linguoboy wrote:telal wrote:In French and Portuguese 'ch' is used for /S/, do you think those languages are alien to English speakers?
And what is c used for in those languages?telal wrote:Spanish sometimes uses 'x', most especially in the transcription of indigenous American languages, does that seem like something that 99% of English speakers would be familiar with?
And what is x used for Tower Orthography? Not [ʃ] but [ʒ], a value it has in Genovese and nowhere else.
THEthe wrote:you can do your own othography and do it on your own way, and fail becouse doing it as you think; is impossible
telal wrote:but it just a constructed orthography, nothing more, no real reason to argue for or against it
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?
THEthe wrote:if nobody have something constructive to say; please stop annoying me
Blackkdark wrote:Linguoboy: stop whining. If you don't want to use it, why are you posting anything?
THEthe wrote: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
Blackkdark wrote:You shouldn't start complaining until it's mainstream and....it's not, so relax.
Blackkdark wrote: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.
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.
Blackkdark wrote: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.
linguoboy wrote:THEthe wrote:if nobody have something constructive to say; please stop annoying me
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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest