Harleigh Kyson ha scripte:
Le systema orthographic del anglese es mesmo plus complicate que le
systema francese. []
Le complicationes del orthographia anglese se deriva de su historia
como lingua scribite. Illo es le resulto de practicas del systema
scribite del anglo-saxon, del francese medieval de Normandia, e del
latino classic.
Linguas como le finnese, cuje systemas orthographic ha un historia
assatis breve, usa un systemas alphabetic plus simple, in le quales
un littera (graphema) quasi sempre representa un son significante
(phonema) del lingua.
Practicamente il esserea difficile reformar le systema orthographic
del anglese proque illo representa multe dialectos regional con
systemas de pronunciation assatis differente. E con omne iste
varietates regional, il esserea multo difficile seliger un version
del lingua (al exclusion del altere varietates) que poterea servir
como le base de un nove systema orthographic international.
*[Gg]Car Harleigh, car Interlinguanos!
*(io adressa iste post a INTERLNG pois que io no ha accesso in le
COOLISTA per rationes incognite.)
[Harleigh]Si on essayava reformar le orthographia del anglese,
probabilemente
il esserea necesse disveloppar plure systemas que usa un sol graphema
pro cata phonema del lingua, e le anglese scribite perderea su
unitate international, le qual es assatis imperfecte.
[Gg]pro me isto appare un poco hypocritical. Proque no ser honeste e
dicer que le Anglophonia ignora systematicamente le pronuciation
correcte de parolas international, e le ration por que illes time de
scriber celle pronunciation creolic como illo es parlante es que illes
time de ser considerate qua primitivos.
p.ex. Psychologia, un parola obvie international, in anglese
"Psychology" es pronunciate como 'Saicoloji'. Le question es nunc: es
"Saicoloji" ancora un termino international o plus tosto un nove parola
in un lingua relativemente juvene ma internationalmente usate? Le
anatomia del systema vocal de angloparlantes no es tan in disordine que
illes physonomicalmente non poterea pronunciar "psychology" como
'psicoloji' o mesme como 'psicologi'.
Hic io vole brevemente demonstrar que il no es realemente un grande
problema scriber Anglese in un modo phonetic per presentar "Spelrait" un
proposito de Jim Carter de Australia.
Le ration pro que io face isto es que io pensa que un orthographia
phonetic optimal pro le Anglese pote ser un obstetrice additional pro
Interlingua pois que il esserea plus clar que Interlingua selectite qua
lingua de dissertationes es le melior solution. Vice versa io va
presentar (ancora) Interlingua in le "euro-english group".
Spelrait pro Anglese es bon pro le promotion de Interlingua!
Salutes amical, Georg
Le principales de Spelrait son multe simple:
Spelrait es basate super 7 vocales A,e,I,O,U et Æ +¼ que pote ser
scripte ance como AE, OE
"cats fur" ---> cæts f½r ---> caets foer
il pote ser que le tabela non appire in le correcte formato. Si il ha
interesse io poterea inviar un attachemento HTML a e-mail adresses personal.
*Basic criteria, and details for decision by an International Commission*
BASIC CRITERIA
No.
Suggested rule
Supporting comments
B1.
Employ a one-for-one relationship between sounds and symbols wherever
practicable. "Symbols" here include suitable digraphs (e.g., "aa", "th").
For example, the "p" in "pot" should always be pronounced that way,
regardless of the word in which it appears, and the "p" sound should
always be spelt with the letter p, regardless of the word it appears in.
B2.
Avoid the use of any symbols not found in the Latin alphabet.
No new symbols should be used (but see B6 below).
B3.
Avoid the use of diacritics.
The use of diacritics is not necessary.
B4.
Base the spelling of English vowels and consonants on the original Latin
values of the symbols wherever possible.
Vowels a, e, i, o, and u should be used, where applicable.
Consonants b, c, d, f, g, h, j, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, z should
be used, where applicable.
B5.
Represent the long pure vowel sounds in English by doubling the symbols
for the short vowels a, e, i, o, and u.
Short vowels should be spelt as a, e, i, o, u, and long vowels as aa,
ee, ii, oo, and uu.
B6.
Devise digraphs which are as logical as possible, using Latin symbols,
to represent the pure vowel sounds in "cat's fur" (OS) which are not
present in Latin.
The digraphs ae and oe should be used, respectively, for these sounds.
"ae" is the representation originally used for the first sound (as in
"cat's") in English; it is also the IPA symbol for the sound, and
reflects the intermediate position of the sound between "a" and "e".
"oe" is already familiar for the second sound (as in "fur") in both
French and German (e.g., "oeuvre" and "foehn").
B7.
Spell diphthongs in a way fully consistent with the symbols chosen for
the pure vowels making them up.
The dipththongs should be spelt as ai, au, ei, oi, ou, and iu.
B8.
Where English already has efficient digraphs to represent consonants not
found in Latin, continue to use them.
The existing spellings ch, sh, th, zh, and ng should be continued, as
they are both satisfactory and familiar.
B9.
Where there is more than one way currently in use to represent a
consonant, choose the one most prevalent in Latin and current English
usage.
For example, "c" rather than "k" should be used for the c sound in "cot".
"f" should be used rather than "ph", and "j" should be used for the
initial consonant sound in "general".
B10.
10. Should two or more alternative spellings remain after the
application of the above rules, choose the most familiar one.
For example, see D5.
DETAILS - FOR POSSIBLE ENDORSEMENT BY AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
D1.
The symbols for the long vowels should not be doubled at the end of a
word, as that is not necessary in those cases.
For example, "boni" rather than "bonii". Using doubled vowels at the
end of a word will not affect the pronunciation, which must in practice
use the long vowel anyway, and doubled vowels at the end of a word are
both unnecessary and messy.
D2.
Long vowels within a word which do not carry major stress should not
double the vowel symbol, as that is not necessary in those cases.
For example, "thruuaut" (NS) could be shortened to "thruaut".
D3.
The use of ligatures for the digraphs in B6 above should be regarded as
acceptable, at least in some applications.
The symbols "æ" and "½" could be used for ae and oe in printing.
D4.
The symbols for the vowel sounds in "cat's fur" should not be doubled
for the long form of the sounds, as confusion between the long and short
forms of the vowel does not arise in these cases.
The spellings "aeae" and "oeoe" are not needed or practical.
D5.
Unstressed vowels should, unless this is obviously inappropriate, be
spelt as they are in current English spelling.
For example, "blatant" (OS) would be spelt "bleitant" rather than
"bleitent". But "message" (OS) would be spelt "mesij" rather than "mesaj".
D6.
Consonant equivalents for vowel sounds should be available for use in
suitable places, e.g., at the beginning of words.
The letter "y" could substitute for "i" at the beginning of words, as in
"yu" (NS). Likewise, the letter "w" could substitute for "u" at the
beginning of words, as in "wul" (NS).
D7.
The two versions of the consonant currently spelt as "th" should not be
distinguished, or if they are, should be spelt as "th" and "dh"
respectively.
Potential for confusion between the two different sounds corresponding
to "th" would hardly ever arise, and if it did could be dealt with by
context. See "teethe" and "loathe" (OS).
D8.
Consonants which would, on the above rules, be surplus to requirements
in standard English, should be assigned the values which would be most
useful in representing sounds common in other languages or dialects.
For example, "k" could be assigned to the "ch" sound in "loch" in
Scottish dialect, and "q" could be assigned to the similar sound close
to "g".
D9.
Where there are differences in pronunciation of a common type between
"Received Pronunciation" (British) and "General American", a decision
should be taken as to whether a standard spelling should be agreed or
both spellings should be allowed to co-exist.
While practices vary to some extent within countries, in British and
Australian English, for example, words using "r", such as "car",
frequently do not sound the "r", whereas in North American English
(except in eastern New England and some southern coastal areas) they
generally do. In North American English, "t"s in the middle of words,
as in "battle", are frequently sounded more like "d"s.
A compromise could be adopted which would, for example, conform to the
predominant North American usage in respect of "r"s and the predominant
British usage in respect of the "t"s.
North American usage has a different pronunciation from British usage of
the "a" sound in such words as "calf" (OS), but this should also not be
a major problem.
D10.
Where there are differences in pronunciation of an idiosyncratic type
between "Received Pronunciation" (British) and "General American", a
standardised spelling should be agreed, with spellings being distributed
between RP and GA pronunciation, on the basis of a suitable rule.
Discussions between English-speaking countries would be designed to
achieve agreement between countries on the new spellings to be adopted.
These discussions would deal, amongst other things, with whether there
should be a preferred standard spelling of the relatively small number
of words where there are significant idiosyncratic differences in
pronunciation between British Received Pronunciation and General
American pronunciation, and if so what it should be. See, for example,
"asthma", "ate", "capsule", etc.
SPELRAIT YOOR RAIT TU SPEL RAIT!
essaya de comprehender isto:
Geiorg aend Stiiv
Ai thinc thaet the coments aar spot on.
A TO/Spelrait dicshonari wud indiid staend aez an oothoriti on the
propouzd niu staendardaizd speling ov Inglish. The foerst edishon ov
sach a dicshonari wud priideit thi estaeblishment aend woerc ov an
internaeshonal comishon huuz poerpos woz tu obtein internaeshonal
agriiment tu the fain diiteilz ov a niu speling sistem. It wud,
theerfoor, probabli list opshons foor sam woerdz pronaunsd cwait
diferentli aez betwiin RP aend JA voershonz ov Inglish. From the taim
aet wich internaeshonal agriiment woz riichd, theer cud bi expected tu
bi a shaarp redacshon in (staendard) opshonz.
Ai thinc thaet the retenshon ov thi "r" in woerdz laic "arm" (OS) wud in
thi end bi sach a foorgon concluuzion thaet iiven the foerst edishon ov
the dicshonari wud probabli not bother tu list thi ooltoernativ ov "aam"
(NS). The seim wud aplai tu the retenshon ov the "t" in woerdz laic
"battle" (OS); wi wud theerfoor not expect tu si "The White House"(OS)
spelt in fiutiur aez "The Waidaus" (NS). An internaeshonal comishon
mait agri tu the poermanent retenshon ov bouth RP and JA spelingz in
woerdz sach aez "aasc"/"aesc" (NS), oor ooltoernativli sam divizhon ov
the "spoilz" mait bi recomended.. In thaet ceis, if yu woer tu riid the
riten woerdz ov an American oor a Brit yu wud "heer" him/hoer spiicing
in theer oun axent.
Bouth the jiograefical maeping aend miusical anaelojiiz aar vaelid. The
speling ov a laenguage daz not niid tu bi sach aez tu enshoor thaet
everiwan pronaunsez the seim woerdz in exaectli the seim wei. In faect
thaet iz imposibel. Similarli, everi miusical freiz printed in a
miusical scoor wil bi pleid slaitli diferentli bai everi miusishan hu
pleiz it. The printed nouts, hauever, remein the seim foor ool. Sam
mainor veerieishonzi in pich wil bi axeptabel, bat wen samwan pleiz an E
flaet wen thei shud bi pleiying an E naetiural wi wil noutis aend
object! Mach in miusical freizing iz not tu bi faund on the printed
peij, aend tu atemt tu poortrei it theer wud simpli bi pedaentic aend
anhelpful. The niuonsez aar prezent in the maind ov the perfoormer.
Oolmoust everi chaild hu loernz thi Inglish laengwij aet hiz/hoer
mather'z ni wil continiu tu pronauns beisic Inglish woerdz in the seim
wei foor the rest ov hiz/hoer laif, nou maeter hau thei mei bi spelt. A
Chainiiz stiudent ov Inglish, on the ather haend, wil bi laicli tu loern
the pronansieishon ov a woerd from the wei it iz shoun in the textbuc
oor the dicshonari, sou thaet if "aasc" iz thi ounli speling shoun thaet
iz the wei the woerd wil bi pronaunsd. Niither ov thiiz events wud bi a
baed thing.
Jim
25 Mei 2005
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Georg Schmid <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*To:* [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:00 AM
*Subject:* Re: [euro-english] Italian, German, and English writing
systems
Steve,
[log in to unmask] wrote
>
>
> [SB]The moral of the story might be that you need to have a good
> writing system first. Second you need to decide what dialect you
> are representing.
[Gg] Fully agree with your statement.
First get a tool to be able to reproduce sound to script, and scipt
to sound again, in order to be able to write and read different
pronunciations. Only after doing that it makes sense to select the
optimal dialect for a common orthography. I'm sure it will be
obvious that the best selection would be the one with the optimal
contrast in pronunciation even in spite this chosen "dialect"
doesn't really exist as an actually spoken one.
Schwa-s and schwi-s are nothing else than "filtered" vowels. To
optain the best contrast it is necessary to replace the Schwa/Schwi
sound by its original vowel (or the dominant original vowel if there
are more than one).
The Spelrait principals allow us to figure out by automatic
computing this replacements that are to be done. You will see, by
processing both the American or the British pronunciation into
Spelrait, ther will be not a real big difference for the same words.
> [SB] Then you have to figure out how to make that dialect the
> dominant one or the prestige dialect.
[Gg] if the virtual pronunciation of the spelling is based on
optimal contrasting, this question is surprisingly not as important
as it seems now. If you say and spell /'[TO] arm'/ as "aam" in stead
of "aarm" or /'[TO] ask'/ as "æsc" in stead of "aask" both would be
correct, but time will show which way is the most prefered one.
Since this is a matter of taste any discussions on this tend to be
useless for the time being. But on the other hand if there is
already a complete dictionary present (TO to Spelrait-Spelrait to
TO) this dictionary would stand naturally as a certain leading
authority.
[Gg]The fact that Spelrait will differ to IPA in the sense that IPA
presents more detailed phonetic information is not an argument for
that that Spelrait would be less advanced. The additional
information of IPA is not necessary and is even confusing.There is
something more about it: "The Virtual Essence" of a word spelled by
Spelrait is better perceivable than by IPA. It's like a map of a
continent which uses different colours to show different elevations
even if it is clear that in reality there are no such colours.
In other words: Spelrait is pointing out only specific possitions as
"vectors" towards the oral aparatus has to move on. By following and
passing this sequences of changing possitions the speaker would
automatically come to pronounce sounds that are not explicitly noted
in the script. Thats the trick about Spelrait, it's an implicite
phonetic spelling-system using the anatomic appearance of our vocal
system and the way we tend to use it, like a music instrument played
by notes.
Georg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yahoo! Groups Links*
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euro-english/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
======================================================
Pro disabonar te del lista, invia un message a
[log in to unmask] con le texto:
UNSUBSCRIBE INTERLNG
o visita le sito del lista:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/interlng.html
======================================================
Visita le sito official del Union Mundial pro
Interlingua:
http://www.interlingua.com/
======================================================
|
