Christian Thalmann wrote:
> 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?
Plainly no: "any" is /Eni/ and "Annie" is /&ni/. "Any" is now an
irregular spelling.
> 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.
Gak, I hope metrication is not *that* far off!
>>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.
The problem with Christian's system is not that it is not phonemic
(so Raymond), but that it is insufficiently cross-dialectal. This is
a hard problem. Axel Wijk (the Regularized Inglish creator) was
careful to use both Longmans and Kenyon & Knott, and even he had
to allow that some words will be spelled differently across the
Pond: e.g. "paath" vs. "path".
--
There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein