Re: English notation

Actually, this scheme looks markedly more painful, at least to my eye -
those doubled <o>s and V<y> combinations look juvenile (which may be an
intention, but sweet lord, trigraphs?)

Some things you may not want to violate are inflection patterns, like the
plural/3rd person -s.  Speakers are intelligent enough to deduce voicing
assimilation; they don't need the added complexity of having to check which
sibilant is the corrct spelling of any given noun.  Contractions could do
with retaining their <'>.
<ch> -> <c> isn't disagreeable, if you're not going to use c for anything
else.
I might suggest also things like alternate final vowel spellings; <æniwei>
(besides the anomalous æ) is rather counterintuitive - <eniway> abuses the
current conventions less.  (Actually, Chris, you use æ in a lot of
situations where I'd use /E/.)
Practically any vowel can be laxed to /@/ in the proper conditions - one
might want to build in a condition for that.
The /T/ /D/ distinction can possibly discarded except in the case of minimal
pairs - the spelling of function-words should be preserved when possible.
(dhis, dhæt, dhe look foreign again).

---
Shreyas

Replies