Re: Gettysburg Address
|From:||Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 20:30|
Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> From: Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
>>þe getisbyrg adres
>>nóvembr 19, 1863
>>fôr skór and seven jérs agó úr faþrs bråt forþ on þis kontinent, a ný
>>nášyn, konsévd in libyrti, and dedikátid to þe propósišyn þat ål men ar
>>kré-átid ekwål. [...]
> Interesting, but some questions/comments:
Most questions are answered in my earlier reply to Trsitan earlier
> (1) Why are "war" and "shall" (using old orthography) spelled
> with the same vowel? There is no historical or morphophonemic
> feature that unites them AFAIK.
I had overlooked _shall_ in the list of commands handling the most
common irregularly spelled words.
> (2) Is there any consistency to the treatment of /&/? On the
> one hand, you have "kan", but on the other you have "šål" --
> or is [Sal] or something like it the RP pronunciation?
Same answer as to (1). As for the FATHER and TRAP vowels there is
no criterion to distinguish them by in the old spelling, so I would
have to list all FATHER words in the exception list.
> (3) "þés ded" should probably be "þis déd"
No, it is actually "these dead"!
> (4) "pyriš" should probably be "periš"
Yes. The rule converting preconsonantal/prefinal "er" to _yr_
screws up a couple of words. It was between _pyriš_ and _périš_!
> (5) "góvyrnment" should probably be "gyvyrnment", except in those
> British dialects where it would be "guvyrnment".
Yes, so the 'unified' spelling should be _govrn_, on the principle
that if dialects differ, spell etymologically.
> (6) does <ý> represent MidEng /u:/ --> ModEng /ju/?
Yes, or in terms of traditional spelling the 'heavy' counterpart of
'light' _y_ /V/.
> Generally, a very good morphophonemic representation.
Thanks. I would certainly have done it better if I did it by hand
rather than converting the traditional spelling with a program.
B.Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!