Re: Regularized Inglish

John Cowan wrote:
> and their can be up to 8 spellings for a sound
Is this a typo, or does he not distinguish between "there", "their", and
"they're"?

> (Similarly, "show" becums "shoe", whereas
> "shoe" becums "shoo".)
Hmm, interesting.

> "calf" becomes either "caaf" or "caff", reflecting a genuinely fonemic
> difference between the dialect groops.
Hmm, so he would further seperate the two dialect groups?

> A few symbols represent more than wun sound: notably, "oo" can be
> eether /u/ or /U/, a distinction of low fonemic load in Inglish.
True, but they're still seperate phonemes, it seems to me that there
should be a distinction between any two phonemes.  Afterall, there's
very little phonemic load between /T/ and /D/ in English, why not make
no distinction between them?

> Likewise, the traditional alternation
> between /g/ and /dZ/ for "g", and /k/ and /s/ for "c", depending on
> the folloeing vauel, is basically preserved.
Interesting, so how does he represent /gIv/?

> On the uther hand,
> "s" pronounced /z/ is chainged to "z" except in the plural and
> third person singular endings, which aar left entirely alone.
Then why the spelling {iz}?

--
Oh Lord, grant that we may always be right, for thou knowest we will
never change our mind. - Scots Prayer
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor