Inky Scrolls wrote:But wouldn't that make words like bet, bat, bit, bot, but, butt, bate, bite, bout, boat, boot, Betty, bitty, batty, etc. all be written as 'bt'?
linguoboy wrote:Inky Scrolls wrote:But wouldn't that make words like bet, bat, bit, bot, but, butt, bate, bite, bout, boat, boot, Betty, bitty, batty, etc. all be written as 'bt'?
Try rydng ðt prgrf 'gyn.
Inky Scrolls wrote:Yes, I understand how an abjad works. And it seems that you have used w for /uː/, /aʊ/ and /oʊ/, and y for /iː/, /eɪ/, /aɪ/ and /ɔɪ/. But my point is: why? What about accents in which that makes little sense? For example, in Yorkshire English, most of the diphthongs become monophthongs
linguoboy wrote:Are they long monophthongs?
Inky Scrolls wrote:But it still doesn't quite fit - the vowels in words like 'make' and 'take' usually become /mɛk/ and /tɛk/ - short monophthongs.
Inky Scrolls wrote:For jírz an intrest ov main haz bín dizaining posibl ripleisments for đi orŧografi kërentli in jús for raiting Ingliš. Wail it haz its benefits, noutabli its historikl aspekts and prezërveišon ov links tu etimolodži, ai kanot bët help fíling đat it haz driftid far from đi alfabetik prinsipl. After ól, it këmz nouwér klous tu having a 1:1 founím:grafím korespondens.
Hav fën, and let mi nou wot ju ŧink!
IpseDixit wrote:I suppose the <ë> in prezërveišon is a typo since in all other instances, you used it to represent [ʌ]. Moreover, if it's posibl, historikl, prinsipl, shouldn't it also be prezerveišn?
IpseDixit wrote:To me it seems quite weird that you tried to come up with a very regular phonetic alphabet but at the same time you didn't bother to create... two distinct letters for [æ] and [ɑ]. It also looks pretty odd that you used <ë> to represent [ʌ], why not <u> for [ʌ] and <ü> for [ʊ]? It would seem slightly more intuitive IMHO.
IpseDixit wrote:Plus, I don't see why you would use <š> when, historically, English has <sh> to represent that sound; same goes for <dž>, English usually represents that phoneme with <j>, so I wouldn't change that and I would still use <y> for [j] (so, for example, it would be yús instead of jús).
IpseDixit wrote:Anyway, personally I don't think English really needs such a complete spelling reform, I think it should suffice to do away with the most inconsistent spellings[...]
- Eliminate silent letters: so, for example, it would become anser, sord, shoud, woud, tak, wak, forein, paradime, asma, thru, tho instead of answer, sword, should, would, talk, walk, foreign, paradigm, asthma, through, though. I would keep silent letters only if there are confusing homographs.
- Eliminate double consonants: since English doesn't have geminate consonants, double consonants seem pretty useless and a bit confusing, therefore I would write ofence, speling, embarasing, necesary, buter and so on.
- Replace -ight with -ite, or, at most, also in this case, just keep -ight if there are confusing homographs.
- Just use <f> to represent [f], so no more <ph> and <gh>.
- Change the most inconsistent ways in which vowels are represented[...]
Inky Scrolls wrote:[ɑː] doesn't appear anywhere in the example paragraph
Inky Scrolls wrote:The schwa is a marginal phoneme in English, occurring only in unstressed syllables.
IpseDixit wrote:Inky Scrolls wrote:The schwa is a marginal phoneme in English, occurring only in unstressed syllables.
"In English, schwa is the most common vowel sound."
IpseDixit wrote:Inky Scrolls wrote:[ɑː] doesn't appear anywhere in the example paragraph
"ai kanot bët help fíling đat it haz driftid far from đi alfabetik prinsipl"
IpseDixit wrote:"In English, schwa is the most common vowel sound."
vijayjohn wrote:The thing about this is that considering schwa the most common vowel sound in English basically requires you to believe that syllabic consonants don't exist in English (and possibly that barred i and schwa are the same thing as far as English is concerned). To my knowledge, there are some linguists who seem to not believe that syllabic consonants exist in English and others who do believe they exist.
Inky Scrolls wrote:Ай кыд ивн райт ин Сирилик иф ай ўонт ту.
Vlürch wrote:Йыу куд ийвън ўрайт лайк ҙис, ўиҙ даёкритиѯ әнд шит ин ҙө Күрильик алфъбет әнд ит ўуд пробабли стил бий андөрстуўд пөрфэктли, бат ўоц ҙө пойнт иф ит луўѯ лайк шит? Ай әкшўәли ҫинк ҙис луўѯ прити гуд, бат йыу пробабли доўнт әгрий бикъз иц кайндъ ўиөрд әнд дасънт фит Иңлиш вери ўэл?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests