Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!ahuta!houxm!houxl!rte From: rte@houxl.UUCP (R.EDWARDS) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: More Rational English Spelling Message-ID: <696@houxl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 10:05:18 EST Article-I.D.: houxl.696 Posted: Thu Apr 4 10:05:18 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:04:06 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 141 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.