Peter Penned;Clark wrote:
>Bloody brilliant! I love it--although how would you transcribe /&/ (would
> that be /.ae/ in CB?) and /E/?
Yes that's /.ae/ in CB and /E/ is /E/ (or /;3/ which is a matter of
choice),
for the ash, if I ever get enough reposnses from users of various
platforms I may just decide that if the system font's ash shows up in
all platforms that Æ and æ will be used "straight". I stand ready to be
corrected on this but although I've come accoss languages that
distinguish in minmal pairs /a/ and /@/ I've found not that pair /a/ and
/æ/ in this way - seems to be a matter of accent.
> And what about using "si" for /S/? Of course, that might lead to a mix-up
> between "seap" and "sheep". Let's see: siip vs. siiip? But then again,
> vowel length isn't phonemic, so maybe sip vs. siip.
No, I really wanted to keep the "h"s in the digraphs just for the look
of things (after the modern Irish bh and mh) and to increase the number
a ascenders in words to help their visual distictivness.
>Were ieou here uhen I introduced mie pseudo-Irish orthographie?
>Peter
Alas no. But I'd love to see it ;-)
Barbara