Re: USAGE: di"f"thong (was: Tetraphthongs, Triphthongs, Dipht..)

On 29/05/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
> > On 29/05/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> > > On 5/28/06, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> > > > (You may have also noticed me using
> > > > spellings such as "laff" or "enuff", which I hope everyone can agree to be
> > > > improvements.)
> > >
> > > Not for people with "broad A" -- assuming the first word is "laugh", I
> > > pronounce it "lahf" rather than "laff".
> >
> > That was my first reaction, but there's still words like "path" and
> > "after" and "fast"
>
> I'm not sure what your point is?
These words have a short "a" in spelling, but a broad a in pronunciation.

> > and although I can't think of one OTTOMH that ends
> > in -aff,
>
> "Chaff" and "staff" have "broad A" for me, for starters.
"Staff" does for me too. (I couldn't think of any words with -aff was
what I meant.)

...

As for the rest, I realise all of that. But if we ignore the costs of
converting (which I think any spelling reformer is doing), then "laff"
makes more sense as a single spelling for "laugh" than any other does;
at least "laff" is right for Americans and northern English and Scots
and the Irish and probably the Welsh too. "Laff" is also no worse for
the southern English and Australians and Kiwis and South Africans than
"staff", "path" etc. are; nor is it any worse than "laugh" is, and
it's a reasonably logical first step in the process.

(But generally I agree with you on spelling reform; even I have enough
trouble using my various revised schemes (which I do because it's fun,
like conlanging); I can't imagine the costs involved if we tried to
get everyone to.

--
Tristan.