Re: Cyrillic for English
|From:||Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, December 11, 1999, 1:52|
Roland Hoensch wrote:
> Actually You are right.
Tell me, why do you capitalize "you" constantly?
> But out of those three 'th' does not have a single pronounciation but two.
But a mostly-predictable variation as I've already stated. /D/ between
vowels, otherwise /T/, only pronouns (like "they"), demonstratives
(this, that) and the article "the" are exceptions. But, "dh" would
certainly be a handy digraph. I'll admit that.
> n in new has no letter.
Hunh? It's the same as in "no" or "never", at least in my dialect.
Some have /nj/, I suppose, but that's because the <ew> = /ju/.
> Even if it is to be digraphs; why not at least have letters for all
> the consonants sounds?
Except for /Z/, we do. Consonants are almost totally predictable. A
bit complex, yes, but predictable. The few exceptions are things like
<gh> which can either be silent or /f/. But, I think that those are
naturally disappearing. Just look at "tho", "thru", "nite", "lite" and
the like. Perhaps in a generation or so, <gh> will be lost.
> (if one desires to leave the vowels in the mess that they are in.)
They're not as much a mess as you think, as someone else has already
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor