Re: Spelling reforms, schmelling reforms (was: Quelle couleur!)
- On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Daniel ProhaskaI think Vietnamese looks nifty...
> <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.
> If we are going to reform English spelling we should start by simplyThat's why, when I played around with it (not very seriously, because
> 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 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.
----- 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?