Re: English spelling reform

Tristan wrote:

> I feel like joining in on the fun!
Excellent!

> Robert B Wilson (RBW)
> Daniel Andreasson - Swenglish (SWG)
> Adrian Morgan - Yûomaewec (YMC): *
> Tristan McLeay (TAM)
>
> Incidentally... you all seem to be writing 'an' as /@n/... But I
> think a written form would be better to have what it is 'properly',
> which I would've thought be /&n/. (Though 'a' I agree should be
> /@/.)
That's a defensible point of view, but it does place an extra burden
on the transcriptor to analyse every reduced vowel.

> [RBW] on artifiscyol laengwaecge ise o laengwaecge ðaet hase bein
> [SWG] Ön artifisjöl längwitsj iss ö längwitsj thät häs binn
> [YMC] In uotifeccil langwidj ez i langwidj hzat haz beon
> [TAM] Än aatöficjöl längvidj is ö längvidj ðät's byyn
Methinks any transciption scheme in which the character for schwa has
a diacritic is not at all suited for English! When a letter with a
diacritic ('ö') is more common than the same letter without ('o'),
then the language and transciption scheme are probably mismatched.

If I was writing this as though it were Gzarondan, it would read:

        An aatifycll lengridj yz a lengridj hzets byyn ...

Note: Gzarondan doesn't have /N/ (my substitute: /n/) or /w/ (my
substitute: /r/). Also, not all the above is compatible with
Gzarondan phonological constraints, especially the word "language",
which breaks several rules.

> [RBW] Artifiscyol laengwaecgesse deissynd four specific purposese are
> [SWG] Artifisjöl längwidjis får späsifik pörpösis ar
> [YMC] Uotifeccil langwidjiz fo spisefek pùopisiz u
> [TAM] Aatöficjöl längwidj's [dösayn'd] fo spösifik pööpös's a
Ah - did Daniel leave out the word "designed" or did I accidentally
snip it when reformatting and then follow suit? Anyway, it should be
"dizuend".

> [RBW] alsou noun by on orrai ofe oðere termse. Ðouse ussd in worcs ofe
> [SWG] ålsöu known baj ön ärräj öv athör törms. Thöus jost in wörks öv
> [YMC] oolsiu niun bae in irae ov uhzi tùomz. Hziuz yûozd en wùoks ov
> [TAM] oolsöu nöun bay än öräi ow aðö tööm's. Ðöus juus'd in vöök's ow
Now here's an error of mine - "bae" should be "bue".

> [RBW] caommunicascyonsse are calld unifersol laengwaecges, acsilyari
> [SWG] kåmjonikäjsjön ar kåld jonivörsöl längwidjis, åksiljäri
> [YMC] kimyûonikaeccin u koold yûonivùossil langwidjiz, ooksellire
> [TAM] kömjuunökäicjön a kool'd juunövöösöl längvidj's, ogzilöry
You voice your /x/ in "auxiliary", evidentally.

> [RBW] interlingwasse, internascyonol laengwaecgesse, etc.
> [SWG] intörlinguös, intörnäsjönöl längwidjis, etc.
> [YMC] entilengiuz, entinaccinil langwidjiz, etc.
> [TAM] intölingvöu's, intönäcjönöl längvidj's, etc.
>
> (Now then, I have most claim to the abbrev. 'etc.' (my full version
> would be 'etcétra'), given that I normally have <c> for /s/...
> What're the rest of you doing? Tut, tut, tut!)
This is about English spelling, not Latin spelling :-)

Spelt out, "et cetera" would be "àt sàtiri". But in other documents I
have followed the convention of translating acronyms only if they are
English-derived. So I'm being consistent.

Adrian.

Reply