Re: Not phonetic but ___???

At 14:14 15.4.2004, John Cowan wrote:

Well, a practical diaphonematic orthography doesn't have to go that far: it
can allow for a few multiple spellings, or blur some distinctions with low
functional load.  The familiar Wells lexical sets for vowels (KIT, DRESS,
TRAP, LOT, STRUT, BATH, CLOTH, NURSE, FLEECE, FACE, PALM, THOUGHT, GOAT,
GOOSE, PRICE, CHOICE, MOUTH, NEAR, SQUARE, START, NORTH, FORCE, CURE, and
the weak vowels HAPPY, LETTER, and COMMA) make 27 distinctions, but that's
almost certainly overkill.

(For me the mergers are TRAP = BATH, LOT = PALM, NORTH = FORCE, CLOTH =
THOUGHT, FLEECE = HAPPY, and NURSE = LETTER, leaving 21 distinctions.)

That's practically what I do when writing English in Melin's Swedish
shorthand system.  I do have symbols for most consonant distinctions,
except T/D, dZ/Z and s/z.  The first two are low-frequency distinctions,
but s/z is more troublesome.  I some- times write /z/ as {dZ} when I feel
the distinction from /s/ is more crucial.

The vowels are more bothersome: I have to use a sign I don't like for FACE,
use a minimal and easily lost distinction between GOAT and MOUTH, and
ignore the TRAP/COMMA, PRICE/CHOICE, FOOT/GOOSE and LOT/THOUGHT/FATHER
distinctions. The two latter are no big deal, since FOOT/GOOSE is low-load
and there are English lects that lack the LOT/THOUGHT/FATHER distinctionS.
The other two are more troublesome.  I could use STRUT for COMMA, but I
want to use the Swedish /2/ symbol for STRUT, and this symbol is too
complicated for the frequent COMMA.

I have experimented a lot with what vowel distinctions to merge.  Thus I
decided *not* to merge FOOT/STRUT, not to merge GOAT/MOUTH, and to merge
FATHER with THOUGHT/lot rather than TRAP/COMMA.  I've also all the time had
a special sign (Swedish /y/) for /j/+FOOT/GOOSE and find this more
convenient than distinguishing FOOT/GOOSE.

I've also experimented a lot with how best to express the w/v/f triplet,
since Swedish lacks /w/, and I gave up on a distinct {T} in order to gain a
sign for {Tw}. I also use a separate /hw/ sign in spite of the absence of
this distinction in most lects. What's facinating is how seldom the system
is unambiguous in spite of these lacking distinctions.

OTOH if (or rather when, since I've tried it) I were to devise a new
orthography based on the Latin alphabet I would probably merge TRAP/FATHER
but keep LOT distinct, because of the frequent morphological alternation
between LOT/GOAT which FATHER and
THOUGHT words don't take part in.  And I would of course not merge
FACE/CHOICE except
as an expedient of necessity.  OTOH I may try to relate the symbols for
STRUT and CHOICE.


/BP 8^)
--
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)

         Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
                                             (Tacitus)