I support the simpul spelling movement.

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:34 am UTC

4=5 wrote:I approve of that
but you may want to reconsider on the using of that tall s as a symbol and the ol looking one could be mistaken for o l in messy handwriting just like d can.



exactly what do you mean by 'ol' looking one? ð? In modern use (the character is called an "eth" and is used in Icelandic still) It is usually written Ð and đ so just a D with a cross through it. þ Þ Also these, which may be confused for 'lo', 'lp' 'jb' 'p' and a few other niceties are called "thorn" since thorn, like thrall and thing are norse words meaning thorn, slave and meeting respecively, each of them bing spelt/spelled with a thorn character which has satyed true to form for the past nx10^2 years, comming from old futhark runes.
I use them 'cos they are cool, are pre-existant on computers (thank you Iceland), and used in the IPA which, while in my oppinion is VERY lacking, is in fact one of the better systems in use.
They are subject to change oo course, just like ƒ as (and this I found fascinating, though many re already aware) many sounds in use come in pairs. One of them being the voiced, the other the unvoiced. The sounds are made the same way but one is pulmonic ergressive the other is not. Like the following pairs (In IPA coding), voiced consinant first:
φβ fv þð sz ƒʒ pb td kg (φβ are the same as f and v only instead of touching the top lip with your lower teeth, try to do it with your lips in line)
I suggest that as we need to recycle leters, all unvoiced counterparts of consonants be written the same as the voiced version, except that they should have a 'haček' over it. for instance Z would be written Š. This leaves Z free to be used for say, ƒʒ which is fine since in west slavic languages Ž is the glyph for ʒ and Š is used for ƒ so it should be comparatively intuitive to many people. Also the -ng sound should be rewritten: ŋ
well that's my rant for the day, perhaps next time I'll write my entire comment thus, I've yet to work out the vowels but I'm on it.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby 4=5 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:39 am UTC

it's amusing that I found all that by thinking and experimentation (muttering to myself in class)

if you didn't know j and ch are another pair

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:42 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The problem is that, if spelling were "simplified" to be entirely phonetic, we'd suddenly have the fairly big problem of people from different places writing things completely differently. Which I (and others) believe wouldn't actually be an improvement.


How 'bout this, We pick Queen's English and then everyone can pronounce it however they want, much as in English today?

4=5 wrote: if you didn't know j and ch are another pair

um not quite
j and ch are pairs of sounds, both being made up of two sounds. in this case, one uses the voiced forms of BOTH and the other, the unvoiced forms of BOTH, so I've not really concidered them to be pairs, similarly ts and dz are a digraph pair
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby 4=5 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:47 am UTC

really what sounds are they made of?

I know that ch isn't the same as tsh (try saying tissue)

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:02 am UTC

4=5 wrote:really what sounds are they made of?

I know that ch isn't the same as tsh (try saying tissue)


it is technically tƒ try transitioning your tongue straight from t to ƒ. it;s not quite as simple as all that but the point it that in fact you do use both the t and ƒ in the process
J is dʒ

try pronouncing either of them for a long time, all you are left with is either ƒ or ʒ

note also how words like tree and treason which start tr- become tƒr (In many dialects) because tr is harder to pronounce
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby 4=5 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:14 am UTC

you mean stuff that costs tshree fiddy?

it's different I don't make sound (when I say ch) when the tongue in the t position I make it as it's leaving.

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:30 am UTC

idd (It's new shorthand I'm trying to promote, the dutch use it for inderdaad, meaning indeed, makes life just that much easier) However, I'm sure the 'h' in 'three' has not slipped past your gaze so it doesn't fall into the catgory of a tr- word.
Also, I get what you are saying about (t)ƒ but this is where I feel the IPA fails, each sound (like t) can be pronounced in a whole plethora of ways, tongue positions, shapes, air flow, labial and dental positioning, for vowels and a few consonants even where in the throat they are made, all vary greatly, producing distinctly different sound and yet there are no special markers for these differnces. I feel all such sounds should be given a number from 0-100 in terms of 'T' to describe their position in the throat and -100 - +100 in terms of 'Y' to describe the the tongue's position along the mouth (0 would be touching both rows of teeth and the positive numbers would be for the palate and the negatives for the floor. -10 - +10 in terms of 'X' to denote lateral poitioning of the toungue and -10 - +10 in terms of 'F' to descrive the curve(positive) and retroflexitivity (negative) [I know that word doesn't exist, but I treat all languages like agglutinative tongues, and as such I shall create words as I go along so there]
Other measures would be put into place too I'm sure but this is just a suggestion. Hey, if we code these then maybe we can build a robot mouth and make it speak, all speakers shall be robot mouths some day...and I'll hold the patent....and you'll all have to pay enormous sums of money just to get to use what I will turn into an absolute necessity through peer pressure and monopolia (live with it) while I get rich and fat of the work of the engineers who get a letter of appreciation in a handsom plastic frame for their time and effort. Sounds like a plan to me.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby bigglesworth » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:Question to americans: Why wasn't pour changed to por?

You ask this as if modern Americans were the ones who dropped the 'u' from those other words in the first place.


I may well have asked it as if modern Americans were the ones who dropped the 'u' from the other words. However, I meant to ask why Webster didn't change it too, haven't found anything on that subject yet.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Owehn
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:49 pm UTC
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby Owehn » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:52 pm UTC

My guess is that the "our" in "pour" is part of a stressed syllable, while I can only think of "our/or" disagreement in unstressed syllables. It makes the pronunciation rather different, so it makes sense that the spellings needn't correspond exactly.
[This space intentionally left blank.]

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:38 pm UTC

4=5 wrote:I know that ch isn't the same as tsh

Actually, it is, except in certain French-derived words like chef and Chicago.

Unless you can't distinguish between "cherry" and "sherry", that is. ("Cherry" is pronounced like "tsh", or [tʃ] in IPA characters.)

Speaking of which, why do you feel it's lacking? It's never been intended to actually represent all sounds that can possibly be produced with the human vocal apparatus. Rather, it is supposed to represent all the sounds between which *some* language makes a distinction. If a pair of ways of pronouncing [t] are actually a little bit different, but not in a way that actually leads to different meaning in any language, I think it's fine to refer to both of them as [t].
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:00 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Speaking of which, why do you feel it's lacking? It's never been intended to actually represent all sounds that can possibly be produced with the human vocal apparatus. Rather, it is supposed to represent all the sounds between which *some* language makes a distinction. If a pair of ways of pronouncing [t] are actually a little bit different, but not in a way that actually leads to different meaning in any language, I think it's fine to refer to both of them as [t].


Well, ok, in a sense I must concede that if that is its true goal, then it has achieved this, therefore I desire something completetly different. The point is that you can write somethign in IPA and show it to someone, then when they pronounce it it sounds completely different. Close I'll grant you, but still too distinct to hide the accent, possibly not even intelligible to native speakers. A new word in English could be explained to an English speaker in IPA and the pronounciation would be correct yes, but to a Hungarian speaker the [a] represents the sound in álat (animal) where as in English it represents the sound father, which while the same "sound", is made higher in the throat in magyar than in English, like most if not all our vowels.
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

User avatar
Sam Knight
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:30 am UTC
Location: A fighter jet made of BICEPS!

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby Sam Knight » Thu May 01, 2008 11:22 pm UTC

ZLVT wrote:
4=5 wrote:I approve of that
but you may want to reconsider on the using of that tall s as a symbol and the ol looking one could be mistaken for o l in messy handwriting just like d can.



exactly what do you mean by 'ol' looking one? ð? In modern use (the character is called an "eth" and is used in Icelandic still) It is usually written Ð and đ so just a D with a cross through it. þ Þ Also these, which may be confused for 'lo', 'lp' 'jb' 'p' and a few other niceties are called "thorn" since thorn, like thrall and thing are norse words meaning thorn, slave and meeting respecively, each of them bing spelt/spelled with a thorn character which has satyed true to form for the past nx10^2 years, comming from old futhark runes.
I use them 'cos they are cool, are pre-existant on computers (thank you Iceland), and used in the IPA which, while in my oppinion is VERY lacking, is in fact one of the better systems in use.
They are subject to change oo course, just like ƒ as (and this I found fascinating, though many re already aware) many sounds in use come in pairs. One of them being the voiced, the other the unvoiced. The sounds are made the same way but one is pulmonic ergressive the other is not. Like the following pairs (In IPA coding), voiced consinant first:
φβ fv þð sz ƒʒ pb td kg (φβ are the same as f and v only instead of touching the top lip with your lower teeth, try to do it with your lips in line)
I suggest that as we need to recycle leters, all unvoiced counterparts of consonants be written the same as the voiced version, except that they should have a 'haček' over it. for instance Z would be written Š. This leaves Z free to be used for say, ƒʒ which is fine since in west slavic languages Ž is the glyph for ʒ and Š is used for ƒ so it should be comparatively intuitive to many people. Also the -ng sound should be rewritten: ŋ
well that's my rant for the day, perhaps next time I'll write my entire comment thus, I've yet to work out the vowels but I'm on it.


Here here! I often find myself very tempted to use þ and ð instead of th, especially when typing in bengali over MSN or someþing. Why ðe hell did english have to drop ðese two letters? I'm just happy ðe international keyboard setting makes it very easy to type ðese letters (to ðe point ðat when I set my university password, I forgot I couldn't just press alt+d to get ðe ð in ðe middle of it.

Actually I guess ðat caused problems..

Also, what's wiþ people writing þ instead of p? I guess it's not really a problem in a non-icelandic country, but it's ever so slightly off-putting when my linear algebra lecturer does it and I see þ all over ðe board.
Image

User avatar
ZLVT
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby ZLVT » Fri May 02, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Sam Knight wrote:
ZLVT wrote:
4=5 wrote:I approve of that
but you may want to reconsider on the using of that tall s as a symbol and the ol looking one could be mistaken for o l in messy handwriting just like d can.



exactly what do you mean by 'ol' looking one? ð? In modern use (the character is called an "eth" and is used in Icelandic still) It is usually written Ð and đ so just a D with a cross through it. þ Þ Also these, which may be confused for 'lo', 'lp' 'jb' 'p' and a few other niceties are called "thorn" since thorn, like thrall and thing are Norse words meaning thorn, slave and meeting respectively, each of them bing spelt/spelled with a thorn character which has stayed true to form for the past nx10^2 years, coming from old futhark runes.
I use them 'cos they are cool, are pre-existant on computers (thank you Iceland), and used in the IPA which, while in my opinion is VERY lacking, is in fact one of the better systems in use.
They are subject to change of course, just like ƒ as (and this I found fascinating, though many re already aware) many sounds in use come in pairs. One of them being the voiced, the other the unvoiced. The sounds are made the same way but one is pulmonic ergressive the other is not. Like the following pairs (In IPA coding), voiced consonant first:
φβ fv þð sz ƒʒ pb td kg (φβ are the same as f and v only instead of touching the top lip with your lower teeth, try to do it with your lips in line)
I suggest that as we need to recycle letters, all unvoiced counterparts of consonants be written the same as the voiced version, except that they should have a 'haček' over it. for instance Z would be written Š. This leaves Z free to be used for say, ƒʒ which is fine since in West Slavic languages Ž is the glyph for ʒ and Š is used for ƒ so it should be comparatively intuitive to many people. Also the -ng sound should be rewritten: ŋ
well that's my rant for the day, perhaps next time I'll write my entire comment thus, I've yet to work out the vowels but I'm on it.


Here here! I often find myself very tempted to use þ and ð instead of th, especially when typing in bengali over MSN or someþing. Why ðe hell did english have to drop ðese two letters? I'm just happy ðe international keyboard setting makes it very easy to type ðese letters (to ðe point ðat when I set my university password, I forgot I couldn't just press alt+d to get ðe ð in ðe middle of it.

Actually I guess ðat caused problems..

Also, what's wiþ people writing þ instead of p? I guess it's not really a problem in a non-icelandic country, but it's ever so slightly off-putting when my linear algebra lecturer does it and I see þ all over ðe board.


Hmm, ʍel, I juːz Pidʒin soʍ aj kɛn get IPA karaktɛrz, ðə ð, ƒ, ʒ, ŋ, etc, alɛs, IPA ju:zəz a θ nat a þ :( but still, it's pretty cool. there is a wiki article on the subject of the th sounds. And quoth I: "Although Old English had two graphemes to represent these sounds, þ (thorn) and ð (eth), it used them interchangeably, unlike Old Icelandic, which used þ for /θ/ and ð for /ð/."
22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

Originator of the DIY ASL tags

Baza210
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Ireland.

Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

Postby Baza210 » Sat May 17, 2008 9:36 pm UTC

I'd like to transcribe a conversation I recently had with my father, upon my return from an international languages competition.

Me: Say these words. -Gestures at screen of mobile phone-

Dad: Although, through, plough.

    .. what?

    Me: They all end in -ough, and are pronounced differently.

    Dad: Some Belgian told you that over in Italy, didn't they?

    Me: No, I was just thinking how hard it must be for them to learn English.

    Dad: Yeah, well.. f**k them.



    Ok, that's not very relevant. Oh well.


    [Just like to point out that my dad's sentiments were not xenophobic, more just messing with me for caring..]
    Here I'm allowed everything all of the time

    User avatar
    BrainMagMo
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:22 am UTC
    Location: Southern California
    Contact:

    Re:

    Postby BrainMagMo » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

    Azrael wrote:Of the 22 languages spoken by more than 50 million people, only two have linguistic governing bodies? I'm not sure there's any evidence pointing towards that being the most beneficial, never mind practical, way of doing things. Especially since the Spanish Academy is comprised of 22 country specific sub-associations.

    Actually, most language have such bodies. In fact, i think it's only ~two that DON'T; one obviously being English.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... regulators
    wiki says there are only three without a de facto, 4 de jure.

    Dextrose wrote:I personally think that spelling reform is one of the most destructive things you can do to a language, because all the information about consonants and vowels and their mouth position in the way we pronounce words is destroyed. There are very, very few true irregularities in the English language. You could probably fill book with them, but when you talk about The English, that's still fucking tiny. ...

    "around 50% of all English words have unpredictable spellings."
    -- http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/pvs/pv13bell.php
    I don't completely agree with this article, but it shows it's undeniable that English spelling is mostly inconsistent.

    Ari wrote:The real issue English has about ten or so distinct vowel phones, (it depends on your accent) which is too many to represent without diacritical marks, which English-speakers have been very resistant to. There's also the issue that our association of certain vowel sounds with certain letters complicates this, especially as sometimes these systems overlap, so remapping vowel sounds is absurdly complicated. I think this is what makes spelling reform so tricky- finding a way to deal with the vowels.

    I came up with an idea that did simplify things without diacritics, but it resorted both to bastardised vowel-shifting through constructions like "oh", "ur", and "ay" (because those letters can only act on the vowel after them as a consonant) and a system of shifting pronounciations depending on whether a vowel was in the leading, middle, or trailing position of a word, and it still looked as different from English as diacritics-based systems. It also resulted in either apostrophes or dashes having to be used to seperate escape characters, and hilarious-looking things like "uhhuh" for uh-huh. :)


    English vowels are horrible and are the biggest difference betwixt different accents, agreed. Perhaps if our spelling HAD a system to show phonemically what vowel is where, we might have less change, considering that consonants didn't change much and our consonants are pretty phonemically spelled.

    However, I don't support phonemic re-spellings, I just want standardized spelling.
    IcyBallerina wrote:This was after I had spent months absorbed in etymologies, learning how English has drawn from every culture to which it has been exposed. Every word has a story behind it. Etymologies can reflect the rises and falls of great nations, and show how English speakers have been affected by every culture with which they have interacted. The classic request for "language of origin" does not only give you the source of the word- You can practically find the history of the world in English's loanwords. The language isn't easy, sure. But it is rich. It bewilders me that anybody would sacrifice the depth of meaning, connotation, and history for the sake of saving grades on spelling tests.

    Yes, but English has raped the origins of words, made random changes (an ekename -> a nickname; det -> debt), and of'en obscures origin. Also, the origin of words would not change if we respelled English, in fact words would have a RICHER history, since "The great spelling reform", in 100 yrs, would be an interesting part of the etymology of words to learn.
    http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html#ten :
    these need to be fixed:
    "spellings which are neither phonologically nor etymologically justifiable, as in <aCHe, agHast, aiSle, aLmond, ancHor, bUry, (musical) cHords, coLonel, couLd, crumB, deliGHt, dingHy, foreiGn, gHastly, gHerkin, gHost, hauGHty, iSland, lacHrymose, lisTen, postHumous, Ptarmigan, QUeue, redouBt, rHyme, rHumb, roWlocks, Scissor, sCythe, sovereiGn, spriGHtly, thumB, tongUE, Whole, Whore>. All the capitalised letters are spurious, and often they were deliberately added as "improvements" by incompetent etymologists."

    goofy
    Posts: 911
    Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

    Re: Re:

    Postby goofy » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:50 pm UTC

    BrainMagMo wrote:"spellings which are neither phonologically nor etymologically justifiable, as in <aCHe, agHast, aiSle, aLmond, ancHor, bUry, (musical) cHords, coLonel, couLd, crumB, deliGHt, dingHy, foreiGn, gHastly, gHerkin, gHost, hauGHty, iSland, lacHrymose, lisTen, postHumous, Ptarmigan, QUeue, redouBt, rHyme, rHumb, roWlocks, Scissor, sCythe, sovereiGn, spriGHtly, thumB, tongUE, Whole, Whore>. All the capitalised letters are spurious, and often they were deliberately added as "improvements" by incompetent etymologists."


    That's an interesting list. I'd disagree about rhyme tho. It was changed from rime, but it's from Latin rhythmus, so the spelling with h is more etymologically justifiable than rime. And I don't see why queue is in the list.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

    and how do you not pronounce the L in almond?
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    goofy
    Posts: 911
    Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby goofy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:11 am UTC

    ZLVT wrote:and how do you not pronounce the L in almond?


    The L was added in French and Spanish, probably because the word was associated with words borrowed from Arabic that begin with al.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:12 am UTC

    so what do you say? I say [ɛlmɔn(d)] or [almɔn(d)]
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    User avatar
    BrainMagMo
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:22 am UTC
    Location: Southern California
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby BrainMagMo » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:16 am UTC

    ZLVT wrote:so what do you say? I say [ɛlmɔn(d)] or [almɔn(d)]

    /O:mn=(4)/ [/O:mn=s/plural] (X-SAPMA; how do you get IPA?)
    the first pronunciation I would not recognize, the second sounds highly dialectical.

    "The word "almond" comes from Old French almande or alemande, late Latin amandola, derived through a form amingdola from the Greek αμυγδαλη (cf Amygdala), an almond. The al- for a- may be due to a confusion with the Arabic article al, the word having first dropped the a- as in the Italian form mandorla; the British pronunciation ah-mond and the modern Catalan ametlla and modern French amande show a form of the word closer to the original.

    The adjective "amygdaloid" (literally "like an almond") is often used for things which are roughly almond-shaped, particularly a shape which is partway between a rectangle and an ellipse."
    wiki Almond

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

    Well, my msn (pidgin) has an IPA mode but I usually go to wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA and copy paste the letters I need. There are also some good resources on the IPA sticky.
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    User avatar
    heyitsguay
    Posts: 118
    Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:21 am UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby heyitsguay » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:22 am UTC

    If the general population could somehow be put up to it, it'd be sorta interesting to adopt IPA with narrow transcriptions, so all writing would reflect phonetic variations across different dialects of the same language. I don't know how practical it would be to implement, considering most people have trouble these days figuring out "your" from "you're", much less how [ɫ] differs from [l] or something like that, but I think it'd give some insight into how languages change to see at a glance what variations exist in speech.

    darktalon
    Posts: 38
    Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:40 pm UTC
    Location: Manchester
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby darktalon » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:26 am UTC

    Dextrose wrote:Which brings me to the one part of spelling reform I actually do support, which is the use of diacritics. Diareses are terribly useful for words like 'coördination;' I personally consider this the "correct spelling" of the word, as well as 'microörganism.' 'Vacuüm' gives us the archaic pronunciation that led do the double 'u,' which is still used on occasion. I wouldn't mind using spellings like 'acçent,' splitting the current 'cc'-grade into two distinct pronounciations which do not mix. The example I gave earlier could be spelt 'learnëd' in order to further split the properties of the '-ed' ending. This would keep the word structure of the language intact while clearing up some of the problems faced by learners.

    It's interesting that English doesn't use diacritics, except in some loan words (typically é in words of French origin) and on occasion the diaeresis as you use it and "èd" to represent the e being pronounced in the -ed suffix, to the point where if you want to make your made-up words sound suitably foreign you just add a few diacritic marks that don't necessarily have to mean anything. I wonder why it is that diacritics aren't common in English, but are in just about every other European language written with the Latin alphabet.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:31 am UTC

    West Germanic languages typically used ae oe and ue (Dutch borrowed a few from French) but usually it's those three, or in the case of North Germanic languages also aa. Now these were originally vowel pairs as seen above before ae became ä (De/Sw) or æ (Dn/Nr/Is), oe became ö (De/Sw) or ø (Dn/Nr/Is) and ue became ü in German. North Germanic langauges also turned aa into å. So Germanic Diacritics came out of non-diacritic orthographies. The umlaut developed as the e was written abve the preceeding vowel to show it was a dipthong, as a was written before it's preceding a to show it was also a dipthong. I think OE used some diactritics on occasion but they probably weren;t all that important and were dropeed over time and foreign influence.
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    Rilian
    Posts: 496
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Rilian » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

    Noöne uses the umlaut in english anymore. Except me.
    I think it should be used in the word zoölogy. Otherwise, it looks like zoo-loggee
    And coöperate.
    And whenever you put re- at the beginning of a word that starts with a vowel, it should either have a dash after it, as in re-evaluate, or the second vowel should have umlaut, as in reëvaluate.
    But I think there should be a dash after re- anyway, as in re-play.
    And I'm -2.

    User avatar
    bigglesworth
    I feel like Biggles should have a title
    Posts: 7461
    Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
    Location: Airstrip One

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby bigglesworth » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:43 pm UTC

    Are you a heavy metal fan?
    Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:00 pm UTC

    all the cool kids are

    Your diereses scare me. Over A O or U the represent different sounds to me, but I agree, ti woudl make derived words easier.
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    Rilian
    Posts: 496
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Rilian » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:31 pm UTC

    I'm not a heavy metal fan, no matter whether that question was directed at me. Why?
    And I'm -2.

    User avatar
    jaap
    Posts: 2094
    Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:06 am UTC
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby jaap » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:58 pm UTC

    Rilian wrote:I'm not a heavy metal fan, no matter whether that question was directed at me. Why?


    Because of the Heavy Metal umlaut, of course.

    Rilian
    Posts: 496
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Rilian » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:01 pm UTC

    That's funny. Is there a reason bands want to appear German?
    And I'm -2.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:21 am UTC

    In "this is spinal tap" he says "it's liek a pair of eyes, staring at you." The umlaut in countries without them makes it look more exotic and mean. Accutes and graves I think would be seen by the average anglophone as romance features, but the Germans have the whole hardcore thign happening. Motorhead vs Motörhead. Looks cooler. Unless you know how to pronounce it.
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    Rilian
    Posts: 496
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Rilian » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:23 am UTC

    ZLVT wrote:Motorhead vs Motörhead. Looks cooler. Unless you know how to pronounce it.

    Yeah. Motörhead sounds ... stupid, for lack of a more creative adjective.

    But now I have a desire to spell my name with umlauts and put them on random words.
    And I'm -2.

    User avatar
    ZLVT
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 pm UTC
    Location: Canberra, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby ZLVT » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:04 am UTC

    Riliän is way cooler.
    22/♂/hetero/atheist/★☭/Image

    Originator of the DIY ASL tags

    User avatar
    Alpha Omicron
    Posts: 2765
    Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Alpha Omicron » Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:03 pm UTC

    URGENT NECRO:
    I have posted (somewhere, maybe this thread) about a phonemic spelling scheme for English that I designed. Well, I now have a keyboard layout for it, which is tonnes of fun.

    ay hɑv pəwstid (səmwer, meybiy ðis þred) ubewt ə fənemik speliŋ skiym fur iŋgliʃ ðet ay dizaynd. wel, ay nɑw hɑv ə kiybəwrd leyewt fəwr it, witʃ iz tənz uv fən.

    (I wonder why I pronounce those two occurrences of 'for' differently...)
    Last edited by Alpha Omicron on Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
    Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

    User avatar
    gmalivuk
    GNU Terry Pratchett
    Posts: 26824
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
    Location: Here and There
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:26 pm UTC

    Alpha Omicron wrote:(I wonder why I pronounce those two occurences for 'for' differently...)

    And thence we have one of the biggest problems with these proposed phonetic spelling revisions...
    Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
    ---
    If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

    (he/him/his)

    User avatar
    Alpha Omicron
    Posts: 2765
    Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Alpha Omicron » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:59 pm UTC

    gmalivuk wrote:
    Alpha Omicron wrote:(I wonder why I pronounce those two occurences for 'for' differently...)

    And thence we have one of the biggest problems with these proposed phonetic spelling revisions...

    I don't pretend that a phonetic spelling revision would be at all practical.
    Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

    User avatar
    gmalivuk
    GNU Terry Pratchett
    Posts: 26824
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
    Location: Here and There
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:10 pm UTC

    Alpha Omicron wrote:I don't pretend that a phonetic spelling revision would be at all practical.

    And I don't pretend that you do. But the original topic of this thread was about such things, so I just thought I'd point out this nicely made example for why that's a silly idea.
    Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
    ---
    If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

    (he/him/his)

    User avatar
    aurumelectrum13
    Posts: 157
    Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:11 am UTC

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby aurumelectrum13 » Sun May 24, 2009 3:13 am UTC

    This is another one of those ideas that makes me want to bang my head against my monitor :D .

    The "simpul" spelling movement is completely impractical. Take, for instance, the word "the." I don't know about everyone else, but I can pronounce it one of two ways by myself, within my own particular accent (I won't call it a dialect, because it isn't). "The" changes its pronunciation depending on its placement in the sentence due to its usage in iambic pentameter, when it could be used as both a stressed and an unstressed syllable. Are you therefore proposing that "The" be spelled two different ways to make way for two distinct phonetic attributes in any dialect you care to name? Or do you wish to remove the last shred of Shakespeare's influence on our beautiful language?

    P.S. I got segue and genre immediately because I could be bothered to learn how to spell.

    There is this thing called the O.E.D.

    Use it.

    User avatar
    Dibley
    Posts: 1346
    Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
    Location: Napa Valley, California
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby Dibley » Wed May 27, 2009 1:09 am UTC

    Ari wrote:
    gmalivuk wrote:How often have you genuinely not understood someone due to the sound they use and not the way they said it, or the noise level of the environment?

    Maybe it's just me having heavy exposure to all the major English accents, but I have yet to find it significantly hard to deal with.

    Glasgow is a potent counterexample. Yeah, I know he's really hamming it up for the video, and I don't think this dismisses your argument, but I just love that video.

    User avatar
    BrainMagMo
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:22 am UTC
    Location: Southern California
    Contact:

    Re: I support the simpul spelling movement.

    Postby BrainMagMo » Fri May 29, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

    Alpha Omicron wrote: iŋgliʃ

    Is that like an English quiche?
    ɪz ðæʔ laɪk ən iŋɡlɪʃ kiʃ↗


    Return to “Language/Linguistics”

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests