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

On 5/29/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> 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/).
psst... we say [k_j&t] in the US now

>
> > 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@...>
>