Re: þe getisbyrg adres

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 17:55, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:20:51 -0400, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...> wrote:
>
> >Really cool alternate spelling idea, though.  I like how the vowel
> >qualities are generally based on English's own pronunciation of them,
> >as opposed to IPA/pseudo-Spanish pronunciations.
>
> Strange, this is exactly the point of it I don't like! To me, it's a
> mixture between spelling according to pronunciation but keeping the
> traditional spelling conventions for the representation of individual
> sounds.
It's not very good at spelling according to pronunciation, though!

Of course, no revised spelling will be without its disputes so let's all
declare an awfugraphical free-for-all :) Spell however you feel like!

(BTW: A lot of people who say 'don't revise spelling!' use things like
nation vs national as an argument against, so apparently it's not such a
bad idea to use the old relationships between vowels as the basis for
the orthography. Of course, no-one ever demands that swim, swam and swum
be spelt alike. The real reason for not revising spelling is that
there's no-one who could do it. Unless the US Govt decided to provide a
tax break to everyone who revised spellings. With the coming elections,
has anyone thought to start A Party for the Revision of the Orthography?
I'm sure you'd get a handful of votes.)

> How come you're talking about 'pseudo-Spanish' pronunciation. I'd rather
> call it the Latin pronunciation. After all, it's still the Latin alphabet,
> so the old Roman's pronunciation of the letters still is the standard, if
> there is any.
Spanish is the unofficial Other Language in America... It seems that
everybody's learnt it in school or something (but I'm not American, have
never been there, and my sample set---mostly conlangers---is very
biased).

--
Tristan <kesuari@...>