Re: "Re-formed" Latin-script writing

Jonathan Chang wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2000/05/07 08:34:44 PM, Lijesh wrote:
>
> >...unbridgeable gap would be created between modern and earlier literature.
> >
>     Yep yep... very true in any language with a long literary history.
> BUT in the case of emerging pidgins or "Nashun-Langwajz" (& certain artlangs
> with radical neo-Futurist aesthetics & tendencies), "Latin-script minimal"
> semi-fonetik pidjin-spelin iz purhapz dezirubul.
>
> zHANg

Yes, this is true because you would want the writing system to be simple
in a pidgin, but you cannot possibly (as Douglas Koller stated earlier)
map more than 26 phonemes to 26 letters without using diacritics and/or
digraphs, etc.  Furthermore, most languages spoken over a broad area in
physical space have multiple dialects which are pronounced differently.
Does each dialect have its own spelling, making it an effectively
separate language?  Not to mention the fact that over time changes would
constantly occur, and some stable writing system would have to be used.
In another post you talk about how a pidgin would develop into a stable
creole, but what language is stable?  English?  Hardly, and it can't be
called a brand-new language.  And with a language like English, what
phonetic standard would be used?  American, Canadian, English, Irish,
Scottish, Australian, etc?  Even isolated in America:  Northeastern,
Southern, New Yorker, Midwestern, etc?  We've had tons of discussions
regarding phonetic spelling for English on the list in the past, and
during the last one several people made up phonetic schemes , and each
was completely different because each person speaks differently.  One
persons phonetic spelling would be, to the next person, just as
convoluted as traditional English spelling.

Nicole