Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!randall2
From: randall2@netcom.com (R.B Franklin)
Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
Message-ID: <randall2D28Fy2.Et0@netcom.com>
Organization:  Somewhere out yonder
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu> <3es81a$5r8@mother.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 08:37:14 GMT
Lines: 43

Timothy Miller (millert@scheifler.csee.usf.edu) wrote:

: So, for English, the vowels would be reassigned:

: short a   ae
: long  a   ee
: short e   e
: long  e   ii
: short i   i
: long  i   ay  (i'd prefer aj, but this is English)
: short o   a or aa
: long  o   oo
: short u   uh
: long  u   yu and uu
: b[oo]t    uu
: f[oo]t    u
: b[o]y     o

: And then there would be a few consonant reassignments, like 'tion' could 
: be replaced with 'shuhn' or something.

Of course, since regional pronunciations of English vary considerably, 
various dialects would end up with highly divergent (and perhaps 
mutually unintelligible) spellings.  After all, what's the point of having 
phonetic spelling if you can't write the way you speak?  

My regional dialect, (a Texas drawl) will require some additional vowel 
symbols, like the high, central unrounded vowel [i] in "just" and "get" 
(/jist/ & /git/).
 
We're also going to need some vocalized consonants: 

'l  vocalized l
'r  vocalized r
'n  vocalized n


Yiuhd awlsoo prablii niidduh diksh'n'rii tuhduhsayf'r dhv'ryuhs dayleks 
uhvIingluhsh.


Arbii Fraengkl'n
(R.B. Franklin)
