Re: orthography and pronunciation

David Peterson wrote:

>> Pronounce everything exactly as is written.
>
>It'd sure be awful ugly and awkward, though.  Just consider the word
"people".

As was here already said in many languages:
"Proti gustu z`a'dny' dis`puta't."
(Against taste no dispute).

------------------------------

Nik Taylor wrote:

>Or "doubt", "debt", "knight"
I expect voice assimilation:
[dOwpt@], [dEpt@], [knIxt@]

>But that would be a fun, tho implausible, conlang ... English is
>rediscovered after many ages, and is pronounced as spelt,
>with c = /ts/, j = /dZ/, q = /q/, x = /x/, y = /y/, ' = /?/,
I pronounce it [ts], [j], [kw], [ks], [1].

>and epenthetic schwas added as needed.

and glottal stops added as needed:

foot, feet [fO?Ot], [fE?Et]
But the change
[fO?Ot] > [fo:t] > [fU:t], [fE?Et] > [fe:t] > [fI:t]
can be accepted.
The main thing is to retain regularity.

------------------------------

andrew wrote:
>
>Vasiliy Chernov yscrifef:
>
>> A lot of controversy about {gh} in _thought_. The most popular view being
>> that it's a uvular approximant.
>>
>Not to mention the word shows an aspirated/non-aspirated contrast in
>the pronunciations of [t].
An other theory will claim that "h" marks postalveolarity:
sh [S], gh [dZ], th [tS],
thought [tSowdZ-t@]

      Pavel