New alphabet for english.

The place to discuss constructed writing systems (con-scripts)

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Sobekhotep » Fri 19 Jun 2009 6:53 pm

linguoboy wrote:
Sobekhotep wrote:Not for me. I use [aɪ] in "spine" but [əɪ] in "spike" & "like".

Which do you have in spider?

I have [əɪ] there, too.
ለሐዘበ ፡ ዘየደአ
User avatar
Sobekhotep
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 4:53 am
Location: America's Dairyland

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Neqitan » Fri 19 Jun 2009 11:57 pm

Sobekhotep wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
Sobekhotep wrote:Not for me. I use [aɪ] in "spine" but [əɪ] in "spike" & "like".

Which do you have in spider?

I have [əɪ] there, too.

That's weird, I had never heard about such split!

On topic: I'm sorry for being rude =( , but I don't see a point in changing a language's orthography, worse for English, since there are already so many attempts trying to follow the phonemes, and the dialects aren't that consistent.

What I'd like to see would be an orthography consciously trying to give it another flavor, say, one making modern English look more like Old English (don't ask me how in the world that would work though :lol: ). One made for purely artistic purposes...
User avatar
Neqitan
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri 17 Apr 2009 9:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Talib » Sat 20 Jun 2009 12:04 am

Neqitan wrote:That's weird, I had never heard about such split!
It's because there's a flap there, I think. So it's ['spəɪ.ɾɚ]. That flap is an allophone of both /t/ and /d/.
What I'd like to see would be an orthography consciously trying to give it another flavor, say, one making modern English look more like Old English (don't ask me how in the world that would work though :lol: ). One made for purely artistic purposes...
I did that once (based on the standardized orthography you see in printed editions of works like Beowulf, not the real spelling. It worked out better than most reforms, I think, because there's some history behind it to justify the spelling choices.

I have also tried writing like in Middle English, which gives you a lot of freedom because spelling varied so much then.
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby linguoboy » Sat 20 Jun 2009 1:18 am

Talib wrote:
Neqitan wrote:That's weird, I had never heard about such split!
It's because there's a flap there, I think. So it's ['spəɪ.ɾɚ]. That flap is an allophone of both /t/ and /d/.

But rider has the same flap for speakers with [ɾ] in spider, yet they say ['ɹaɪ.ɾɚ] and not *['ɹəɪ.ɾɚ] (since Canadian raising normally only applies before unvoiced segments). No, the reason for the difference is the lack of a morpheme boundary in the word spider.

In addition, I can distinguish quite and quiet even when the latter is pronounced so rapidly that it collapses to a single syllable. Raising applies in the first case, but never in the second regardless of syllabification.
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: New alphabet for english.

Postby Talib » Sat 20 Jun 2009 2:11 am

linguoboy wrote:But rider has the same flap for speakers with [ɾ] in spider, yet they say ['ɹaɪ.ɾɚ] and not *['ɹəɪ.ɾɚ] (since Canadian raising normally only applies before unvoiced segments). No, the reason for the difference is the lack of a morpheme boundary in the word spider.
Well, ['ɹəɪ.ɾɚ] would be writer, so it's arguably a minimal pair.
In addition, I can distinguish quite and quiet even when the latter is pronounced so rapidly that it collapses to a single syllable. Raising applies in the first case, but never in the second regardless of syllabification.
You can do that? It's always /'kwaɪ.ət/ with two syllables for me. What kind of English do you speak natively?
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby linguoboy » Sat 20 Jun 2009 2:59 am

Talib wrote:You can do that? It's always /'kwaɪ.ət/ with two syllables for me.

For me, too--in normal speech. But haven't you even been at an event where someone is talking when it isn't appropriate and you hiss "Quiet!" at them under your breath? IME, people (including me) often do this so quickly that they compress the word into a single syllable. You can hear an example of this at the beginning of the following song: http://fredoviola.com/media/opus/the_turn.

What kind of English do you speak natively?

I was born in Baltimore and grew up in St Louis, so my native variety is basically Northern Midland with a handful of South Midland (e.g. pin-pen merging, y'all) and rural/Mid-Atlantic features (e.g. intrusive /r/ in water, initial stress in umbrella). My raising isn't true Canadian raising since the raised nuclei aren't truly central as they are in Canada--perhaps [ɐ] rather than [ə].
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: New alphabet for english.

Postby Sobekhotep » Sun 21 Jun 2009 1:59 am

Talib wrote:Well, ['ɹəɪ.ɾɚ] would be writer, so it's arguably a minimal pair.

My idiolect is non-rhotic, so I say something more like ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾə] or ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾɐ]
ለሐዘበ ፡ ዘየደአ
User avatar
Sobekhotep
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 4:53 am
Location: America's Dairyland

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Neqitan » Sun 21 Jun 2009 3:01 am

Talib wrote:I did that once (based on the standardized orthography you see in printed editions of works like Beowulf, not the real spelling. It worked out better than most reforms, I think, because there's some history behind it to justify the spelling choices.

وهل سوف تعلقه؟
User avatar
Neqitan
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri 17 Apr 2009 9:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Talib » Sun 21 Jun 2009 3:38 am

Sobekhotep wrote:My idiolect is non-rhotic, so I say something more like ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾə] or ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾɐ]
I actually use a retroflex /r/ too.
وهل سوف تعلقه؟
Perhaps.
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: New alphabet for english.

Postby Sobekhotep » Mon 22 Jun 2009 7:52 pm

Talib wrote:
Sobekhotep wrote:My idiolect is non-rhotic, so I say something more like ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾə] or ['ɻʷəɪ.ɾɐ]
I actually use a retroflex /r/ too.

Do you labialize yours at the beginning of a word? I seem to do that a lot.
ለሐዘበ ፡ ዘየደአ
User avatar
Sobekhotep
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 4:53 am
Location: America's Dairyland

PreviousNext

Return to Constructed writing systems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron