Re: Why my conlangs SUCK!!!

I would think that is has more to do with the history of the language. There
are several natlangs with regularized spelling. Does your conlang hang on to
old (or pick up old methods) of spelling, or did someone regularize the
spellings between now and wat yoo hav now. If they did, did they do it for
all words, or just for words over three letters. You may think it funny, but
I've actually seen spelling reformers suggest that small words not be
adjusted, since they are so common and it would be jarring to current
readers trained on the old system.

OTOH: there also seems to be a slightly regularizing influence -- in English
at least. I see nite more often now than I did ten years ago. Sometimes it
backfires -- the singular of cookies used to by cooky, instead of cookie.
The regularizing influence of "plural is made by adding s" made an
irregularity of ", except if it end in y - then change the y to i and add
es."

I personally think that the more common the word is in everyday vocabulary,
the less likely it will be regular because as the new generation moves on to
new rules and tries to apply them, their parents "correct" them to the
"proper" method.

Perhaps the best way to go is to consider the sound shift, then decide how
people with our spelling would have chosen to adjust the spelling to match
for less common words that parents didn't have a chance to "correct" the
spelling on.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Peterson [mailto:ThatBlueCat@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:46 PM
To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
Subject: Re:       Why my conlangs SUCK!!!
 [snip]


I think this is the conclusion that most (should) have come to by now,
regarding conlangs--namely, that regularity isn't the way to go, if natural
is what you're aiming for.