Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

USAGE: YAEPT:Re: Shavian: was Re: USAGE: Con-graphies

From:Joe <joe@...>
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2006, 11:37
Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

>Hi all, > >On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Gary Shannon wrote: ><snip> > > >>Ultimately, the reason I lost interest in Shavian is >>that it doesn't record "the language", but records a >>particular spoken dialect of the language. Spelling >>can be either standardized OR phonetic, but it can >>never be both, and given that choice I think I would >>opt for standardized non-phonetic over phonetic but >>non-standardized every time. It's just so much easier >>to read, fluently, a standardized spelling than to get >>bogged down puzzling over what some word might be >>because the writer, a native German living in Boston >>spelled it with his own idiosyncratic blend of German >>and Bostonian accents. >> >>A pox on phonetic spelling! >> >> > > >Seconded, Gary! > >But what's even worse, from my point of view, >is that English now has so many different >phonemic realisations (languages?; if Cantonese >and Hokkien are Chinese dialects, then these >are English dialects; otherwise, they're languages >...) that we can either have a phonemic spelling or >a standardised one. >
Hokkien and Cantonese are far more different from one another than your average English dialect. English is a surprisingly monolithic language, actually, compared to Arabic and Chinese, or even German or Italian.


daniel prohaska <danielprohaska@...>