Re: Spelling reforms, schmelling reforms (was: Quelle couleur!)
- On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Daniel Prohaska
> Gary,AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Nooooooo! Not diacritics!
> 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.
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.
One of the things that makes the Shaw script so attractive, to me at
least, is its simplicity and clean lines. The last thing I would want
would be to add a lot of nearly microscopic fussy decorations and
ornate Rococo flourishes to the classic lines of the script.
I'm of the school of thought that prefers my written words to be
thought of as arbitrary symbols perhaps embodying some mnemonic
information to hint at the sound of the word. Our present system of
English orthography fills that role very nicely. Making rôle wear a
hat on its "o" just confuses the issue.
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.
No, we need for our system of orthography to be less specific to
dialect, not more.
----- 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?