Re: USAGE: Adapting non-Latin scripts

Part of the problem is we are inundated with our current spelling.  I
was pointing out to a non-conlanger that "ch" was not a single
sound,as many believe, but two, before I got around to showing [tS], I
got told: "of course!  the c then the h!  two sounds." lol...

On 5/24/06, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
> --- Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not really sure that's a *problem* though. It's
> > certainly not why
> > the English orthography is a bit difficult to work
> > with. As long as
> > the rules were regular with how to spell sounds, it
> > doesn't matter if
> > we spelt /æ/ as "a", "ä", "æ" or "ae" and /ei/ as
> > "ai", "aa" or "é".
>
> There are times when I think that English lies
> somewhere on a continuum between phonetic spelling and
> abstract pictographic. It's not as precise as IPA, yet
> not *quite* as arbitrary as spelling "house" as "QTPN"
> and "mouse" as "BHDK".
>
> English spelling, while not quite that extreme,
> certainly blurs the line that supposedly connects
> symbols to sounds while enhancing the line that
> connects symbols directly to meanings, regardless of
> sounds.
>
> But instead of complaining, I suppose we should thank
> our lucky stars we don't have even more exceptions to
> the rules. We could, for example, use "gh" as the long
> vowel marker and end up spelling "light" (which
> already observes this rule) and "hoghl" (for "hole"
> which does not yet follow this rughl.)
>
> --gary
>

Reply