>>I'm just curious as to how ''berry'' /bEri/ in unmerged ''Mary''-''marry''-''merry'' merging accents would be represented, because it seems like your spelling ''battery'' /b{t@`i/ as ''baterri''.<<
Nah, I would myself spell "battery" as <baeterri>, since it uses /{/, not /A/, here.
As for spelling "berry", I would spell it, if I were representing in a non-"Mary"-"merry"-"marry"-merging dialect as <beari>. For example, were I representing a fully unmerged dialect, "Mary" would be <meri>, "merry" would be <meari>, and "marry" would be <maeri>.
>>No spelling reform is likely to succeed. People think we should keep traditional orthography even with it's absurd spellings like ''one'' and ''two''. So is any spelling reform idea meant to serve a practical orthographic reform in the first place?<<
This is less a matter of simply not expecting it to succeed than simply a matter of not having enough information myself to really design an orthography for anything beyond only a particular section of NAE dialects; as shown above, I myself haven't the least clue about where /@/ is used and where /V/ is used in dialects that differentiate the two, besides from simply guessing based on the current orthography. Beyond that, I probably can pronounce standard Hochdeutsch more "correctly" than Received Pronunciation, and I haven't the least clue of the particulars of the phonology of English English dialects beyond that, some of the more notable attributes of Estuary English and Cockney aside. And don't even think I have any clue about Scottish English, Welsh English, or Irish English pronunciation, much the less Scots proper pronunciation.
<above> would be <abbuv> rather than <abbav> in dialects with the ''above''-''upon'' distinction, because there's also a distinction in these between stressed /@/ in ''what'', ''was'' and words ending in ''-art'' and stressed /V/ in ''but'' and ''buzz''.
For me, ''was'' is /w@z/ and ''buzz'' is /bVz/.<<
Tis true. I should say that I should not be good at representing in terms of phonemes that simply don't exist in my own dialect or any dialects close to mine.
>>Does ''anyways'' mean the same thing as ''anyway''? Such a word as ''anyways'' doesn't exist in my dialect, so I'm curious if ''anyways'' means the same thing or something a little bit different to ''anyway''.<<
I'd think that would be probably be a yes myself.
>>I'm just curious as to how ''berry'' /bEri/ in unmerged ''Mary''-''marry''-''merry'' merging accents would be represented, because it seems like your spelling ''battery'' /b{t@`i/ as ''baterri''.<<
Nah, I would myself spell "battery" as <baeterri>, since it uses /{/, not /A/, here.
As for spelling "berry", I would spell it, if I were representing in a non-"Mary"-"merry"-"marry"-merging dialect as <beari>. For example, were I representing a fully unmerged dialect, "Mary" would be <meri>, "merry" would be <meari>, and "marry" would be <maeri>.
>>No spelling reform is likely to succeed. People think we should keep traditional orthography even with it's absurd spellings like ''one'' and ''two''. So is any spelling reform idea meant to serve a practical orthographic reform in the first place?<<
This is less a matter of simply not expecting it to succeed than simply a matter of not having enough information myself to really design an orthography for anything beyond only a particular section of NAE dialects; as shown above, I myself haven't the least clue about where /@/ is used and where /V/ is used in dialects that differentiate the two, besides from simply guessing based on the current orthography. Beyond that, I probably can pronounce standard Hochdeutsch more "correctly" than Received Pronunciation, and I haven't the least clue of the particulars of the phonology of English English dialects beyond that, some of the more notable attributes of Estuary English and Cockney aside. And don't even think I have any clue about Scottish English, Welsh English, or Irish English pronunciation, much the less Scots proper pronunciation.
Maybe I'm wrong about that. It'd be ''go'' and ''gokart'', and ''blo'' and ''blohool'', because there's only a single consonant after the ''o'', right?
>>Another thing that I'm curious about, is how does your system write ''go'' and ''gocart''? I assume they'd be ''go'' and ''gookart''. But, ''gocart'' is a compound word and it would seem strange to write it as if it were not. Similar thing goes with ''blow'' and ''blowhole'', which it seems that you'd spell ''blo'' and ''bloohool''.<<
Actually, not quite, because my system(s) use essentially a slightly modified Dutch-style double vowel rule, with a number of exceptions and like removed, and a few new exceptions added. One note though is that compound words are always written as one, like in Dutch, German, and the Scandinavian languages, and also the double vowel rule is applied to their entire length, as morphological boundaries are *not* marked in writing. Hence, the above for me would be:
"go" : <go>
"gocart" : <gokart> (for many North Americans <gokaart>; <kart> instead of <kaart> is a relatively local dialect feature)
"blow" : <blo>
"blowhole" : <blohool>
And as more examples,
"computer programmer" : <kampjuterproograemer> (I bet many might have <kumpjuterproograemer>)
"phonemic orthography" : <fonimikkoorthaagraffi> (many others would probably have <fonimikkoorthograffi>)
"linguistics class" : <linggwistiksklaess>
Actually, not quite, because my system(s) use essentially a slightly modified Dutch-style double vowel rule, with a number of exceptions and like removed, and a few new exceptions added. One note though is that compound words are always written as one, like in Dutch, German, and the Scandinavian languages, and also the double vowel rule is applied to their entire length, as morphological boundaries are *not* marked in writing. Hence, the above for me would be:
"go" : <go>
"gocart" : <gokart> (for many North Americans <gokaart>; <kart> instead of <kaart> is a relatively local dialect feature)
"blow" : <blo>
"blowhole" : <blohool>
And as more examples,
"computer programmer" : <kampjuterproograemer> (I bet many might have <kumpjuterproograemer>)
"phonemic orthography" : <fonimikkoorthaagraffi> (many others would probably have <fonimikkoorthograffi>)
"linguistics class" : <linggwistiksklaess>
>>Maybe I'm wrong about that. It'd be ''go'' and ''gokart'', and ''blo'' and ''blohool'', because there's only a single consonant after the ''o'', right?<<
Jae, dhaets rait.
(Yeah, that's right.)
Jae, dhaets rait.
(Yeah, that's right.)
What about ''you guys'' and ''you all''? Would those be written as one?Perhaps as ''jugaiz'' and ''juoal''. They function as one word. What about ''twenty-one''? Is that ''twentiwun'' or ''twenti-wun''. Do those numbers keep the hyphens or not?
I would think that writing those would not be a bad idea, considering how they effectively act as independent pronouns.
And yes, they would be written as
"you guys" : <jugais> (the silly <s> rather than <z> for /z/ thing here)
"you all" : <juoal>
The main thing is that many people don't like word-final <z>, which does not show up in any of the other Germanic languages' orthographies save that of German, where it represents /ts/, not /z/. And yes, using word-final <z> is more logically consistent and clean, but logic and aesthetics do not necessarily coincide in all places.
As for numbers, I would probably also follow the precedent in the other Germanic languages, and go with:
"twenty one" : <twantiewan> (<twentiewun> for you)
Remember that in practice, most large numbers would be written down as digits anyways. As for why I used <iew> rather than <iw> here, this is because <w> (as well as <v>) is always treated as if it were doubled, even though it is visually a single grapheme, since <w> and <v> are *never* doubled, partly because <ww> and <vv> look ugly, and partly because Dutch orthography already has this particular feature.
And yes, they would be written as
"you guys" : <jugais> (the silly <s> rather than <z> for /z/ thing here)
"you all" : <juoal>
The main thing is that many people don't like word-final <z>, which does not show up in any of the other Germanic languages' orthographies save that of German, where it represents /ts/, not /z/. And yes, using word-final <z> is more logically consistent and clean, but logic and aesthetics do not necessarily coincide in all places.
As for numbers, I would probably also follow the precedent in the other Germanic languages, and go with:
"twenty one" : <twantiewan> (<twentiewun> for you)
Remember that in practice, most large numbers would be written down as digits anyways. As for why I used <iew> rather than <iw> here, this is because <w> (as well as <v>) is always treated as if it were doubled, even though it is visually a single grapheme, since <w> and <v> are *never* doubled, partly because <ww> and <vv> look ugly, and partly because Dutch orthography already has this particular feature.