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".
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
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?