On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Daniel Prohaska
> <daniel@...> wrote:
>> There would be solutions for developing a reformed variety of English spelling, which could then be transferred to Shavian script. In terms of the Latin alphabet, a solution may be possible where the word shape remains the same for all varieties but dialect differences are catered for by adding or dropping diacritic markers, as has been done in many reform proposals.
> AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Nooooooo! Not diacritics!
> Take a look at written Vietnamese. Diacritics are murder on aging
> eyes. I think diacritics come in third after root canals and stepping
> on rusty nails in my list things to avoid at all costs.
I think Vietnamese looks nifty...
> If we are going to reform English spelling we should start by simply
> tossing most of the vowels except for one generic vowel. Asøde frøm ø
> føw minømøl pøirs thøt wøuld nøød tø røtøin unøquø vøwls, wørd inøtøøl
> vøwls, ønd pørhøps søme finøl e's, møst wørds wøuld still incløde
> enøugh mnønømøc inførmøtøøn tø bø røødøble.
That's why, when I played around with it (not very seriously, because
that way lies madness), I did it in the form of a Latin-based abjad
that used full vowel letters only for stressed vowels and diacritics
for unstressed vowels that were only to be used to disambiguate
otherwise identically spelled words when context wasn't enough.