Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz

Dér aul, 
Ferst ov aul, thanks for luking intu my litl propósl. I didn’t think it wud
spark eny interest. Further coments belo:

..................................

 

From: Christian Thalmann
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, daniel prohaska <danielprohaska@...>

wrote:

> Dalmátian Romanss and becám extinct when its lâst spéker Tuone Udaina díd
> in a ród acsident in the 1890s.
 

"I must say I find this spelling rather easy to read, and less ugly to the
eye than many others I've seen. "Díd" required a double-take, though."

 

Wud <dy> ~ <dýd> be beter in yor opinion?

.................................

 

“Unfortunately, this reform wouldn't remove spelling mistakes. For example,
Americans would have to guess whether it's "lâst" or "last", since this
distinction is purely British.”

 

No, ov corss not. Pépl wud stil hav tu lern tu spel “corectly”. It just
minimises a fú potencial problems.

 

The níss thing about the acsents and réjional pronunssiácion is, that the
acsent can be left of whár it is not néded. E.g. an American or Northern
Inglish spéler can rít <last>, whíl a Suthern Inglish, South African,
Austrálian etc. spéker cud rít <lâst>. 

 

Nacional editions ov buks wud ónly hav difering acsents râther than diferent
leter combinácions. 

.................................

 

“Also, you wrote "to some" as "tu sum", which is clearly not phonemic
spelling..." 

 

This is positional. <u> finally is /u:/ while in closed syllables it’s /U/
or /V/. I speak Northern Inglish so I’v got [U] for bóth /U/ and /V/ (and
thus no /V/ at all). Agen thár cud be the option ov distingwishing /U/ by
ríting <ü> (or the uther wa round). 

 

-----------------------------------------

Philip Newton wrote:

“However, the spelling "luking" for "looking" doesn't fit since here I, at
least, have not /u/ nor /V/ but /U/. (Unless you take the step of unifying
/u/ and /U/, as argued e.g. in 7.1 of
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm . But then
I'm not sure what cue signifies that |u| = /u or U/ rather than /V/.)

Cheers,”

 

So du I. 

<u> finaly = /u:/

<u> in clósd sylables = /U/ or /V/

(<ü> is optional for /U/ if won (wun) wishes tu mák the distinction)

<û> = /u:/ non-final

<ú> = [ju:]

 

i.e.:

USE = <nu> “new”

BE = <nú> “new”

................................

--------------------------------------- 

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:

 “OK, but making /u/ and /V/ allophones of one phoneme makes no istinction
between a wide variety of pairs like "bub"/"boob", cut"/"coot",
"dud"/"dude", "FUD"/"food", "gun"/"goon", "hup"/"hoop",”lust"/"loosed",
"mutt"/"moot", "knucks"/"nukes", "run"/"rune", "sup"/"soup", "tut"/"toot" .
. .

And it makes little sense to argue that [V] (or whatever) is sometimes its
own phoneme and other times an allophone of a different one...”

 

Not tru. /u:/ is distinct from /U ~ V/ with and option to distingwish /U/
from /V/ as well.

...............................

 

---------------------------------------

Tristan rót:

“I personally can't get over that spelling of "Romance". "Rómance" should
adequately indicate the pronunciation, particuly given "Dalmátian" (but
"Dalmácian" would be an improvement too).”

 

<Romanss> wos a misták and shud hav bén <Rómanss>, <ss> becos fínal <-s>
indicáts voissd (unless in a voissd environment). Nót aulso that <-d> is
morfémic hér.

 

I agre about <Dalmácian>. It’s a far beter speling. Thanks.

 

................................

 

“The many values of "c" really doesn't strike me as the worst part of our
orthography. (Maybe it should even be "Rómânce", at least in some places,
too? I don't know if anyone says it that way, but some people pronounce
"dance" with the broad vowel.)”

 

I wonted to du awá with majic-é. Henss, wurd-fínal <c> wud indicát /k/
râther than /s/. 

 

“dance” with /&/ = <danss>

“dance” with /A:/ = <dânss>

 

péss oc cák! 

[pi:s @v keIk] not [pEs @v k&k]

 

................................

“(Still, given that probably every dialect with more than one low unrounded
vowel has a different distribution, it's my opinion that the best solution
to this problem is either to leave the spelling alone, or to allow people to
spell exactly the way the pronounce but using the same spelling rules. And
only one of them is practical—but it's still fun to create improved
orthographies.)”

 

Se my ídea with the úss ov acsents whár rejional voul distribution difers. 

 

..................................

 

>Also,
> you wrote "to some" as "tu sum", which is clearly not phonemic
> spelling...
 

“The orthography already seems to be partially positional (e.g.
"Dalmátian"), but "tú sum" would've been more consitant. Maybe a spelling
error?”

 

No, <tú> wud indicát [tju:] râther than [tu:].

....................................

 

-------------------------------------------

On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:

> (Unless you take the step of
> unifying /u/ and /U/, as argued e.g. in 7.1 of
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm . But
> then I'm not sure what cue signifies that |u| = /u or U/ rather than
> /V/.)
 

Mark J. Reed rót:

“Indeed. Almost all, if not all, English speakers have distinct vowels in
"luck" and "Luke". Most have yet a third vowel in "look", but some pronounce
it the same way as either of the first two. So a partial merger is possible,
but you still need at least two symbols for the vowels in those three words.
Daniel's message seems to use the spelling "u" for all three.”

 

I, personaly, merj /U/ and /V/, but tha can be kepd distinct if desírd, <ü>
and <u> respectively. /V/ dusn’t ocur wurd-fínaly, so <u> can be úsd for
/u:/ whíl <ú> signifýs [ju:].

 

................

 

 

---------------------------------

On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:

> |ú| appears to encode /ju/, as witness the spelling |fú|.
 

“and |ús|, where I would have expected |úz| (more context-dependency? But
for me, /ju:s/ and /ju:z/ are distinct, a minimal pair -- so how to
represent the first? |úss|?)

Cheers,

Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>”

----------------------------------------

 

Yess, I’m stil not quít shor (shûr) about this. Thár is a cáss for
distingwishing betwén a lexical [z] in a stem lík /ju:z/ from the morfémic
plûral/3rd sg/genitiv {s} ~ {z}. I.e. I cud rít <úz> vs. <ús>. But for
consistencys sák I’v opted for <ús> vs. <úss>. I dón’t think it’s ídéal
íther (éther), but it cân’t (can’t) be helpd.

 

Won further nótiss: this speling system is not intended tu be 100% fonémic,
as U can se, just a litl mor consistent than tradicional speling is tudá. 

Thanks for lissning,

Dan

  

 

 

 

 

 

Reply