Re: CHAT: sch

Muke Tever:
> >> Sometimes /S/ is used instead, as in "schedule" /SEdjul/; in America this
> >> is /skEdZ@l/.
> >
> >I don't understand anything about this one. Why the <h>? Why /sk/? Why /S/?
>
> I would guess because 'sce' and 'sci' in [my] English usually start with /s/
> (visceral, scepter, science), while 'sca' 'sco' and 'scu' usually use /sk/
> (scamp, scone, escutcheon).  Using 'sch' instead of 'sc' for those shows you
> want /sk/ where it would be /s/ otherwise (schedule, schism).
It is possible that this simply an irregular spelling, and indeed an
irregular pronunciation, which does happen with vocab borrowed into ModE, tho
not normally. But I was hoping that one of our many pedants and omniscients
would know whether the spelling or pronunciation is irregular; it wouldn't be
if the word were from Greek (which I believe it not to be, but can't check
right now). If the spelling merely followed the pronunciation, then it ought
to be spelt <sk>.

ObConlang: The spelling of the conlang Namyuan [Dabj@], formerly Ajitolujan
[jaTOjHa] (h = inverted h), was fixed when the language was young. The
pronunciation subsequently changed massively over the years, in the course of
it being quotidianly spoken in the head of its inventor; but the spelling
remained the same, with the result that it approximates or exceeds the
obscurity of French orthography. Further, rules that had formerly been
phonological in nature became morphologized, as the phonological conditions
vanished through change. The results are that, as is also seen with some
natlangs, the morphology makes more sense when formulated orthographically
than phonologically.
It appeals to me that this is the work of someone scarely even an amateur
linguistician, and that the complexity and character of the language results
from its evolution in real time, an accelerated form of natlang change.

--And.