Re: CONLANG Digest

Muke Tever wrote:
> Only if you're trying to spell *phoneTically*.  If you spell *phoneMically*
> you can have wider currency of the language (where, say, American "house" and
> Canadian "house" would still be spelled the same way).
Still, there'd be major differences.  Some pronounce <wh> and <w>
differently.  Some pronounce "orphan" and "often" the same way.  I can
remember thinking, as a young child, that homophones didn't have to be
exactly the same sound, because "one" and "won" were offered as
homophones - for me they're distinct, /wUn/ vs. /wVn/.

> But most likely if this happens there'll be
> nationally adopted "standard" dialects...
Nevertheless, there'd still be distinctions between, for instance,
American English and British English.  Of course, some might say that
that's a good thing.  :-)  *Thinking of Noah Webster's ghost cheering
over the fulfillment of his wish* :-)

> Of course, English will never do spelling reform.
Not a major spelling reform, but minor ones, like "tho" and "thru", or
"lite" and "nite" are already becoming popular.  I don't forsee English
spelling ever becoming completely phonemic, but I do see it becoming
less convoluted.

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor