Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!knowar!harmsen.knoware.nl!rharmsen
From: rharmsen@knoware.nl (Ruud Harmsen)
Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
Sender: news@knoware.nl (News Account)
Message-ID: <rharmsen.124.00171846@knoware.nl>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 04:05:32 GMT
Lines: 53
References: <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu> <3es81a$5r8@mother.usf.edu> <VIRALBUS.95Jan10190836@mercury.daimi.aau.dk> <rharmsen.104.00100196@knoware.nl> <D2AHq4.7vp@actrix.gen.nz>
Nntp-Posting-Host: harmsen.knoware.nl
Organization: none
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]

In article <D2AHq4.7vp@actrix.gen.nz> "Paul J. Kriha" <kriha_p@actrix.gen.nz> writes:
>From: "Paul J. Kriha" <kriha_p@actrix.gen.nz>
>Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
>Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 11:10:51 GMT

>rharmsen@knoware.nl (Ruud Harmsen) wrote:
>>
>> In article <VIRALBUS.95Jan10190836@mercury.daimi.aau.dk>
>viralbus@mercury.daimi.aau.dk (Thomas Martin Widmann) writes:
>> >From: viralbus@mercury.daimi.aau.dk (Thomas Martin Widmann)
>> >Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
>> >Date: 10 Jan 1995 18:08:36 GMT
>> 
>> >S dhat mst Inglish wurdz stil wd b understd fter dhi riform.
>> >Natralli it wd b a mjer chnj, but not as big as a lot av odher
>> >prapsalz.  As for dhi konsanants,  wd nli split t `th' inta `dh'
>> >and `th', and elimint c, q, and x.  In dhis w, dhe n Inglish
>> >alfabet wd b:
>> 
>>  lk dhis! Its a bit lk m n sistem, whr insted ov dhe dakritiks  tr ta
>> get pen silablz for whot wur wuns long velz.
>> 
>> I like dhis. Its a bit like mi one sistm, whare insted av dha diakritiks I 
>> tri ta get open sillablz fer whot wer wuns long voualz.

>Ay layk dhis. Itz a bit layk may wan sistm, wheer insted ov dhi diakritiks
                                                    ^  ^^
Sorry, you misread this. By new "one" I mean old "own", and the old "one" is 
spelt "wun".
The rule is: o in open sylable (just 1 n follows), so it's a long o.

>Ay tray tu get oupn silabls fo whot weer wans long vawls.
                                             ^^ 
"fo": I agree that this accurately describe the Southern British, and probably 
Australian, New Zealand and South African pronounciation, but not that of many 
Americans, and most Irishmen, Scotsman and Welshman, plus a lot of people in 
South-Western England. So I prefer to leave the written -r in here, even if 
some people don't pronounce it, but lengthen the preceding vowel instead, or 
make it a diphthong going to schwa.

As long as the phonemes are in place, but the actual sounds differ, it is 
possible to devise a system that fits for all speakers. But it gets difficult 
when different speaker don't have the some phonemes any more, like the case 
mentioned earlier of a southern USA pron.n which had the same vowel in "get" 
as in "thus". 

As I said before, even though I proposed a system of new English spelling (or 
rather dropped some examples of it, without explaining the underlying rules), 
I believe the usual orthography of English should stay. I'll explain why in a 
next posting, (short break).

>(pronauns dh vawls dh wey dhey weer pronaunsd bifor dh Greyt Vawl Shift)

