hi all, i just want to show y'all this
i dont know is somebody as seen this but alredy got a page
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tower.php

it was made by a friend of mine and i want to see what you guys think about it
i remember some guys talking about a new spelling for english but some one sayed that it was impossible becouse english is too diverse

i dont know (really i know nothing) just tell me what you think, i like this spelling becouse is more direct inthe matter than others

more info here http://wiki.frath.net/Tower_Orthography

P.D: i know some one is going to point about my grammar and spelling; if some one do that im going to beat him up, with love

Aside from being only compatible for American English, I find it ugly. But it's more practical than some orthographies I've seen.

Ditto. I don't like the ad hoc repurposing of consonants à la Albanian. What languages out there use c to represent [ʃ]? It has all the drawbacks of broad IPA transcription without any of the plusses.

1) with some changes it can be compatible with other english accents; but i dont know how that going
2) when you try to represet all the sounds without adding new letters doing that is bretty obvius

This is true of any orthography for English. The issue remains that, as it stands, not only is it compatible only with American English, it's compatible only with certain forms of American English. (And I'm not even sure which ones. Who has /ær/ for are, for instance?)


What is pretty obvious? Not adding letters doesn't mean that you have to reuse the existing letters in ways that have no historical precedent or parallels in other languages.

1) you dont need to be so perfectionistic about that kind of stuff, off course all english dialects shuld be represent, but not in an exact way; thats the best that as been done

2)but if we try to do it historically we wil have un nesessary letter, letter that arent used in the leanguage and letter with weird shapes,
keyboards will be a mess!!

That's exactly my problem with this orthography: They should've aimed for a supradialectal, morphophonemic orthography and instead they ended up with an overspecified jumble. (Who says "human" with [æ]? Or "reason" with [ɔ]? That sounds overpronounced in such as way as I'd expect from a non-native speaker.)


Who says? I'm not saying we should revert to Old English orthography or anything. I'm just saying that sh works fine for the language, has for centuries, has close parallels in Dutch and German sch, and so forth. It's not broke, so why "fix" it?

1) well i dont know, im going to ask the original guy

2) is broke, istead of fixing it we buy a new one

What's broke about spelling [ʃ] with sh? The only possible objection I can see is that it could be misread as [sh] in compound words. How many examples can you think of where it would actually be ambiguous? (Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether a perfectly unambiguous orthography is actually desirable.)

Zhuang, Kabyle and Beninese Yoruba