[Spellyans] cledh etc
everson at evertype.com
Tue Jan 15 16:23:24 GMT 2013
On 14 Jan 2013, at 17:15, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
> 1) Seeing the traditional graphs established as standard, official, and main form.
I would like that, but I doubt that will happen. I think the best we could do is to have that cosmetic aspect be free variation.
> 2) Sorting out how to represent short /u/, short /o/ and short /y/ ~ /i/ consistently. My preference is ‹u› for short /u/, ‹o› for short /o/ and ‹ü› for short /y/ ~ /i/.
In KS we use ‹u› for /y/~/i/ and not ‹ü› because the /y/~/i/ phoneme is much much much more common than the /u/ phoneme. Therefore we mark short ‹ù› and long ‹û›. This reduces the number of diacritics in a typical text. This is a good idea, since some people don't like them.
> 3) Dealing with the distribution of ‹i›, ‹y› and ‹e› in the SWF. My preference is a system where a) ‹i› is spelt where both RMC and RLC have /i(:)/, b) where RMC has ‹y› and RLC ‹e› (‹ë› in reference and teaching material) and c) where RMC and RLC both have ‹e›.
It is difficult to see how this could be workable at all. And guess what? In five years you've never shown an example text of what this would look like. I wager you don't have much idea of how problematic it might be.
Moreover, you have not dealt with both short and long vowels in these contexts. Would you like a chapter of the Railway Children to re-spell? I will be happy to send one to you.
> There are a numer of minor technical issues, but these three above a the 'biggies'… Have you sent in your Review forms yet, we've only got until the end of January to give them in…
I am working on preparing some materials to share generally. It has been a busy time of late.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans