Re: English Orthography Reform
Posted: 31 Oct 2019 08:17
don't change words where there's no reason too. Maintain the basic spellings known where possible, and where they don't conflict grately with the currint language.
Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
http://cbbforum.com/
To me, Occam's razor would seem to suggest the explanation that it was spelled ich simply because it was originally pronounced /ɪtʃ/, and <ch> happens to be the normal way of spelling /tʃ/ in English (and was already in Middle English). In Old English, where /tʃ/ was spelled <c>, the word was spelled ic. The fact that German happens to use the same digraph for /x ~ ç/ is largely a coincidence; Old High German used <h>, so this word was ih.yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑25 Oct 2019 00:35True about "ich." But, that's a bit different because "ich" may've been a holdover from German, where it's survived to this day.Ser wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019 06:18C'mon, if the Middle English pronoun "ich", still used in the 15th century, managed to replace its spelling to modern "I", it can happen to "you" as well.yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019 03:19The problem here is that using letters, such as c and u, as words originated text speak and will, very likely, never gain wider acceptance in any fashion. I, for one, find it repulsive and consider you very lucky to have earned this response from me.Zé do Rock wrote: ↑22 Oct 2019 10:31Wel, u can wate until sum peeple "in the frunt" start using mor logical spellings to start using it, or u can be one of those peeple in the frunt who start using it. I'm one of those peeple...
Compare, also, with how the -n of Middle English verbal infinitives and plurals was dropped (to doon, they writen > to do, they write), much unlike a very similar change in nearby French (Old French parles, parlent [ˈparləs ˈparlə(n)θ], which are nowadays still spelled [tu] parles, [ils] parlent but pronounced [tyˈpaʁl i(l)ˈpaʁl]).
Did I? I just thought I understood the reason why that was changed; "great" does conflict with normal English spelling rules, whereas "current", AFAICT, doesn't. But I guess I'm missing some of your logic here?
Indeed, while "current" is entirely predictable, "currint" completely conflicts with normal English spelling rules, as not only is it not the correct spelling, it's an actively misleading spelling, since it suggests /I/ rather than /@/.
Thats the problem with trying to represent shwas: invite 100 peeple to replace shwa say with @ in a text, and u'l get 100 difrent versions... not eeven dictionarys agree... shwa is calld "the obscure vowel", and trying to solv the problem is like trying to say the cullor of sum peeple in a dark room... i gave it up a long time ago.Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 15:07 Yes, it's definitely unusual. <o> is literally the least intuitive vowel possible for that sound! [I also find <eu> for /u:/ to be really counterintuitive, because it's so associated in English with /j/... and speaking of which, using <j> for /j/ when you're not using <y> would be very odd for English speakers.]
In general, it's not awful, but I'm not sure of the design ideas: on the one hand, some choices make no sense except for speakers of English (that is, you use combinations that only make sense because they're already used in English), but other choices would make it very counterintuitive for English speakers, so it's sort of in the middle, neither using an intuitive system built on current spelling, nor using a maximally simple system built on non-English spelling... but, maybe that's intentional.
Small mistake, though: you have the weak vowel merger in words like "Omerokon" (tangent: why mark schwa before /n/, but not before /l/?), but you don't have it in words like "disuyded" or "distiqgwish"... (should be either "disuyded" and "Omerikon" or "dosuyded" and "Omerokon").
this isn't necessarily a mistake - between full contrast and full merger there's a lot of room for confusion, conditional and positional mergers, etc., and any phonetic orthography for GA will have a lot of disagreement about the weak vowelsSalmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 15:07 Small mistake, though: you have the weak vowel merger in words like "Omerokon" (tangent: why mark schwa before /n/, but not before /l/?), but you don't have it in words like "disuyded" or "distiqgwish"... (should be either "disuyded" and "Omerikon" or "dosuyded" and "Omerokon").
But if you don't mark schwas, then you can't have a meaningful spelling reform. Schwa-mispellings are one of the two most common forms of spelling mistake in English, and are connected to the other big problem (whether a consonant should be single or double after schwa - though I guess it doesn't actually matter whether it's schwa or just destressed).Zé do Rock wrote: ↑05 May 2021 16:02Thats the problem with trying to represent shwas: invite 100 peeple to replace shwa say with @ in a text, and u'l get 100 difrent versions... not eeven dictionarys agree... shwa is calld "the obscure vowel", and trying to solv the problem is like trying to say the cullor of sum peeple in a dark room... i gave it up a long time ago.Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 15:07 Yes, it's definitely unusual. <o> is literally the least intuitive vowel possible for that sound! [I also find <eu> for /u:/ to be really counterintuitive, because it's so associated in English with /j/... and speaking of which, using <j> for /j/ when you're not using <y> would be very odd for English speakers.]
In general, it's not awful, but I'm not sure of the design ideas: on the one hand, some choices make no sense except for speakers of English (that is, you use combinations that only make sense because they're already used in English), but other choices would make it very counterintuitive for English speakers, so it's sort of in the middle, neither using an intuitive system built on current spelling, nor using a maximally simple system built on non-English spelling... but, maybe that's intentional.
Small mistake, though: you have the weak vowel merger in words like "Omerokon" (tangent: why mark schwa before /n/, but not before /l/?), but you don't have it in words like "disuyded" or "distiqgwish"... (should be either "disuyded" and "Omerikon" or "dosuyded" and "Omerokon").
I guess. To me, the /I/ in 'American' is as far as possible from schwa, whereas the /I/ in 'destroy' is very close to it. But I'm not an American. Are there Americans who have this the other way around? I guess they might, since there's a good reason to 'strengthen' the latter in theory (initial syllables are often less reduced).Nortaneous wrote: ↑05 May 2021 16:27this isn't necessarily a mistake - between full contrast and full merger there's a lot of room for confusion, conditional and positional mergers, etc., and any phonetic orthography for GA will have a lot of disagreement about the weak vowelsSalmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 15:07 Small mistake, though: you have the weak vowel merger in words like "Omerokon" (tangent: why mark schwa before /n/, but not before /l/?), but you don't have it in words like "disuyded" or "distiqgwish"... (should be either "disuyded" and "Omerikon" or "dosuyded" and "Omerokon").
Damnit. Yeah, that's one that's caught me out before. It's part of a general "randomly change /Q/ to /V/ in short function words" rule, right? Is there are list of which words Americans warp like this?actual mistakes include /frɑm/ for "from"
This is just because the final schwa should be rhoticised, right? Or do some Americans change the quality of the first vowel too?and /ʌðə/ for "other"
I'd write /əmerɨkən/, /dɨstroj/, /dɨstiŋgwɨʃ/ (although Deseret unfortunately has no way of distinguishing /ɨ i/, and mostly didn't represent vowel reduction except before resonants, in accord with dictionary practice at the time)Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 18:33 I guess. To me, the /I/ in 'American' is as far as possible from schwa, whereas the /I/ in 'destroy' is very close to it. But I'm not an American. Are there Americans who have this the other way around? I guess they might, since there's a good reason to 'strengthen' the latter in theory (initial syllables are often less reduced).
from, of, what, because; for some speakers also somebody, anybody, nobodyIt's part of a general "randomly change /Q/ to /V/ in short function words" rule, right? Is there are list of which words Americans warp like this?
yesThis is just because the final schwa should be rhoticised, right?
Oh, thanks - I knew those (though I'd forgotten 'because'), but I assumed there were more.Nortaneous wrote: ↑05 May 2021 18:51 from, of, what, because; for some speakers also somebody, anybody, nobody
(minim rule?)There might be others, but the spelling doesn't help - something that looks like it represents /ɒ/ could just as well be /ʌ/ (usually due to the minim rule but also "other" - do "one" and "once" have /ɒ/ in RP?)
Also "was". I think "because" isn't universal. (Spelling pronunciation?)Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 19:59Oh, thanks - I knew those (though I'd forgotten 'because'), but I assumed there were more.Nortaneous wrote: ↑05 May 2021 18:51 from, of, what, because; for some speakers also somebody, anybody, nobody
Wait, apparently also "was"?
<o> for <u> adjacent to <m n> as in "come", "tongue" etc. (which might not be entirely about minims)(minim rule?)
Oh right, that. Sorry, don't remember hearing that (or any!) term for it.Nortaneous wrote: ↑06 May 2021 03:18<o> for <u> adjacent to <m n> as in "come", "tongue" etc. (which might not be entirely about minims)(minim rule?)
Oh, I didn't know that!Other irregular sound shifts that exist in some dialects:
- /ɔ/ in 'God'
"Catch" is presumably its own thing. Raising of /{/ before nasals - with varying outcomes - is a whole giant thing across the US... (although usually resulting in a diphthong)- /ɛ/ in 'can', 'catch', 'am'
...and as I've said, I think it's connected to this.- something like the TRAP-BATH split in the upper Mid-Atlantic (where BATH is /eə/), but the set of words affected is slightly different
This is a common feature of many dialects, and not just with /{/. Coda /l/ often triggers a split into two syllables after a diphthong - c.f. 'file' and 'goal' with two syllables. [for me, it's strongest after /j/, rather than /w/]- confusion of /æwl/ and /æwəl/ without full merger
Weird!- intrusive /l/ in 'both'
No, all three words. I have the usual GenAm æ > eə / _m _n, but those three words have [ɛ], not [æ] (from /æw/) or [eə] (from /æ/). I read the pun about the canner - "I eat what I can and I can what I can't" - when I was young and couldn't make any sense of it - the two "can"s aren't homophonous!
For me (and most people around here), /jl/ is prohibited, so 'fail', 'feel', 'file', and 'foil' have two syllables. Some people also have breaking for /uwl/, but breaking for /ʌwl/ is not something I can remember ever hearing - instead it's monophthongized to [oˤːlˤ]. This is probably where intrusive l in 'both' comes from - and some people also have [oˤː] as the product of long-distance assimilation, e.g. 'social' [soˤːʃəˤlˤ].This is a common feature of many dialects, and not just with /{/. Coda /l/ often triggers a split into two syllables after a diphthong - c.f. 'file' and 'goal' with two syllables. [for me, it's strongest after /j/, rather than /w/]
This is a good point – and one that at least I myself have probably never really considered. It does make a lot of sense, though; many of the irregularities occur in fairly common words, so they're relatively easy to memorize. Although I'm guessing they can still be a bit of an extra hassle for children when they're first learning to spell, at least (I'm assuming this was a survey of adults?).Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 May 2021 18:28But if you don't mark schwas, then you can't have a meaningful spelling reform. Schwa-mispellings are one of the two most common forms of spelling mistake in English, and are connected to the other big problem (whether a consonant should be single or double after schwa - though I guess it doesn't actually matter whether it's schwa or just destressed).
[I recently found a survey of the top 20 most difficult words to spell, as self-reported (ie the words people had most trouble with). Of the 20, at least 7 and arguably 8 of them are at least in part difficult because of schwas (whether 'liquefy' has a confusing schwa or is outright irregular varies from person to person). Around 9 of them have possible double letters after unstressed vowels (some words have both problems). The other big difficulties are S/C confusion and rare letter sequences (that may not be ambiguous to read, but are hard to remember to write). Only between 1 and 3 of them were due to outright irregularities, which is the problem that most reformers focus on solving...]