[Spellyans] Phonemic inventory

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Fri Jul 4 11:25:08 IST 2008


The fact that you need to represent the schwa using a special symbol [@] and 
the fact that you can demonstrate minimal pairs make schwa a phoneme by 
definition.
Of course it does not have a phonemic spelling in the SWF or is KS, being 
represented by any of <a, e, o, u>.
These orthographies are therefore not as phonemic as possible.
Schwa could usefully be written <æ>but this would not be authentic, and 
there would be lots of them.
Is there any way that we could make the spelling of schwa more predictable?
For example, you could spell schwa <e> everywhere, and then mark all <e> 
that have a full sound with a diacritical mark such as an acute accent.
For example, spellyans would then be spéllyens.
This would work but it would not look very nice.

Regards,

Andrew J. Trim



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:45 AM
To: "Spellyans" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: [Spellyans] Phonemic inventory

> Is schwa a phoneme? When in §1.2 I introduce the
> phonemes, do I write /@/ or [@]? I guess we have
> a minimal pair in <dâ> [dæ:] 'good', <da> [d@]
> 'to'.
>
> We've written our phoneme corresponding to <a> as
> /æ/ because the pronunciation is long [æ:] short
> [æ]. We have written [ha] for <ha> 'and' however.
> Ought we?
> -- 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 




More information about the Spellyans mailing list