Re: Part 2 Why my con langs SUCK!!!

Roger Mills wrote:

>Chris Bates wrote:
>
>
>>Well, RP of course lol. I'm joking... I'm not sure, but I think a
>>compromise could be reached... people who speak non-rhotic dialects of
>>english will still know how to pronounce a world if we keep on sticking
>>rs where some people pronounce them,
>>
>>
>
>Which is exactly what written English does.  I've suggested in that past
>that the _underlying_ phonology of _all_ Engl. dialects (the standard-ish
>one, at any rate) does have /r/ in all the positions where it is written.
>Intervocalic and final-prevocalic /r/ are almost always retained.
>Pre-consonantal /r/ is the problem:  but for each dialect it is predictable
>whether it is realized as 1. a rhotic-- 2. a schwa-like offglide-- 3.
>various other off-glides (e.g. [j]-like in the "bird=boyd" dialects)-- 4.
>length and (4a) sometimes change of vowel quality (5. have I missed
>anything?).
>
>If Engl. were not a written language, then at least comparison of all the
>dialects would point to the reconstruction of pre-cons. /r/ in
>"Common-English"
>
>
>

The main problem, as I see it, is contrasts not represented in modern
written English. For instance,  RP and Southern English /A:/ vs /&/,
which, in most other dialects, are merged into /&/.   The same with /U/
vs /V/ - which, though widespread, is not represented in written English.

Perhaps we should use cool dutch-style double letters.  'graas'(grass)
and 'puut'(put), for instance.

Replies