The Spelling Reform Thread

This is our main forum. Here, anything related to languages and linguistics can be discussed.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-24, 5:08

mōdgethanc wrote:To an Anglo like me, tenuis sounds more like voiced. I need that aspiration to cue me that it's voiceless.

It sounds lightly aspirated to me.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 403
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-01-24, 20:10

vijayjohn wrote:
Vlürch wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:
Vlürch wrote:Is hac supposed to be pronounced [hɑt͡ʃ]? :o

I didn't think so, but apparently it is. See e.g. 6:51 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fYqwJtkPw

Is there something wrong with my ears, because I hear it as [hɑd͡ʒ] every time? :?

Including the very first word after 6:51?

I don't know, [hɑd̚t͡ʃ] or something?

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-25, 2:28

Now you're just trying too hard! :twisted:

ZON
Posts: 12
Joined: 2016-02-23, 6:30
Country: FR France (France)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby ZON » 2017-01-30, 7:49

French r to x in the end of words. Mex, noix, joueux...

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-30, 13:11

ZON wrote:French r to x in the end of words. Mex, noix, joueux...

Joueux already means something similar to joueur in Jersey French. :)

So then what do you do to x at the end of words? Like in heureux, flux, and prix?

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 403
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-01-30, 19:54

vijayjohn wrote:Now you're just trying too hard! :twisted:

Maybe. :P
ZON wrote:French r to x in the end of words. Mex, noix, joueux...

Why? I mean, at least I personally think "mex" looks really meh. No pun intended?

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-31, 0:45

Vlürch wrote:
ZON wrote:French r to x in the end of words. Mex, noix, joueux...

Why?

I'm guessing because it's (often?) pronounced [x] word-finally.

User avatar
Dormouse559
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 5841
Joined: 2010-05-30, 0:06
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Dormouse559 » 2017-01-31, 1:11

I'm going to second Vlürch's "why?" but elaborate to "Why just that?" Assuming no other changes, that simply adds one more value to a letter that already has like four. Doesn't strike me as an improvement.
N'hésite pas à corriger mes erreurs.

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Koko » 2017-01-31, 1:52

And out of all the other letters, why that one? At least you can guess how to say r 90% of the time because the rules surrounding it's pronunciations are pretty much always followed. I would say, fix the dealio with the transcription of vowels maybe? That seems more practical. Or just get rid of all those silent letters? Anything with French though, would end up giving as many counter-intuitive problems that reforming English would. There are some languages that are so freaking screwed up that reform is just not plausible.

User avatar
cHr0mChIk
Posts: 321
Joined: 2015-07-01, 11:46
Real Name: Filip Chromčík
Gender: male
Location: Vojvodina, Serbia
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby cHr0mChIk » 2017-02-03, 2:13

The one language whose spelling I'd reform is Polish... It's orthography is just plain strange to me. It differs from all other Slavic languages, and it's usually the language which is in written form the least intelligible to other Slavs. Primarily since it's orthography looks quite confusing.

I'd modify it in a way to be close to other Slavic languages:

ń to become ň
ó to become ô
w to become v
ż to become ž

And some digraphs to become single letters:
cz to become č
to become đ
sz to become š
rz to become ř

"Wywodzi się z języka praindoeuropejskiego za pośrednictwem prasłowiańskiego. W mowie rozwijał się od X wieku, a jego pierwsze zabytki pochodzą z wieku XIII. Późne średniowiecze to okres rozkwitu czeszczyzny i jej silnego oddziaływania na inne języki (w tym polski), jednakże po 1620 roku nastąpił proces jej upadku i dominacji na ziemiach czeskich języka niemieckiego."

VS

"Vyvodzi się z języka praindoeuropejskiego za pośrednictvem prasłoviaňskiego. V movie rozvijał się od X vieku, a jego piervše zabytki pochodzą z vieku XIII. Pôźne średniovieče to okres rozkvitu češčyzny i jej silnego oddziałyvania na inne języki (v tym polski), jednakže po 1620 roku nastąpił proces jej upadku i dominacji na ziemiach českich języka niemieckiego."

- It just looks more clean... For example, compare "czeszczyzny" and "češčyzny". :D
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-02-03, 4:00

cHr0mChIk wrote:ó to become ô

:shock: Why ô and not u or ú?

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 19268
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-02-03, 4:20

cHr0mChIk wrote:The one language whose spelling I'd reform is Polish... It's orthography is just plain strange to me. It differs from all other Slavic languages, and it's usually the language which is in written form the least intelligible to other Slavs. Primarily since it's orthography looks quite confusing.

I actually like the distinctiveness of Polish orthography. I like that I can identify it at a glance, that I don't have to hunt for "tells" the way I have to with other Slavic language written in Roman script. The reformed orthography just makes it look like an aberrant form of Czech--and isn't that stealing Sorbian's shtik?

I also find--and this may be a result of being raised with a script with only marginal use of diacritics--that I'm less likely to make mistakes with digraphs. To my eye, jeszcze and jeść look nothing like each other and could never be confused; I can't say the same of ješče and jeść.

cHr0mChIk wrote:ń to become ň
ó to become ô

This makes no sense to me. Either make it u or--if you feel it's really important to have a character for the /u/ which alternates paradigmatically with /o/ distinct from the /u/ which doesn't--why not go with ů when you're borrowing so much from Czech orthography already?

cHr0mChIk wrote:w to become v

If you're going to use v for /v/, why not repurpose w for /w/ instead of retaining ł?

cHr0mChIk wrote:rz to become ř

Why not ž? I don't think you have to worry much about homophones.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
cHr0mChIk
Posts: 321
Joined: 2015-07-01, 11:46
Real Name: Filip Chromčík
Gender: male
Location: Vojvodina, Serbia
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby cHr0mChIk » 2017-02-03, 6:37

linguoboy wrote:I actually like the distinctiveness of Polish orthography. I like that I can identify it at a glance, that I don't have to hunt for "tells" the way I have to with other Slavic language written in Roman script.


Every Slavic language is distinctive enough, in my opinion. Even with my "reform", Polish is still clearly recognizable by: ą, ę, ł, etc.

linguoboy wrote:This makes no sense to me.

linguoboy wrote:Why not ž?


In modern Polish, ó and u might be pronounced the same; same with ż and rz, but initially they were two separate phonemes (I believe they might still be separate phonemes in some dialects as well)... anyway, orthography needs to reflect the etymology, and I've never had trouble with these, even in times when I didn't speak Polish. For example, on Duolingo, when I had to transcribe a word, I haven't even once confused ó with u; or ż with rz. It's clear where each one goes - words with "ó", have o in other Slavic languages, and words with "rz" have r.

linguoboy wrote:If you're going to use v for /v/, why not repurpose w for /w/ instead of retaining ł?


First of all, the reason for using "v" is obvious. As for ł - it has nothing to do with u/v/w - it is a variation of l. Part of the reason is the same as for the ô and ř - words with ł have l in other Slavic languages. Come on... to write "słowo" as "swovo"??? Looks plain stupid and makes 0 sense.

Same for the rest... To write the word "sea" as "može" ? or to write "God" as "Bug"???
Plain ridiculous...
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

User avatar
Leopejo
Posts: 101
Joined: 2010-09-04, 17:36
Real Name: Leo
Gender: male
Location: Wrocław
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Leopejo » 2017-02-03, 9:28

Stay away from my Polish! (and from Russian too, for the matter). :D That example text by cHr0mChIk looks like one of those panslavic conlangs, if not Slovio then Slovianski.

Slovianski reminded me of a cute page: http://steen.free.fr/cyrpol/, about a Cyrillic orthography for Polish by one of Slovianski creators. Needless to say, I don't agree with the author, and I find both, the Tsar Nikolai I version and the author's own, abhominable. It is true that Polish is a completely Slavic language (maybe not vocabulary wise), and Cyrillic is ideal for Slavic languages, but the pronunciation has diverged too much and the compromise between origin of a sound and its current pronunciation is just unbearable. The author proposes for example ть and дь for ć and dź, which is etymologically sound but not... sound wise (pun). He also proposes just Cyrillic у for ó, but still рь for rz.

User avatar
cHr0mChIk
Posts: 321
Joined: 2015-07-01, 11:46
Real Name: Filip Chromčík
Gender: male
Location: Vojvodina, Serbia
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby cHr0mChIk » 2017-02-03, 15:55

Leopejo wrote:Stay away from my Polish! (and from Russian too, for the matter). :D


Přeprašam, kolego! (a čto ja sdelal russkomu jazyku? počemu deržaćsja podaľše?) :lol: :lol:
W każdym razie, żartuję... Ja, ani chcę, ani mogę "zmienić" polski... Jego odrębność jest to co czyni go tak specjalnym. Chociaż, z "reformą", nie wyglądałby jak "Baba Roga" innymi Słowianami (lub innymi osobami, generalnie :lol:). - żartuje, znowu :D

Leopejo wrote:That example text by cHr0mChIk looks like one of those panslavic conlangs, if not Slovio then Slovianski.


I liked these Slavic conlangs... I liked the fact that I can understand a language 100% without ever seeing it before. I guess they are useful also. If anything, they are useful to non-Slavs. Also, I guess among Slavs, it's easier to communicate through one of these - if we don't share a language (or don't share any similar language - from the same sub-group). And if we are not understood, I guess we could use a little bit of it here and there as a tool. Anyway, I liked these conlangs, they seemed nice.

Leopejo wrote:Needless to say, I don't agree with the author, and I find both, the Tsar Nikolai I version and the author's own, abominable. It is true that Polish is a completely Slavic language (maybe not vocabulary wise), and Cyrillic is ideal for Slavic languages, but the pronunciation has diverged too much and the compromise between origin of a sound and its current pronunciation is just unbearable.


I actually like the Polish Cyrillic. I like the version with ѫ/ѧ. However, I would prefer the Ukrainian usage of "e", rather than the Russian/Belorussian one (that "е=e" and "є=je" rather than "э=e" and "е=je") - other than that, I like it:

"Выводи сѩ з ѩзыка праиндоеуропейскєго за посьредництвем прасловяньскєго." - Looks nice to me.

Anyway, you know that there are 2 types of Cyrillic... well, actually 3, but the 1st one is not in use anymore - the "Early Cyrillic" - the earliest form of Cyrillic, and then it was reformed into the 2nd one: "Civic Cyrillic", which is used by all to this day, except for Serbs and Macedonians which use the 3rd one: let's call it the "Serbian Cyrillic".

Early Cyrillic characterizes: ѣ, ꙗ, ѥ, ѵ, ѳ, etc.
Civic Cyrillic characterizes: я, ю, й, щ, etc.
Serbian Cyrillic characterizes: ј, љ, њ, џ, etc.
(just some of the letters characteristic for the respective Cyrillics - not all)

So - it means we have many many options to chose from when wanting to design a Cyrillic script for Polish, even if we decide only on using the Civic Cyrillic - there are multiple variations of it (The Russian one, where и=i ; ы=y ; the Belorussian: і=i ; ы=y; or the Ukrainian: і=i ; и=y).

RUS: "Выводи сѩ з ѩзыка праиндоеуропейскєго за посьредництвем прасловяньскєго."
BEL: "Выводі сѩ з ѩзыка праіндоеуропейскєго за посьредніцтвем прасловяньскєго."
UKR: "Виводі сѩ з ѩзика праіндоеуропейскєго за посьредніцтвем прасловяньскєго."

There are so many options! You can decide whether you want it to be: ł=л ; l=ль; or perhaps, as in Belorussian: ł=ў ; l=л.

Not to talk about the Serbian Cyrillic, which is pretty much fully phonetic, so there are no я, є, ї, ё, ю - but rather: ја, је, ји, јо, ју. Also, Serbian Cyrillic has characters for ć and đ = ћ/ђ. So the text would look like this (perhaps the best option):

"Вывођи с́иѧ з јѧзыка праиндоеуропејскиего за пос́редњицтвем прасловјањскиего. В мовие розвијал с́иѧ од X виеку, а јего пиервше забытки похоѕѫ з виеку XIII."

Hmm I guess to use "j" in some places instead of "i" would look more natural with this alphabet, also, it seems that ѫ/ѧ look quite alien, so maybe the best option of all would indeed be the one with а̨/е̨:

"Вывођи с́је̨ з је̨зыка праиндоеуропејскијего за пос́редњицтвем прасловјањскијего. В мовје розвијал с́је̨ од X вијеку, а јего пјервше забытки похоѕа̨ з вијеку XIII." - it looks natural to me, with my Serbian eyes. :D
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14818
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-02-03, 19:18

cHr0mChIk wrote:In modern Polish, ó and u might be pronounced the same; same with ż and rz, but initially they were two separate phonemes (I believe they might still be separate phonemes in some dialects as well)... anyway, orthography needs to reflect the etymology, and I've never had trouble with these, even in times when I didn't speak Polish. For example, on Duolingo, when I had to transcribe a word, I haven't even once confused ó with u; or ż with rz. It's clear where each one goes - words with "ó", have o in other Slavic languages, and words with "rz" have r.

That still doesn't explain why you'd use ô instead of ó. How does that make any difference? What other Slavic languages even use either of those?

User avatar
cHr0mChIk
Posts: 321
Joined: 2015-07-01, 11:46
Real Name: Filip Chromčík
Gender: male
Location: Vojvodina, Serbia
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby cHr0mChIk » 2017-02-03, 22:07

My native language, Slovak uses ô, and I'm used to this letter.
وَقَالُوا لَن يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 403
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: The Spelling Reform Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-02-04, 0:28

linguoboy wrote:
cHr0mChIk wrote:w to become v

If you're going to use v for /v/, why not repurpose w for /w/ instead of retaining ł?

Well, apparently ł is still pronounced /ɫ/ in at least some eastern dialects, so it makes more sense to keep it as ł than to change it to w; I guess it's all subjective and depends on context, though, since I love how Belarusian has ў and could imagine some Polish words with ł looking better with ŭ or even w, since some are about as aesthetically pleasing either way; gwałt or gvaŭt, etc.

Since I have nothing better to do, here's a joky reform of Polish. I've never really been into Polish specifically, so the sentence may be pretty bad, but that's beside the point; feel free to correct it if you don't feel like it's too much work. Anyway, first in English, then an attempt at Polish using Google Translate, rusty Russian and Wiktionary, and then... something... with a significant phonological "reform" as well, completely turning Polish into a weird hybrid Kurdish-Romance-????? language with an unnecessary amount of diacritics. I'll call it Foolish, for obvious reasons. :lol:

English (en) In my opinion the Polish language is not as beautiful as Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian, unless spoken by women with nice voices or men with rough voices. Sung, it's better. In general, Polish women are also not as beautiful as Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian women. However, Polish men are more handsome than Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian men.

Polish, I hope (pl) Moim zdaniem język polski nie jest tak piękny jak rosyjski, ukraiński lub białoruski, chyba że mówione przez kobiety ze ładnymi głosami lub ludzie z szorstkimi głosami. Śpiewana, to jest lepszy. Zazwyczaj, kobiety polskie są również nie tak piękny jak kobiety rosyjskie, ukraińskie lub białoruskie. Jednak, mężczyźni polscy są przystojniejszy mężczyźni rosyjscy, ukraińscy lub białoruscy.

Mêm zĕdanîm iẽzăk polskî nî êst tak pẽknî âk rosîskî, ukrânskî lub bêloruskî, xîba je mûwûne prĕzez kobîti ze ladnîmi glosami lub ludzî zĕ şorĕstkimi glosami. Şpîwana, to êst lepşî. Zazwăçai, kobîti polskî sã rûwnîj nî tak pẽknî âk kobîti rosîskî, ukrânskî lub bêloruskî. Êdnak, menjçăjni polskî sã prĕzăstêniêşî menjçăjni rosîskî, ukrânskî lub bêloruskî.

[mɞɨ̯̃m z̪ə̆d̻ɑn̠ʲĩːm jɛ̃z̻ə̆kʰ ɸɔl̠s̻kʲʰiː n̠ʲiː ʔɞɨ̯s̻t̪ʰ t̪ʰɑk ɸɛ̃ŋkʰn̠ʲiː ʔɐɪ̯kʰ ʁɔs̻ʲiːs̻kʲʰiː ʔʊk̠ʰɣɐɪ̯̃n̻s̪kʲʰiː l̠ʊb βɞɨ̯ɫ̪ɔʀɔs̻kʲʰiː çiːβɑ d͡ʒə mɵʉ̯βɵʉ̯̃n̻ə pʰʁə̆z̻əs̪ kʰɔβʲiːt̪ʰɪ z̻ə l̠ɑd̻n̪ʲĩːmʲɪ gɫ̪ɔs̻ɑ̃mʲɪ l̠ʊb ɫ̪ʊd̻͡z̪ʲiː z̻ə̆ ʃɔʀə̆s̻t̪ʰkʲʰɪ̃mʲɪ gɫ̪ɔs̻ɑ̃mʲɪ ʃpʲʰiːβɑ̃n̻ɑ t̪ʰɔ ʔɞɨ̯s̻t̪ʰ l̠ʲəpʰɕiː z̻ɑz̪βət͡ʃʰɑɪ̯ kʰɔβʲiːt̪ʰɪ̥ ɸɔl̠s̻kʲʰiː s̻ɑ̃ ʀɵʉ̯βn̠ʲiːd͡ʑ n̠ʲiː t̪ʰɑkʰ ɸɛ̃ŋkʰn̠ʲiː ʔɐɪ̯kʰ kʰɔβʲiːt̪ʰɪ ʁɔs̻ʲiːs̻kʲʰiː ʔʊk̠ʰɣɐɪ̯̃n̻s̪kʲʰiː l̠ʊb βɞɨ̯ɫ̪ɔʀɔs̻kʲʰiː ʔɞɨ̯d̻n̪ɑk mə̃n̠d͡ʒt͡ʃʰəd͡ʒn̠ʲɪ ɸɔl̠s̻kʲʰiː s̻ɑ̥̃ pʰʁəz̪əs̻t̪ʲʰɞɨ̯̃n̠ʲɪʔɞɨ̯ɕiː mə̃n̠d͡ʒt͡ʃʰəd͡ʒn̠ʲɪ ʁɔs̻ʲiːs̻kʲʰiː ʔʊk̠ʰɣɐɪ̯̃n̻s̪kʲʰiː l̠ʊb βɞɨ̯ɫ̪ɔʀɔs̻kʲʰiː]

What am I doing with my life? :P


Return to “General Language Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests