Quelle couleur! (was Qulele couleur! (was:: the Shwa script))
- View SourceOn 31/10/2011 21:44, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Neither the American nor the British spelling reflectsDid you mean perhaps this to go to this list?
> the sound of the first vowel correctly; a more accurate
>> spelling would have been *cullur :)
> Or praps "culler".
My apologies both for the dyslexic subject line (now
corrected) and for not setting the reply-to correctly.
Mea culpa! :(
Yes - cullar, culler, cullor, cullur would all be pronounced
the same if we stressed the first syllable. I just thought
_cullur_ might more closely reflect the earlier [ku'lu:r].
In one of the many English spelling reforms I've dabbled
with in the past, it was spelled _kylr_ (with _y_ being used
as in Welsh).
Of course, Schwa will have at least four variant spellings
of the word:
- one for us non-rhotics;
- another for Merkans, west country Brits, some Scots and
others who pronounce the final vowel [ɚ];
- a third for those in Wales and parts of Scotland who
pronounce the final _r_ as a apical trill;
- and a fourth for the few in North Wales and, I believe,
parts of north est England who pronounce the final _r_ as [ʀ]
- (or is it [ʁ] that's heard in north East England? That
would be a fifth way).
While different phonetic representations are clearly needed
to indicate dialect variation, I am not persuaded that
having four or five different spellings in everyday use for
_colo(u)r_ is helpful. Indeed ....
On 30/10/2011 19:35, Adam Walker wrote:
> If only Shwa were intended for writing a conlang, I would
> be an unreserved fan.
Yes, I'm not sure about _unreserved_ fan, but I would
certainly be interested.
> Attempting to apply it to real world languages with
> previous written traditions is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, and unrealistic.
In 403 BC the citizens of Athens formally adopted the Ionian
alphabet which by the end of the 4th century BC had been
adopted by most of the Greek speaking world and had remained
the official upper-case Greek alphabet till the present day.
I cannot imagine any circumstance in which the Greeks would
give up using this alphabet which they have used for two and
a half millennia. Nor do I see why they should.
One could go on and give many other examples. Personally I
think the world be a much duller place if its many different
scripts fell into disuse.
If Schwa was intended to be a featural phonetic script,
rather like Alexander Melville Bell's "Visible Speech". as a
replacement of IPA, I would be interested. But the idea of
writing all the world's manifold different languages in a
universal script as their normal, everyday script I
personally find repugnant.
Oh dear - I've moved away from "Why the _u_ in _colour_?" to
English spelling reform and now back to Schwa, where this
by-thread started off.
C'est la vie!
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
- View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Collier <petecollier@...>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: the importance of English spelling reform (was: Re: [CONLANG] Spelling reforms, schmelling reforms
<I wouldn't. And given enough time, I could count to any number I choose
<using my fingers....
<Regardless of any feats of convoluted numerical prestidigitation though,
<I'd still be counting in base-10 which is a small round hole compared to the
<big square peg of base-60. Regardless of the number base, any intuitive
<system of measures needs to be based on that number-base's, erm, base. Which
<was my point of course.
<As you knew :)
<(apologies for the top posting - please direct all complaints to Mr Gates of
Makes me wonder is there a race of alien centrepeeds out there somewhere in the universe using base 100?