Hearing what you 'think' is different than a constructive critique, neither of which I feel you truly gave. You instead just seem to rather bash it. Thus my whining comment.
'Twas your attitude I'm responding to. I've not been able to find the Americanists, perhaps you need to give me a link, so I can better understand your argument.
You think it's my disregarding it, but even languages like Turkish, Italian, and French change their spelling when it's necessary to have such morphophonological changes.
Ah ah, maybe you're using your own dialect as a 'supradialect' because for me words like Musician have a /j/ in it. I make a distinction between <-cian> and say <shun>, and the /j/ is it.

Now your last statement is an good one to consider. I have thought on that specifically because of issues of dialect vs. standard dialect. My initial thought is to send it out, and then if the dialects merge (as media, television, movies, and the internet are helping do) then there shan't be a problem. I also figure it may also emphasis dialectal difference more and maybe even help promote awareness and acceptance.

You seem keep arguing about it being a system for English speakers to already be used to, but that's not the goal. I know that'd factor in, but if people adopt the system it'd only take a few months to get used to it.

My criticisms have remained consistent from my very first response. I don't know why they seem "constructive" to you only now.


I think you have me confused with THEthe. Where have I ever suggested we "shut this discussion down"?


I'm sorry, but this is where you're simply wrong. The system as it stands cannot apply to all forms because it ignores phonemic distinctions that are found in other varieties of English than the one represented. Before you go further with your project, I highly recommend you read Wells' The accents of English. In particular, his explanation of lexical sets is invaluable to anyone interested in the phonology of English. Even if two dialects have the exact same phoneme inventories, this still doesn't mean these phonemes are distributed identically in each.


What language uses y for a non-high central vowel other than Welsh? And if compatibility with the "European system" (which I would consider a false generalisation, given the diversity found within Europe) is your goal, then it makes the consonant reassignments I cavilled about earlier even less explicable.


Keeping historical values for combinations of letters doesn't mean keeping historical pronunciations. Modern respellings like donut, lite, and wut are based on the principle of using familiar values in innovative ways. The results are immediately comprehensible to users of the present orthography despite representing a clear break with historical forms.

dude, you are not interesed in a new spelling for the english language; so why you sare still here?
really? nothing else to do?

if somebody is interesed we can discuss how we can use tower othography,
you are not interesed.

If you say so.


Try harder; after all, I gave you the names of two of the most famous of them. It's difficult to get very far into a linguistics programme at an American university without hearing of them, that's how important their work is.


Examples from French and Italian, please?


Colour me sceptical until I've seen a spectrograph of your natural speech. Most speakers think they make distinctions that they don't actually make in practice.


But if the goal is get English speakers to actually adopt a new system, then you'd better factor in familiarity. Ask yourself this: Why would a fluent adult speaker who already knows the ins and outs of the current orthography want to adopt your system? Because that's your audience--or, if you prefer, your market. How do you know you've given people what they're really looking for in a reformed orthography?

Have a look at your last five posts. Now compare them to my last five posts. Which one of us is actually discussing the Tower Orthography and which one of us is simply trying to boss other people around? If you don't like my comments, you don't have to read them, but I'm not going to go away just because you--or anyone else--tell me to.

What English speaker says [mjuːˈzɪʃ.jn̩]? Some conservative speakers say [mjuːˈzɪs.jn̩], and those with yod-coalescence say [mjuːˈzɪʃ.n̩]. I can't think of a single English word that allows the cluster /ʃj/.

........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

They don't seem constructive, 'tis my point.

You said, "Let's just shut down the forum then, shall we?"

I wouldn't say I'm wrote, probably because we can to a large degree find the common ground in which all dialects have, otherwise then we have issues with mutual intelligibility, and I would say we need to start renaming dialects languages. But the system can be different and then converge, or then it can split further, but the system is relevant.


Not everything fit perfectly, I'm aware. Many languages that have a schwa don't have a separate symbol for it, or if they do it's a variation of <e> or <a>. English is very keen on using it a lot, I decided to use some of the leftover symbols for that.


But we are still so very different, and in a sense people keep saying our language and language skills are fading. There's a whole list of socio-political reasons for that, but my point is, it may be easier with a system that's more consistently spelt to the pronunciation, even if 'tisn't perfect.

French has the changing of c and ç, which tries to preserve spellings which would otherwise change if the vowel changed. English allows such changes as Judge to Judgment without the vowel that changed the sound to begin with. Italian uses <h> to fill in similar spots.

The familiarity argument is worthless when you look at peoples who have up and dropped the way they spelt it to the way they spell it. Like the Romanians, Turks, etc.

However, I think the criticism isn't really helpful. The system in it self works as an alternate writing system. If you don't agree with the particular symbols I used, that's okay, and I respect your opinion here, but it really wasn't what thethe was supposed to put.

Please, THEthe, stop with the anger. It's not helping, in fact it's making us look mean.

I think there was a misunderstanding about what this topic was supposed to be. I don't think we were looking for arguments for or against Tawyr, instead, I think we were interested in people who wanted to work with using it.

I'd appreciate it if we could stop with the bickering to and fro about it. It's entirely unnecessary.

He asked us what we think about it. We told him. I don't think constructive criticism counts as flaming, despite his persistence that it does.