[Spellyans] Problems with SWF
everson at evertype.com
Thu Jun 26 10:50:20 BST 2008
At 22:42 +0100 2008-06-25, A. J. Trim wrote:
>a) You list your objection to no
>diacritics, twice. I will accept diacritics if
>used minimally but I would rather not have to
Diacritics are necessary for precision. We use
them in exceptional instanced, where vowel length
or quality is other than would be predicted by
the normal rules.
>b) I agree with (1). I would prefer genef, myterneth.
I think this is generally agreed by us.
>c) I agree with (2). I would prefer dew, pew, newl.
<ew> means [eU]; these words will have to be written <dyw>, <pyw>, <nywl>.
>d) I agree with some of (3). I would prefer
>why, chy and ky. Im not sure about ni. It may
>be useful to distinguish between the negative
>particle and we. Should my/me be mÿ/më and
>ty/te be tÿ/të? I would also prefer ef he
>instead of ev, even if it has to be an exception
>to the normal rules.
This will take some working out. I doubt we will
mark my and me. Similarly I doubt that we will
mark ÿw/ëw 'is'. As high-frequency words they are
common enough not to mark. But I am a little
doubtful about the utility of a special spelling
for <ew> 'is' anyway; Gendall marks his <eu> as
>e) I agree with (4) but I dont want too
>many <i>, and their use has to be predictable,
>else spelling will be hellish.
The system will be predictable. We know that some
UC users don't like <i> and some RLC users don't
like <y>. So we will try to strike a balance that
>f) I dont yet understand (6). No doubt I
>shall after it has been discussed. Should
>mires/meres look be mïres/mëres?
We will get to this in due course.
>g) I could add (7): The status of the
>traditional graphs must be the same as or
>stronger than that of the KK graphs.
>I can add (8): I don't like <oo> in poos, goon,
>frooth, etc. I would rather have poes, goen,
>froeth. They just look better.
That's too bad; KK's <oe> is not traditional and
<oo> was chosen for the SWF. This is also one
graph which RLC users are used to.
>I can add (9): I would like to be able to tell
>with more certainty how to pronounce the words
>that in SWF contain <u>. For example usyes,
>unys, du, a-ugh, ugans, tus, frut, fug, furv,
>gorthuher, pub. There are more than two
Yes, this is one of the most embarrassing bugs in
the SWF. Nance distinguished the words, at least
in his dictionary.
<u> is /y/~/i/ [y:]~[i:] and [Y]~[I]
<û> and <ù> are /u/ [u] and [U]; <û> is [ju] or [iU] in <ûsya> and derivatives.
>I can add (10): In words where <s> can become
><j>, we should mark the <s> or <j>, else use
><z>, for example. This would give kerenza for
>kerensa/kerenja. The suffixed pronouns sy/se and
>jy/je could become zÿ/zë. Similarly,
>marhasow/marhajow "markets" could become
There's simply no way of marking <s> or <j> in
anything like a satisfactory manner. A number of
people have suggested the <z> solution, but using
<z> for [dZ] is simply too great a stretch.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans