reformed Welsh Spelling [to: Ray Brown]
|From:||Robert Jung <robertmjung@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 3, 2003, 22:06|
/k/ is now |c|.
/a/ is written |a|, and /a:/ is written |aa|.
|ae| and |ai| may be distinguished.
Old |au| is then written |ai| or |au|, depending on region.
Spelling old |ch| as |x| gets rid of any confusion between |ch| as [tS] or something
else, and keeps with the one-sound-one-letter-rule system; it doesn't really
matter about |x| being confused with [ks] seems really ridiculous.
/e:/ is now |ee|.
Old |ei| is now |yi| (since |y| is /V/. Please ignore the 'strange' spelling. I
know it seems as such, but as long as it works, it's fine with me.)
Old |ey| is now |yi| or |eu|. (I hope I'm interpreting [1(] as the right sound,
one of the old |u| pronunciations).
Then |eu| is written as either |yi| or |eu|(?).
|f| and |ph| may be distinguished, if it's absolutely necessary. But I didn't know
|ph| and |f| differ during mutations.
Old |gw| is now always |gw|.
|j| represents [dZ]. I should've included it. :) Forgetful me. :(
|oe|, |oi|, |oy| are then distinguished, if you insist. But |oi| and |oy| merge into |oi|.
|ow| is now |yw| (= [Vw]).
|si| is still |si|, now.
I thought |ts| was pronounced [tS]. If it isn't, then it's still spelled |ts|.
If it's pronounced [tS], then it's |ch| (etc.; as it's not a native sound). But
|c| used to be - in Reform 1 - [S].
> > w=/V/ û, /u/ ûû, /w/ w
> Eh?? The "new spelling" confuses what is pretty clear in
> the current spelling!
> |u| and 'clear' |y| = [1(:)] in north Wales and [i] in south
> 'obscure' |y| is [V]
> |w| as a vowel is *always* [u(:)] and as a semivowel is [w].
Please explain [1(] and [u(]'s pronunciation - I've never seen 'em before.
> I notice there is no corresponding proposal to distinguish
> between |i| as a vowel and |i| as a semivowel.
There's no need. Only in diphthongs is there needed /j/, and |i| suffices; and even
rising diphthongs are OK: those without a ¨ are diphthongs, those with one
ain't diphthongs. Quite OK to me. But if you want, |j| is used. (Ignore the
[dZ] pronun., then.)
If the rising/falling-diphthong problem exists only after |g|, then the learner
can memorize the words. I'm just a beginner! :(
> > *Regular stress falls on the next-to-last syllable;
> > irregular stress is marked with an acute accent.
> Often done.
Now it's ALWAYS done. :)
I call it an umlaut, not a diaeresis. I like 'umlaut' better - it sounds more
exotic. :) And aren't they the same thing anyway?
It's already done this way - using the umlaut (diaeresis) to mark non-diphthongs; I
was just, although with redundency, reenforcing that point.
> Personally, I don't see the point of tinkering around with a
> more or less phonemic spelling - certainly not to make it
> less phonemic.
> If ever a spelling cried out for a more phonemic approach
> it's English! But I don't see what this has got to do with
It was an experiment; I just wanted to see what people would think. And I'll give
you an English spelling reform if you like - I've already written it! :)