Re: Spelling WASRe: Optimum number of symbols, though mostly talking about french now

En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>:

>
> Wouldn't it be easiest to conclude that both are hopeless? :))
>
Nope. For the reasons I already explained, the French spelling is probably near
optimal for the task, and the few modifications that could be done would not
change much things, except creating more homonyms and destroying etymological
realationships. There could be some modifications, but the problem would be to
find the right ones, and some are very tricky (like the spelling of /E~/. It is
written |in|, |en|, |ain| or |ein| - and |un| also because of the merging
between /E~/ and /9~/ -. Now if we regularise this one, which spelling should
we use? |in|? But then we would lose for example the graphical help which
reminds us of the etymological connection between |main|: hand and |manuel|:
manual, which can be quite practical. Also, alternations between /E~/ and /En/,
in things like parrain/marraine: godfather/godmother would become problematic,
especially since the alternation /E~/-/in/ also exists - as in utérin/utérine -
. In this case, the spelling works very well at predicting from the masculine
form how the feminine form will be pronounced, in a case where two
possibilities exist. I could find other examples indefinitely) and I find the
current orthography quite aesthetic :)) . Nearly the only orthographic reform
that I would find only advantageous would be to regularise the plural mark as -
s for all words, instead of having -s or -x a little at random. The main
problem is that the structure of French itself is difficult to render well with
the Roman alphabet.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply