you can do your own othography and do it on your own way, and fail becouse doing it as you think; is impossible

i agree that the general idea here is fairly useless and lacks a lot of basis in historical uses, but it just a constructed orthography, nothing more, no real reason to argue for or against it

i do like how you countered my French/Portuguese ref with Genovese, its been a while since i thought about Genovese

cheers

Thanks, but I'm fine with continuing to use the established orthography. Spelling is simply a convention; it derives its value from widespread acceptance and usage. Let me know when anyone starts actually using the Tower Orthography.


By that logic, there's no real reason to argue for or against any aspect of a constructed language. Let's just shut down the forum then, shall we?

retract the claws

retract the claws

your reaction seems a bit drastic considering that i was actually saying that i agreed in principal with your initial assessment

"It has all the drawbacks of broad IPA transcription without any of the plusses."

dude belive me, indiference is more harmful

if nobody have something constructive to say; please stop annoying me

Linguoboy: stop whining. If you don't want to use it, why are you posting anything? You shouldn't start complaining until it's mainstream and....it's not, so relax. The major reason we had the forms of the sounds we used was because they already exist on the keyboard in front of us. If we had easy access to IPA symbols, I would've made the system more likened to it.
The /k/ and /s/ issues with <c> has no 'value' as you put it, just a quirk of the language, which isn't bad, but unnecessary. The system you showed, has new letters, some we can't easily obtain, since Millions of keyboards already have this setup. And using the diagraph <ci> vs. <oi> are completely different, since in both, two sounds are being represented: /ʃj/ and /oj/. My argument was I was splitting them, /ʃ/ from /j/, which is the consonant <c>, as /o/ split from /oi/ is <o>. It was an example, not a rule, since English isn't consistent.

Kaenif: You might think that "aa" isn't so aesthetically pleasing, but it's used all the time in Dutch and more rarely in German. We could've used <h> as a lengthener, like German does, but I opted for the Dutch system. We could've doubled consonants, like they did in Early Middle English texts like Orrmulum, but I thought the vowels should be the ones to show it.

Tatal: Remember that all orthographies are constructed, or adopted. Socio-political movements are usually the major reasons for large groups to switch, such as the Romanians from Cyrillic to Latin lettering, or the Turks switching from the Arabic to Latin scripts. We are so ignorant of our linguistic past that we even have to 'modernise' Shakespearean spelling and orthography, and that was of the Early Modern era. This change might seem radical, but it's very minor and would bring us up to date with other world languages. I do appreciate your civil behaviour as well.



We aren't trying to promote a supradialect. I am, however, trying to create a system that's maybe as phonetic as say Spanish, German or Italian. Will it be perfect? No. Will it have kinks to work out? Yes. Will it affect dialects if every mainstreamed? Yes.
We're here to give it a chance.

Why are you getting annoyed? Is it because you expected only praise and got constructive criticism instead?

If the goal is to create a system of phonemic notation particularly suited for American English that doesn't require special characters, why not simply modify Americanist notation to suit your needs? (In particular, I think Smith and Trager have the most elegant solution I've seen to the problem of representing American English vowel phonemes.)

If the goal is to create a system to replace the current English spelling, then why not design a system that is supradialectal and assigns familiar values to Roman letters rather than arbitrarily repurposing them? (I know it can be done because I've seen some reasonably good attempts already.)

I'm sorry if that's not what you or the designers wanted to hear, but I'm not sure how to be any more constructive than that.

Perhaps because the OP posted this:
(My emphasis.) I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between "telling what I think" and "whining", but fundamentally that's not my problem.


And if this is your attitude to the mildest constructive criticism, it won't ever be.


See my remarks above. This was the same challenge the Americanists faced and they found a different solution, one that I think is much more intuitive for English speakers. You could at least make an attempt to explain why you feel your solution is superior.


The morphophonological alternation which underlies this "quirk" isn't bad or unnecessary, it's simply a feature of the language. You disregard it (and other features like it) at your peril.


But ci doesn't represent /ʃj/, it represents /ʃ/. There is no phoneme cluster to split. There's a complex interrelationship between the elements of English spelling. You can't assign a symbol a value which it has only in a very specific context (e.g. before i + vowel in Latinate words) and expect this to make any sense to the average user. That's one of the main points of the Zompist article I linked to.


The only alternative to promoting a supradialectal solution is promoting a specific dialect. Given the highly plurilocal nature of modern English, this bias is likely to prevent your system from ever being given a chance.

im not the guy who done it, im just promoting it,
if nobody is going to help my whit my part can get out

im not here to talk about it
im here to promote it and see if some one is interesed

dude, stop trolling and gtfo,

You've not been constructive until now actually. Thus my part about you whining and not helping. Constructive criticism has to do with working with trying to better the system. You saying we should shut this discussion down is not such a criticism.

It has nothing to do with American English, there are similar distinctions in nearly all forms of English, and it can apply, if not varied in some ways for all forms.

Meh, English familiarity is not my concern. I'd rather have one that is closer to the European system. Most European languages use similar symbols for vowels in similar/the same locations.What's wrong with the Roman system? That's the way it has been for almost every language, including English up until about 500 years ago or so. I decided it'd be better to stay away from Modern English spelling in any way shape or form.

I'm sorry, but if we want to keep historical forms, we should keep historical pronunciation. We should keep up with the times. We're like Icelandic: the sounds have changed, but we still spell it similarly, only our changes are even more extreme and recent.