How Travis respells ''wool'', ''full'', ''bull'', and ''boul

<<''wool'' <wyl>

"full" : <fyl>

"bull" : <byl>

"bullet" : <byllit>

"boulevard" : <byllavaard>->>

This is how Travis respells ''wool'', ''full'', ''bull'' and ''boulevard''. What do you think about those ideas?

They're systematic as opposed to simple change, which would be like changing ''light'' to ''lite'', and ''night'' to ''nite''

I think that it's better to leave the letter 'y' for the ew sound which it has in the IPA (and which it also had in Ancient Greek and Old English) and use maybe 'oo' or 'uu' for the semivowel sound found in wool and full. You could also invent a new letter, which may be the best solution.

Brennus, the main matter is that I don't treat the "ew" "sound" as a single sound, but rather as a semivowel-vowel pair, written "ju" or "juu" depending on the context. The matter is that "oo" and "uu" are already used, as certain representations of /o/ and /u/ based on context (that is, when they don't precede another vowel or a non-"doubled" consonant that is in turn followed by another vowel). The use of "y" to represent a single vowel implies /y/ or /Y/, which are *not* the same as /ju/. Also, because I am not using "y" to represent a single vowel, I have freed it up to be easily used in digraphs/trigraphs, which I use for syllabics; specifically I use "yl"/"yll" for /l=/, "yn"/"ynn" for /n=/, and "ym"/"ymm" for /m=/. Note that the orthographies that I have created, which are quite similar to each other but have different goals in mind, are very contextual in nature, for technical reasons, and hence the same phoneme may be represented in different ways in different places in it.

For some people those words are /fUl/, /bUl/, /bUlIt/, and /bUl@vArd/ rahter than /fl=/, /b=l/, /b=lIt/ and /b=l@vArd/. So I guess they'd write them in Travis's system as:

full - <fuil>

bull - <buil>

bullet - <builit>

boulevard - <builavaard>

Richard, yes, that's right. The use of <ui> here may look somewhat silly, but it was sort of necessary for being able to relatively cleanly work phonemic /V/ into the orthography, just like how I worked /Q/ into it, which required moving /O/ from <o> to <oa>.

What about those of us who have an 'l' for the first vowels in those words? For us the 'y', or the 'ui', would be silent, so...

american nic, the "y" does not mark a vowel per se in and of itself here. Rather, it marks the following consonant as syllabic; from a more technical standpoint, it can be considered as forming a digraph or trigraph with the following consonant, which would otherwise mark /l/, /n/, or /m/, which indicates a syllabic version of the consonant in question.

I say fwl bwl with w as in with

Travis Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:52 pm GMT

On another note, <ui> for /U/ in my orthographic scheme for North American English has been replaced with <uo>, just to be more consistent with the use of <oa> for /O/, as <uo> implies a vowel that is lower than <uu>/<u>, which marks /u/, and /U/ is lower than /u/, in addition to being lax rather than tense. Of course, this results in some changes such as the word "gooey" being <gui> rather than <guï> and the word "duo" being <duö> rather than <duo>.