rte@houxl.UUCP (R.EDWARDS) (04/04/85)
Here are some comments and suggestions on the previous two suggestions for reforming English spelling. Of course the whole enterprise is hopeless, but it's fun to consider how we'd do it anyway. The assumption I work from is that the goal is spelling that allows for dialect differences, aims for brevity, tolerates a little ambiguity, and doesn't look too ugly. > lab l/d dnt alv ret vel phr >vd.stop b d g >vl.stop p t k >vd.affr j >vl.affr c >vd.spir v dh z zh >vl.spir f th s sh h >vd.nas m n ng (-ng- in finger is (ngg)) >vd.smiv l r > Yet another possibility is to use c for sh, j for zh, tc for ch and dj for j. This has the advantage of logical digraphs over random digraphs, as well as using a single letter for the most common of these sounds (sh). special->/specl/, azure->/aejr/, match->/maetc/, adjust->/adjast/ Q and X ought to be used for something, the most common digraphs left are the two th s. We could use q for one and x for the other. In fact there are almost no minimal pairs for the two th s (minimal pair is a pair of words identical except for the phonemes in question), the only ones I know about are (ether,either), (thin,then). Many speakers lack even these. So why not use x for both and use q for ng? This sweeps the consonants clean of arbitrary digraphs. >semivowel y `yet' w `wet' >st.high iy `beet' uw `boot' >wk.high i `bit' u `put' >st.mid ey `bait' ow `boat' >wk.mid e `bet' o `bought' >low.diph ay `bite' aw `bout' >low ae `bat' ao `pot' > aa `but' >diph oy `boy' >schwa a (first syllable in about) All these a s! Baard is a fairly ugly spelling for bird. Why distinguish the two vowels in abut? I'd write both as a. > >I'd write (syllabic m n l r) as (am) (an) (al) (ar) unaccented or (aar) accented. > Why not just write them m n l r? The only problem occurs when they stack up (Funeral->/fyuwnrl/?), but even then its not clear that the ambiguity matters. Another good problem word is rural->/rrl/?/rarl/?/raral/? Can anyone find examples where the ambiguity as to whether one of these is syll- abic matters? A hidden question is whether you are after a spelling system, or a phonetic representation. A spelling system does not need to resolve all ambiguities, only the important ones. Also ao is much more common than o, why not use o for not and oo for naught. A small class of words needs a symbol to be pronounced ah in all dialects, father, bra, mama etc. I suggest /aa/ for this class. >1) In many cases, english dialects preserve phonemic distinctions even >where there are differences in pronunciation. For example, British >speakers usually drop (r) following vowels, but preserve the lost sound >via compensatory vowel lengthening. British speakers would have the rule >VOWEL+(r) => LONG VOWEL > Actually the rule is r not before a vowel goes to a (as in about) and low vowel plus a goes to long low vowel. Hear, hair, and poor are clearly still diphthongs in dialects that have lost r s. >2) Unfortunately, many dialects contain distinctions that are nonexistent >in others. Words like `new', `dew', `tune', `sewer' (Br= nyuw dyuw tyuwn >syuwar, Am= nuw duw tuwn suwar) would be viewed as containing `silent >letters' by American speakers, following the rule (y) => 0 /(t,d,n,s) _ VOWEL > >3) Some dialectical discrepencies require the addition of extra symbols to >account words having different phonemes in different dialects. The most >obvious phonemic shift I know of occurs in the vowels in (path) and >(ox). I believe that at least two extra vowels will be required (here >called (a') and (o')) to handle the words below: > > British American Common > ------- -------- ------ >cat kaet kaet kaet >path paoth paeth pa'th >ox oks aoks o'ks >bought bot bot bot > In the spirit of the previous solution (americans regard y as silent in dyuw etc.), the rule here should be that /ae/ plus /f s x(th) nt ns/ will be pronounced differently by those with this shift. The /ae/ pronunciation is the older. Also I think the short o is a non problem, just use o, Americans say ah, British say aw. Incidentally, many British speakers distinquish between cot and caught, using a longer closer vowel for the latter, just as many Americans do, its just that both are shifted relative to the ah aw pair. I'd keep or for words like for, lord, and ar for cart, card. (Incidently these words are not distinguished in local Jersey Shore dialect, you haven't lived till you've heard of the Gorden State Porkway) >Another example is the (d)-like sound in American `pretty', `little'. >Some British dialects make this a glottal stop, others pronounce it >as an ordinary (t). Shall we call this (t') ? > Here again, just write t, no ambiguity results. >Here's how I'd have spelt your examples: > >> >>Some samples using this spelling system: >>Su~m sa^mpl^z yu^zin~ d~is spelin~ sistm^: > Saam saempalz yuwzing dhis speling sistam: [.. yuwz1ng .. spel1ng..] Sam saemplz yuwziq xis speliq sistm. (Note, it's shorter) >> >> Old Nu^ Yet anaadhar sistam Stil anaxr sistm >> --- --- --- ------- ------ >> cat ka^t kaet kaet >> cot kat kaot kot >> caught kot kot koot >> coat ko^t kowt >> curt kr^t kaart krt >> coot ku^t kuwt >> word wr^d waard [wurd] wrd >> weird wird wird >> ward ward word >> warred ward word >[Du~z eni^wu~n pronawns d^i^z difrentli^?] >[Daaz eniwan pranawns dhiyz difrantli ?] [..en1wan..difrantl1?] Daz eniwan pranawns xiyz difrantli? Again most of my suggestions hinge on whether the goal is a phonetic system or a reasonable spelling system. If the latter even more simplifications are possible, yuw->yu, iy,ey,ow,uw at the end of a word spelled i,e,o,u, that way many common words are shortened, with no ambiguity introduced. they->xe, be->bi etc. One issue not discussed is whether or not to distinguish unaccented short i from a in about. Many Americans don't, except when final, in which case we pronounce it like /iy/ anyway. The answer should be to maintain the distinction, since many speakers do, in the spirit of the ah aw distinction above. Best wiciz for betr speliq. Lest eniwan xiqk aym a driymr, let mi aed, speliq wil nevr bi riformd for sevrl riyzns. 1. Xer iz no orgnizeycn tu du so. 2. Mowst piypl downt andrstaend xi iynormas hyumn kost av raendm speliq. 3. Piypl ar snobz abawt speliq, xowz hu no haw layk tu lord it ovr xa rest av as.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/06/85)
>3. Piypl ar snobz abawt speliq, xowz hu no haw layk tu lord it ovr xa >rest av as. For the same reason, the civil service (mandarins?) at King SeiJong's court fought hard against the adoption of Hangul in Korea. The King's reason for developing this rational alphabet was to make it possible for the common people to communicate with him, rather than having to go through the intermediary of someone literate in Chinese character writing. After his death, they more or less scuttled Hangul, which was revived only since WWII (it formed a kind of underground writing during the Japanese occupation, but was hardly used in Korea between the 15th century and the 20th). But in respect of modified spelling and snobbery, a bigger problem is that it is hard for people to learn new things, and those that do know something about current spelling practices would be in difficulties with a new system, no matter how rational it might seem. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
gilbert@hwcs.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) (05/22/85)
In article <298@rlvd.UUCP> drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) writes: > >Written language is just a representation of the spoken word, which came >first anyway. The difficulty arises that whoever put pen to paper, or stylus >to wax surface all those years ago took a snapshot of the spoken language as >it existed then, at that particular place. No, not just. Written and spoken languages are separate systems which tend to overlap. Socially comfortable and successfully educated (thus many members of our English county sets are excluded) English(wo)men are fortunate in the close correspondence of written English to their spoken dialect. Greeks, on the other hand, used to labour under the constraints of the `clear speech' official written language which was only recently `disestablished'. Written Arabic is so different to the regional dialects that even well educated Arab boys generally cannot correctly form all their plurals until their mid-teens. Writing is far more of a problem solving exercise than speaking. Formations exist in the written language which never appear in everyday conversation (in some senses, public speaking is a form of `reading aloud'). The French aorist (passe' simple) is an obvious example. Poetic language of course is a further linguistic system with conventions and a vocabularily that appear in neither written or spoken language. Some features of written language systems may have their origins in earlier spoken forms. However still more features can only be ascribed to the evolution of a language within a historical community of literati. I could never have said the above without going `em', nor could I have uttered such complex sentences impromptu. I wouldn't attempt to say the above, as written, in the part of Tyneside where I grew up. It would neither be fully understood or well received, but I could get the same message across in dialect. `Nivor in the world man. Taakin n writins gorra be different, why anyone can taak, but yiv gorra be lornt te write. An when yer arh lornt, thi winnat let yer write as ye taak, well nor unless yer aal lardida aalready like. Mind you, its a lot worse fera lorra them foreigners like, cos how they write n taaks even more different, ye knaa deed hard wiv aal these extra things to gan remembrin. The reckon it was bad in Greece, but them Arabs have it the worst. Thiv nee chance iv writin proper wi how theyve gorra lorn it.' `Look man, yiv gorra think te write. This more rules, ye knaa what ye can n cannit write, n more words. Why thi lornt us bitsa French at school that thi Froggies nivva even say. An as for them poems that thi tekkas used to read oot, ye canna make head ner tail iv em wivout them explaining every other line. Ah reckon folk should say as thi mean n not gan been cleva n lossin ye. Aye, ah knaa some iv its from the olden days like, burra lorriv its just been made up to look cleva.' `Noo if me college tutor could hear is now, 'e'd reckon 'e'd wasted all ees time on is. Cos 'e'd spend aal ees day gerrin is te taak n write proper.'