tower orthography

The place to discuss alphabets and other writing systems.

Re: tower orthography

Postby Blackkdark » Sun 21 Mar 2010 8:43 am

Talib wrote: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.

I'll be honest, I read through it, a lot of it didn't seem constructive just critical. I do apologise for any argument which ensued because of it, but the intention wasn't to open it up for a discussion about the flaws of the system.
Blackkdark
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009 8:01 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: tower orthography

Postby kaenif » Sun 21 Mar 2010 2:18 pm

Blackkdark wrote: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.

So you expected replies like "Hee, ail yuuz it"? Hmm, then it seems that I don't belong to this thread.
Blackkdark wrote: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.

For many people, the o in glottal is not even near a lengthened "a".
Can you recognise this character?
Nope, it's not shāng. It is a 囧 with a hat which 囧ed its chin off!
囧囧囧囧囧囧囧囧囧!
User avatar
kaenif
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:31 am
Location: Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China

Re: tower orthography

Postby linguoboy » Sun 21 Mar 2010 4:37 pm

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

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

And my point is that this is just your opinion. You seem to have "constructive criticism" confused with "praise".

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

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

Hey, ever here of "context"? It's very useful for determining the meaning the utterances. Let's look at that statement again in context:

linguoboy wrote:
telal wrote:but it just a constructed orthography, nothing more, no real reason to argue for or against it

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?

Telal suggests that the orthography is something so trivial that it's not worth arguing about. I response by saying that pretty much everything we discuss in this forum is equally trivial. Therefore, if it's not worth arguing about this here, it's not worth arguing about anything here, so what reason is there for the forum to continue to exist at all? This is a rhetorical device called a reductio ad absurdum: You push a particular argument made by a fellow debater to an obviously absurd conclusion in order to demonstrate that the premises underlying it are unsound. It's not to be confused with a sincere argument in favour of the absurd conclusion.

Blackkdark wrote: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.

I certainly think we can find common ground between the modern dialects, I just don't see the evidence that you've looked for it.

Blackkdark wrote:But the system can be different and then converge, or then it can split further, but the system is relevant.

Which "system" are you talking about here?

Blackkdark wrote: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.

That's where we differ. I don't see this as a "leftover" symbol at all, but one that's very useful for representing the glide [j].

Blackkdark wrote:But we are still so very different

Who is "different" and in what ways?

Blackkdark wrote: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.

Which people are saying that, and what do they mean by it? Moreover, are their claims even accurate? What may be "easier" with a more consistent spelling system?

Blackkdark wrote:French has the changing of c and ç, which tries to preserve spellings which would otherwise change if the vowel changed.

As I said, examples please! Moreover, I think this undermines your argument, since the French have determined that it's better in these instances to keep the same basic symbol and modify it rather than alternate with a completely different one.

Blackkdark wrote:Italian uses <h> to fill in similar spots.

Italian uses c to represent both /k/ and /ʧ/. The h is for cases where the expected morphophonological alternation doesn't take place and c retains the value of /k/. It's, in fact, a counterargument to yours.

Blackkdark wrote: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.

More recommend reading for you: G. L. Lewis, The Turkish language reform: a catastrophic success. You really should know the ins and outs of the historical precedents before you hold them up as support for your thesis.

Blackkdark wrote: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.

If you're fine with the Tower Orthography only be adopted by people who instantly recognise it as the answer to all their spelling woes, than this approach is fine. You just need to understand such people are going to be few and far between.

If you ever want greater acceptance for your proposal, you're going to have to endure criticism far worse than anything we could dish out here and respond with arguments far more convincing than anything you've produced so far. What do your colleagues at Temple have to say about it? Do they all find its merits as self-evident as you and your pals or have they raised some of the same points that Talib, kaenif, telal, and I have in this thread?
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: tower orthography

Postby linguoboy » Sun 21 Mar 2010 4:39 pm

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

This post flagged and reported to the board moderator on account of its abusive content. Have a nice day!
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: tower orthography

Postby telal » Sun 21 Mar 2010 5:11 pm

"I response by saying that pretty much everything we discuss in this forum is equally trivial."

is "pretty much everything" sorta like "all of nothing", or "none of all"?

i guess it's confusing because you leave yourself a gaping hole to decide what is and isn't trivial to discuss, and hey, i fully support that notion, but i believe you should be willing to afford others that same gaping hole

i wasn't trying to suggest that it was too trivial to discuss, i was really trying to indirectly bring down the level of hostility

obviously i failed

"You push a particular argument made by a fellow debater to an obviously absurd conclusion in order to demonstrate that the premises underlying it are unsound."

you seem to be taking this whole discussion to an absurd level of seriousness, is that also an attempt to demonstrate that the premises underlying this discussion are unsound?

cause that sorta sounds similar to : "but it just a constructed orthography, nothing more, no real reason to argue for or against it"

but hey, what do i know... [yeah, go ahead and jump on that]

i'll leave you all to it
לא משנה
User avatar
telal
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 8:48 pm

Re: tower orthography

Postby Blackkdark » Sun 21 Mar 2010 5:52 pm

I'm sorry, you've all reached the limit to which I care about your 'criticism' especially after I said that wasn't the goal, and that's not the point. I will say that I define constructive criticism as having suggestion to improve, not strictly negation. Praise is no form of criticism.
If you don't like it, fine. Then why do you care enough to mentioned anything? I don't have the energy to argue about this anymore, in fact I don't even care about anything said after the point where I said, "
Blackkdark wrote: 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


So, unless you are interested in working with the system, then please there's nothing else I'm interested in hearing.
Blackkdark
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009 8:01 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: tower orthography

Postby linguoboy » Sun 21 Mar 2010 11:06 pm

telal wrote:you seem to be taking this whole discussion to an absurd level of seriousness, is that also an attempt to demonstrate that the premises underlying this discussion are unsound?

I'm not sure what's so "absurd" about seriousness. If you're not willing to treat a proposal with a certain degree of seriousness, then all you're doing is goofing around. Which is fine, but if that's all I'm interested in doing, I can find more rewarding places to do it.

I'm sorry that I rubbed you the wrong way in this thread. Maybe I can do better when there's not someone around whose only apparent goal is to derail discussion.

Blackkdark wrote:If you don't like it, fine. Then why do you care enough to mentioned anything?

So in your bizarro world, people only ever express opinions about things they like?

Blackkdark wrote:So, unless you are interested in working with the system, then please there's nothing else I'm interested in hearing.

Do let us know how that works out for you!
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: tower orthography

Postby Blackkdark » Mon 22 Mar 2010 12:20 am

Will do, thanks for continuing, cause I mean that's not like you're looking to start an argument? I won't be bothering to read your bits.
Blackkdark
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009 8:01 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: tower orthography

Postby linguoboy » Mon 22 Mar 2010 12:49 am

Blackkdark wrote:Will do, thanks for continuing, cause I mean that's not like you're looking to start an argument?

That wasn't a continuation; it was a kissoff. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Blackkdark wrote:I won't be bothering to read your bits.

As far as I can see you never did.
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: tower orthography

Postby dtp883 » Mon 22 Mar 2010 7:39 am

A few things,

As lingoboy said, you lose connections between connected words. The first one that came to my mind was do /du/, don't /doʊnt/, and does /dəz/ (pronounced for myself) would be rendered duu, doont, and dyz.

The reverse also happens, causing extreme ambiguity in writing. For instance, to, too, and two would all become tuu; for me, writer/rider and writing/riding would also become the same.

Another big problem, which I'm sure many have mentioned before, are the differences in vowel qualities for rhotic and non-rhotic dialects, and features like linking r, and intrusive r.

One last thing I'd like to point out, is that I pronounce pot and bought (as well as bot) with the same vowel and it is neither /a/ nor /ɔ/, but /ɑ/
Native: English (NW American)
Advanced: Spanish
Intermediate: French
Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian)
Some day: German
User avatar
dtp883
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 10:51 pm
Location: San Francisco Area

PreviousNext

Return to Writing systems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest