daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue Feb 1 22:12:57 GMT 2011
From: Eddie Climo
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:25 PM
“I would like to hear from other members of this forum, so that we might form a view of their consensus on this matter. Fellow 'Spellyansoryon', the issue before us is this:
— Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?”
In KS, yes. I no longer see KS as an improvement to the SWF, but as an orthography in its own right. I would welcome the introduction of a limited number of diacritics in the SWF, but not necessarily those used in KS.
— Should they be optional in all writings?
— Should they be hightly recommented in lexicographic/reference/didactic writings and optional elsewhere?
They would be an integral part of the orthography and mandatory in all writings.
— Or should they have some other role?
Diacritics should have one distinct purpose, e.g. circumflex for irregular vowel length, grave for irregular shortness, diaeresis for a different sound.
— Furthermore, do we currently have a surfeit of diacritics? Could we idealy do with fewer of them?”
Yes, I would reduce the number of diacritics where possible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans