Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)

John Cowan wrote:

>Tristan scripsit:
>
>
>>Doesn't matter: the very second you tell people to change the 'correct'
>>spelling from 'you' to 'yoo', they'll also change the correct spelling
>>of 'saw' and 'sore' to be the same (assuming they say them the same).
>>
>>
>What of it?  People who can't spell get "their" and "there" wrong too.
>RI isn't meant to make spelling easier (much); it's primarily meant to
>make learning to read easier, by eliminating the 15% of maggelitous
>words that have to be learned by rote.
>
What I'm trying to say is that if any systematic spelling reform
happens, no matter the reasons behind it (even if they're only to get
rid of the 15% maggelitous spellings), the people are going to take it
upon themselves to reform spelling further. Even if its a Union of
Schoolteachers, Newspapers, Publishers and Universities in
English-Speaking Countries that bring it in. I'd be incredibly surprised
if <Melburnian> (rather than <Melbournian>) was a spelling started by
the Conspiracy of Fairfax and News Corp. (i.e. the two publishers of
Melburnian newspapers).

>In RI, "ou" has the long sound of "o", and all other "ou" combinations
>have been changed.  Since "you" has the long sound of "oo", it becomes
>"yoo".  ("Long" and "short" are used in their traditional English
>meanings, and are kept in RI descriptions because they are nicely
>diaphonetic.)
>
Wouldn't it make more sense for 'ou' to have the sound of /au/ or /&u/?
'ow' spells long 'o' more times than 'ou' does, I would've thought.
(e.g. window, row, know.)

Is 'route' spelt two ways, or does it retain its present spelling, or
does something weird happen to it? I talk of bus /r0:ts/, you, I would
imagine, of bus /rauts/.

>>Looks ugly...
>>
>>
>All in what you get used to.
>
I know. Any reformed spelling looks ugly. :)

Tristan.

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?

Reply