Re: English spelling reform

Tristan wrote:

> Can I presume <rjö> is intended to be /rj@/? I'm unfamiliar
> with that pronunciation...
Yup. Bear in mind that this is "Swenglish". If this would be
IPA-RP-Swenglish, it'd probably be <piöriöd>, but that doesn't
look like anything at all, and to the average Swede it does
sound more like [pIrj@d] or [pIrI@d], hence <pirjöd>.

Plus, I think <pirjöd> looks kinda nice. :)

<ö> is /@/
<ä> is /{/ or /E/
<å> is /o/ or /O/ or /Q/ (or whatever)

> (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!)
Well, I had no idea what to do with it, so I let it be. I
should probably have written it <ets.>.

I don't know if I was clear enough on this point, but this
"Swenglish" of mine is just a humorous way of transcribing
English from a Swedish POV.

||| daniel

------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't post that on the Internet, you don't even know if
it's true!" - Lisa Simpson to Homer.
------------------------------------------------------------