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

On 7/12/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
> > "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!
Er.

> (Maybe your goal, but)
No, quite not.  Despite all the YAEPT's and even with what I've read
of Wells and such, I seem to have failed to put the knowledge into
practice here.


> 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 was only trying to avoid having to pick a symbol for schwa, figuring
I could let the full vowels stand for their reduced counterparts as
well.  There's no obvious vowel to use for /@l/, /@m/, /@n/, and /@r/,
though, so I let the vocalic consonant stand in...
.
> I also think it's only fair to distinguish /Vr/ from  /3:/.
I don't.  I'm already *not* making several distinctions that are
present in my own 'lect, such as /&/ vs /a/ - my goal was to minimize
distinctions in the spelling.  I'd rather have one letter stand for
two different sounds (in some 'lects) than have to remember which
letter to use to write what is, to me, the same sound.

Although I'm rethinking the /tS/+/dZ/ unification.  That may still be
too functional.

> the argument against low functional load hear goes
> something along the lines of "'sih' or 'nginch'?")
..uhm...what's a "hinch"?

And while I'm heartily opposed to any analysis of English that
seriously tries to unify /N/ and /h/ into a single phoneme, I would
not automatically be opposed to a spelling that used the same symbol
for both just on that basis.  I would be opposed, however, because of
the medial cases where ambiguity arises.

> <y> as a vowel seems
> available for this purpose, so "curry" vs "fyrri", "lachykyl", "uthyr"
> should be okay.
I've seen other spelling systems that use <y> for /@/.  Somewhat
counterintuitive, but acceptable...

> 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.
Well, if you're marking optional distinctions, you need one between
"palm" and "pom" as well, at least IML.   That's something like
[p_hQUm] vs [p_ham], although the former vowel is also "lateralized",
or whatever you call the analogue of rhoticization when the
influencing sound is [l] rather than [r\].


> Of course, there is
> generally the question of what constitutes "minimally distinct". Only
> GA vs RP? all "standard" variants? all native variants, whatsoever?
That is, of course, the key question which must be addressed by any
spelling form that attempts to be phonemic.  As I said, I'd personally
rather have ambiguous symbols than seemingly arbitrary distinctions.


--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Replies