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

On 5/29/06, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> [Philip:]
> >Current spelling is approximately phonemic; it might not be great but
> >it serves its purpose more or less. It also blurs some distinctions
> >(or underspecifies the sound), letting people with different accents
> >each read their own vowel sound into the word.
>
> So, you argue that the current spelling is phonemical enuff to work?
Well, I was more or less saying that it doesn't particularly claim to
be phonemic (so shortcomings aren't due to failure to live up to this
claim), but that it is phonemic enough not to be a complete set of
hieroglyphics (it's not on the level of XQPWN = /dOg/ and ZNSFP =
/k&t/).

> You don't think the purpose of spelling reform would be to help those who
> already have learned all the irregularities, do you? No, of course it's
> ultimately for the benefit of *new* learners, be they nativ or forrin.
Ah, hm. In that case, more can be tolerated.

Though new learners would have to acquire a passive command of the old
writing system in order to be able to read books that haven't yet been
re-spelled. (And old books will get re-spelled, as we see e.g. in
Chinese with its simplified characters, but not all of them will.)

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Replies