[Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical
everson at evertype.com
Wed Jun 25 14:05:36 BST 2008
At 08:55 -0400 2008-06-25, stinney at sas.upenn.edu wrote:
> > Making this distinction is good orthography design.
>But it is necessary for the othography to bear
>the entire burden of these distinctions?
I believe so.
>For one thing, learners are routinely taught
>exceptions, and if the list of bys/bes words is
>short, they can simply learn them.
The list isn't short. There are other lists which
are short. This isn't one of them.
>For another, information of this kind really
>belongs in the lexicon, not in the spelling.
As I said, we have mabm/mamm because
pre-occluders want to write pre-occlusion and
non-pre-occluders don't, and as orthography
designers we wanted to make sure that speakers of
one dialect would recognize texts written by
speakers of the other dialect.
Similarly, we have bÿs/bës because some people
say and want to write [bi:z] and some say and
want to write [be:z]. But here we have an
additional problem: there are [e:z] words which
are not part of the alternating class, which
everyone pronounces the same.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans