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.

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

For many people, the o in glottal is not even near a lengthened "a".

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


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


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.


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.


Which "system" are you talking about here?


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].


Who is "different" and in what ways?


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?


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.


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.


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.


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?

This post flagged and reported to the board moderator on account of its abusive content. Have a nice day!

"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

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, "

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

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.


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


Do let us know how that works out for you!

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.

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


As far as I can see you never did.

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/