Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!e260-1d.berkeley.edu!128a-3cl
From: 128a-3cl@e260-1d.berkeley.edu (Cimarron D. Taylor </>)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Alternative Keyboards
Keywords: keyboards alternate
Message-ID: <20165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 9 Feb 89 18:48:05 GMT
References: <400012@hpdsla.HP.COM> <8901251606.AA16241@pinocchio.UUCP> <11350@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <10233@drutx.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20


	Phoneme alphabets and keyboards sound attractive
at first glance.  There are only thirty or so standard english
phonemes (although their finer variations make a much longer
list), so one would expect a phonemic system to be an efficient
way to represent the sounds of english.
	Ask any linguist, though, and you will learn two problems.
Different dialects would spell things differently.  You don't realize
just HOW differently until you start comparing phonetic spellings
with people from different areas.  Vowels are the most mutable.
One can make out writing in most dialects, but reading is very slow 
in IPA (international phonetic alphabet) if the dialect isn't yours.
One ends up depending on context, sounding out words, etc.
	Chinese is an extreme example.  There are several major
dialects that have diverged so much that the only way speakers
can communicate is in writing.  The written language is standardized
and identical.
	Second, languages change.  It would take an Elizabethan
scholar to read Shakespeare if it was written in a phonetic
alphabet.  This is more of a long term concern, though.