http://www.truespel.com/tutorial/
http://fanetik.tripod.com/
Spelling reforms for English.
Truespel respells "-ang" words as "-aeng" and "-ing" words as "-eeng". "sang" becomes "saeng", "sing" becomes "seeng".
What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
I'd favor a few incremental changes to mitigate some of the worst excesses of English spelling, but I'm not a fan of wholesale re-engineering. A phonemic standard would necessarily be based on one major dialect and would thus alienate many others; a more egalitarian approach would have to be diaphonemic, preserving a broad range of distinctions while ignoring some of the more recent innovations, and a cleaned-up version of our current spelling would basically be that.
If we're only aiming for a pronunciation guide for (American) teaching use, as appears to be the case with Truespel – again, I think this would be counterproductive because it would keep Americans alienated from IPA, which is the closest thing we have to a universal standard for transcribing speech. A broad phonemic or diaphonemic IPA transcription would be far better.
If we're only aiming for a pronunciation guide for (American) teaching use, as appears to be the case with Truespel – again, I think this would be counterproductive because it would keep Americans alienated from IPA, which is the closest thing we have to a universal standard for transcribing speech. A broad phonemic or diaphonemic IPA transcription would be far better.
Exit the vampires' castle.
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
- Location: Placerville, CA
- Contact:
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
I think they're destined for the same fate as every other proposed spelling reform in the history of the language, which is to be completely ignored and vanish into the mists of time because nobody uses them.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
Also, what on earth is up with spelling "sing" "seeng"? <ee> almost always represents /i:/ but the <i> in sing is /ɪ/ in pretty much every dialect I know (I'd have thought even in pin-pen merging ones).
my pronouns are they
Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)
- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
- Posts: 26052
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
- Location: Here and There
- Contact:
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
I think there's a separate (from merging pin-pen) phenomenon where /ɪ/ is raised before /ŋ/.
(Though I think the -ing morpheme is generally pronounced with /i/.)
(Though I think the -ing morpheme is generally pronounced with /i/.)
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
I have unraised [ɪŋ] both in words like "king", and in the "-ing" morpheme. But yeah, it is common through much of North America to raise these to [iŋ]. Some speakers even go one step further and change the "-ing" morpheme to [in], so that "going", for example, sounds like "goeen".
Exit the vampires' castle.
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
eSOANEM wrote:Also, what on earth is up with spelling "sing" "seeng"? <ee> almost always represents /i:/ but the <i> in sing is /ɪ/ in pretty much every dialect I know (I'd have thought even in pin-pen merging ones).
We were discussing this recently in the pronunciation thread.
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
Mega85 wrote:Truespel respells "-ing" words as "-eeng"... "sing" becomes "seeng".
How would one spell the present participle of "see"? "Seeeeng"?!
- Xanthir
- My HERO!!!
- Posts: 5273
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
- Location: The Googleplex
- Contact:
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
That's no more awkward than "someone who sees" being spelled "seeer". (That is to say, super awkward.)
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
measure wrote:Mega85 wrote:Truespel respells "-ing" words as "-eeng"... "sing" becomes "seeng".
How would one spell the present participle of "see"? "Seeeeng"?!
"seeing" in Truespel comes out as "seeyeeng". "seer" in Truespel is "seeyer".
Re: What do you think about Truespel and Fanetik?
Lazar wrote:But yeah, it is common through much of North America to raise these to [iŋ]. Some speakers even go one step further and change the "-ing" morpheme to [in], so that "going", for example, sounds like "goeen".
Wow, I was genuinely shocked by this, as I've never noticed such a thing. But then I realized that in the word "reading" I do tend to raise the final vowel slightly. Strangely, I can't think of any other words where I do this, nor where I've noticed people doing it (not even seemingly analogous words like "breeding" or "feeding").
Return to “Language/Linguistics”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests