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

On 12/07/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Michael Adams <abrigon@...> wrote:
> > hWut yoo saee?
>
> Oh, why not.
>
> First, I think the w/hw distinction is of sufficiently low functional
> load that it need not be reprsented in any reform.  But I would in any
> case not capitalize it so; "Hwut" would be fine.
>
> You seem to use <oo> for both /u/ ("yoo" above) and /o:/ ("beeloo",
> er, below).  Even in only final position I think that's a distinction
> we need to keep.
>
> Why use "ng" in "thingk" but not "thaenkz"?    Why do the two 'o's in
> "proposal" get different treatments?  Surely the first is, if not a
> schwa, the same vowel?
>
> The use of "ae" in "aenee" is not dialect-neutral, since many (there's
> another one) of us pronounce that word "enee", but no big deal, we
> learned to spell it as if it were pronounced "aenee" already... But
> speaking of dialects, isn't the first syllable of "comment" pronounced
> with an /O/ rather than an /a/~/A/ in rather a lot of dialects?
>
> I fint the use of "z" for the voiceless  -s in "thanks" somewhat
> perplexing.  Is this a consistency/particle thing, so that the plural
> marker is always -z regardless of pronunciation?
>
> > Furst uv all, thaenkz foor looking intou meii littul prooposul. I didn't
> > thingk it woud spark aenee inturest. Further cahmentz beeloo?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Dér aul,
> > Ferst ov aul, thanks for luking intu my litl propósl. I didn't think it wud
> > spark eny interest. Further coments belo:
> >
>
> If I were making one of these, I'd use <a> = /&/,/a/ (losing that
> distinction in spelling), <u> = /U/,/V/ (ibid). <ay>=/ai/, <e>=/E/,
> <ey>=/ei/, <i>=/I/, <iy>=/i/, <o>=/O/, <ow>=/o/ (vs current "Ow!"
> which is <aw>).  The -y in <ey> and <iy> and the -w in <ow> could be
> optional when final.
>
> I'd lose the voice distinction in <th>=/T/,/D/; <sh>=/S/,/Z/;
> <ch>=/tS/,/dZ/ - again due to low functional load.  <ng>=/N/, but only
> phonemic /N/; the [N] realization of /n/ would stay <n>.  <x> would be
> reserved for the occasional /x/ in Scots English or borrowings.  <q>
> would not appear.  As you might expect from the diphthongs, <y>=/j/;
> I'd avoid <j> because it's too overloaded.
>
> So taking a shot at the above:
>
> "Dir al,
> Frst uv al, thanks for luking intu may litl prowpowzl.  Ay didnt think
> it wud spark eniy intrist.  Frthr kaments bilo."
>
> Abviyusliy, this iz gird tord pri-GVS/kantinentl vawl valyuz rathr
> than krrint Inglish wunz, with thi gowl uv meyking speling mor lachikl
> for piypl muving bitwiyn Inglish and uthr langwichiz in aythr
> direkshn.
Reading that looks like reading an American accent! (Maybe your goal,
but) I think I'd at least represent what corresponds to syllabic /r/
in AmE with a vowel before the r (and comparably a vowel before
syllabic /l/); I also think it's only fair to distinguish /Vr/ from
/3:/. Americans seem to view /@/ and /V/ as pretty similar sounds
anyway, whereas we who distinguish "curry" from "furry" consider them
nothing alike (in particular, [a_"] is probably about as far from [2:]
as you can get---the argument against low functional load hear goes
something along the lines of "'sih' or 'nginch'?"), so the gain in
distinguishing seems greater than the cost. <y> as a vowel seems
available for this purpose, so "curry" vs "fyrri", "lachykyl", "uthyr"
should be okay. (The functional load of /I/ vs /@/ in unstressed
syllables is also low, so I'd eliminate it, too.)

An alternative could be to have a really simple, minimally distinct
orthography with a system of "pointing", so that distinctions that are
made in a certain dialect or optionally marked with diacritics. So
"Pam" vs "palm" vs "Pom" could become "Pam" vs "pâm" vs "Påm" in
Australia, but "Päm" vs "pam" vs "Pam" in the US. Whether rhotic /r/
gets marked in this system I dunno—when it turns up, it's (frequently)
a different segment, rather than just a change; but it goes against
the idea of a minimally distinct orthography... Of course, there is
generally the question of what constitutes "minimally distinct". Only
GA vs RP? all "standard" variants? all native variants, whatsoever?

--
Tristan.

Reply