Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!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.162.000B6689@knoware.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:23:57 GMT
Lines: 17
References: <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu> <rharmsen.109.0015D233@knoware.nl> <D2Ctqt.K3M@spss.com> <rharmsen.130.000D0261@knoware.nl> <D2ILHy.3nF@spss.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: harmsen.knoware.nl
Organization: none
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]

In article <D2ILHy.3nF@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>It's also interesting whether "with"  in the context "with the" is 
pronounced >>differently than in other contexts: There could be a tendency to 
say "with >>dha" to stress that there are really two different sounds 
involved, or the too >>(especially if the first might be also dh) could be 
merged into one? 

>I hope you don't mean to say that an *orthography* should try to reproduce
>alterations between words.
No, certainly not. And this is one more reason why I don't believe in spelling 
reform at all. I only find it interesting to think about it, just it's useless 
from the start.

>If you're just asking about how it sounds, I believe I pronounce "with the"
>in rapid speech as "wIT@", but "with that" as "wiD&t".  
wIT@ could also be understood as "with a", or is that wiD@ ?

