Raymond Brown wrote:
> æ = /E/ in _æni_, /{/ in _ænd_ and _dhæt_.
>
> The phoneme /E/ is spelled {æ} in _æni_, but as {e} in _dhem_.
Isn't [E] just a phonetic realization of the phoneme /æ/ in this context?
> The phoneme /O/, which Brits usually pronounce [Q] and Americans as [A], is
> spelled {o} in _koment_ and _problem_ but as {a} in the first syllable of
> _samwan_.
The word "some" is officially pronounced /sVm/, not /sOm/. The proposed
spelling of /V/ in my system was <a>.
It's an irregular pronunciation. It isn't that apparent in American
English, where /V/ and /O/ are usually merged to some degree or another,
but a Brit would pronounce "some" clearly like "sum" rather than "Tom".
> The /V/ sound seems, as far as I can see, to be spelled {a} in _wan_ (one),
> but as {e} in _kerent_ /"kVrn=t/.
Again, this is not an inaccuracy of my transliteration scheme, but of
my own pronunciation. I clearly say /"k3Rn=t/. The suggested spelling
for /3R/ in my system was <er>.
> Indeed, _kerent_ threw me completely on the first read; it suggested
> *kerrent /"kErn=t/ to me.
Which would be <kærent> in my system.
> Any spelling reform that merely represents US English is certainly doomed
> to failure a wide scale simply because it will be be perceived not merely
> as regional but as "imperial" by many, i.e. the Americans trying to lord
> over the rest.
Spelling reforms in general feel "imperial" to any established English
speaker. It won't happen in this century, just as the metric system
won't be made official in the US in this century, for the same reason.
> Now, I don't suppose for one moment Christian intended any such thing
> (especially IIRC he hails from Europe).
There's nothing like a healthy dose of righteous European culture
chauvinism. ):-D
> The trouble is that English is not only still spoken in little old England
> (and the rest of Britain as either L1 or L2), but is also spoken in
> Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa & the Indian subcontinent. Any
> spelling reform, to be be successful, has to be acceptable to all
> anglophones (except diehards).
Which is why we should transliterate *phonemes* rather than phonetic
realizations, even if those realizations sound like the realizations of
other phonemes in the same language.
> It may sound "accent-free" (whatever that means) in the US, but it's a
> certainty that it wouldn't pass as accent-free in Britain, Australia or
> South Africa (inter multa alia).
Certainly I couldn't fool any attentive native listener for long, but a
non-linguist probably would know what I was doing wrong.
> In words like _curry_ and _hurry_ we have [V].
> But I'm afraid that by adopting a _phonetic_ approach to spelling reform,
Did I? Now I'm confused.
> IMHO the only successful way for a wholesale reform of English (rather than
> regularizing present spelling) is to adopt a _phonemic_ approach which
> accommodates all mainstream varieties of English.
Agreed.
-- Christian Thalmann