Re: English notation

/me does it again... I really will remember to press 'reply to all' one
day! I promise!
And my apoligies to tom, this'll be the *third* time you get this :(

Tom Tadfor Little wrote:

  > Tristan wrote:
  >
  >> > Ie think dhis iz sumwut mor reed'b'l for Eenglish speekerz. It
  >> reeliez on
  >>
  >> I'll be calm. Okay. I think I can manage it. DON"T CONFUSE AMERICAN
  >> ENGLISH
  >> WITH
  >>
ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  >> (etc).
  >
  >
  > <grins>
  >
  > Okey dokey.
  >
  > But, alas, one can't do phonetic writing without choosing *some*
  > accent--and, like it or not, American English has become the dominant
form
  > of the language today.


Once again (because i tend to reply bottom-to-top), that wasn't my
point. My point was that English does not mean American English,
especially strange dialects of it that tensify /I/ before /N/, for
example (that wasn't meant in any offencive way, btw, it was meant as
humour).
And as I say later, you have to make the *most* amount of distinctions
as possible (although where you have otherwise impossible things, like
/i@(r)n/ versus /ir@n/, or /mam/ vs /mam/ (but the first one is /mVm/
and the second /mQm/ when you 'translate' them into other dialects)
you'd need two spellings to do it with.
And, finally, i have nothing against someone designing a reformed thing
for one dialect alone, but i do have something against them trying to
suggest it as a more general one - for some, it'd be as advantagous as TO.


  >> Try
  >>
  >>   Ie think dhis iz sumwot maw reed'b'l faw Inglish speek'z. It
reliez on
  >
  >
  > Nah. It's a step in the wrong direction. Everyone is used to the "r"s in
  > the written language, and a good many of us are used to speaking
them and
  > hearing them too. Dropping them just defers to one sort of accent
without
  > enhancing comprehension at all.
  >

Sorry, you missed my point. My point was that if one was going to do a
phonemic transcription, they shouldn't choose some dialect that isn't
the most complicated; spelling /"kVr@nt/ ans <kerent> or whatever it is
makes no sence to a fair amount of the population. IMHO, the *most*
complicated form would be the best, and that *would*, of course, include
post-volic aahs, even though, thanks to american influence (american
rhoticness creates support for it in other dialects, but there is a hole
there as the dialects in question don't have them, and so they drop /@/s
to fill the hole. That's my guess, at least), certain dialects want to
use them in brand new cases, but these certain dialects will already
have to cope with people putting an extra syllable into 'violence', so i
guess that shouldn't matter too much.

I theenk :) i've explained my POV propperly now, so i'll finish here.
Tristan

Replies