Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Re: Credibility
Message-ID: <855@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 21:39:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.855
Posted: Sat Jul 20 21:39:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 07:21:03 EDT
References: <271@sri-arpa.ARPA> <483@oliveb.UUCP> <759@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <496@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept
Lines: 32


	Frank Adams observes, correctly, that the second vowel in 'photographic'can be pronounced in a variety of ways.  So he objects to my calling it
a "reduced vowel".  Okay, sometimes some people give it full value as a tense
vowel of some sort (but not an [o] like the first vowel).  I'm not sure, then,
what he's upset about, or what this has to do with the original point that this
example was raised for.  It was meant to illustrate one of the arguments againsta one-sound-one-symbol system of spelling.  The argument is that there are
changes in the pronunciation of sounds in corresponding positions of words
related by inflection or derivation; therefore, a one-sound-one-symbol
system will obscure these relationships. {I call it a o-s-o-s system
rather than "phonetic spelling" because most of the arguments on either
side apply equally well or poorly regardless of how the sounds would be
individuated: narrow phonetic, broad phonetic, phonemic.  Choosing among
those would be a secondary question, of interest only to those who are convincedthat an o-s-o-s system of some sort is desirable.}
	The argument can be made with lots of other examples; and it doesn't
have to use reduced vowels, if that's what's bothering F.A.  Look at
ethni[k] and ethni[s]ity, or the many similar -i[k]~i[s]ity pairs.  Do you
really want to see them spelled with different letters to reflect that
alternation, or do you see some value to a letter which (in the right
contexts) *means* "a sound chosen (predictably) from the k~s alternation"?
A lot depends on saying "the right contexts", and I'm not opposed to some
measure of spelling reform which might include changing 'c' to 'k' or
's' in words where it's constant.  My objections have been raised only
against proposals for spelling reform based on strict application of
o-s-o-s.
	This argument, and the one about dialects, are the ones I take
most seriously, since they show the negative impact of pRoposed strict
reforms upon those groups which the proposals are meant to help -- 
learners, both native speakers and s.o.l.
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar