By the way, in case any of you guys actually look at my transcription and wonder why it does not "match" how I spell things in my own English orthography, that is because my orthography represents a number of distinctions that my own dialect lacks, and also because it represents things without reduction or elision, whether synchronic or diachronic. Furthermore, there are a number of phonological processes in my own dialect which complicate things here, particularly final devoicing and final fortition, resulting in things like what I write with final <z> actually being pronounced with final [s] without any voicing assimilation occurring.
My spelling reform proposal.
Aak - ["tSr\_-E~_^{~nskR1?pS1~:ndz@] sjûd by [tSr\E_o~:nt"skR1p?pS1~:ndz@:] ebúv.
Aak egéin - dhat sjûd riälli by [tSr\_-E_o~:nt"skRI_-?pS1~:ndz@:] in mai privius poost.
My proposal:
National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are United States federal government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to a particular national security issue. NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. NIEs are classified documents prepared for policymakers.
National Intellijencz Estimats (NIEs) ar Uuniited Staats federal
government docuuments that ar the authoritaativ assessment ov the
Director ov National Intellijencz (DNI) on intellijencz relaated too a
particuular national secuuritie issuue. NIEs ar produuczd byy the National
Intellijencz Council and express the coordinaated judjments ov the Uuniited Staats Intellijencz Commuunitie, the gruop ov 16 U.S. intellijencz
aajencies. NIEs ar classifyyd docuuments prepaard for policiemaakers.
National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are United States federal government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to a particular national security issue. NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. NIEs are classified documents prepared for policymakers.
National Intellijencz Estimats (NIEs) ar Uuniited Staats federal
government docuuments that ar the authoritaativ assessment ov the
Director ov National Intellijencz (DNI) on intellijencz relaated too a
particuular national secuuritie issuue. NIEs ar produuczd byy the National
Intellijencz Council and express the coordinaated judjments ov the Uuniited Staats Intellijencz Commuunitie, the gruop ov 16 U.S. intellijencz
aajencies. NIEs ar classifyyd docuuments prepaard for policiemaakers.
Ai hav tu giv mai verzjen ov dhat passedj:
Násjenalintéllidjenséstimitz (NIEz) aar Íunaitidstéetz fedderal guvernment dokkiument dhat aar dhy oathoritétiv esésment ov dhy Dirékter ov Násjenalintéllidjens (DNI) on intéllidjens rylétid tu ee paartíkkiular násjenalsikíuritiíssiu. NIEz aar prodúusd bai dhy Násjenalintéllidjenskáunsel and iksprés dhy koordineetid djudjmentz ov dhe Íunaitidstéetzintéllidjenskommíuniti, dhy gruup ov 16 IS-intéllidjenséedjensyz. NIEz aar klassifaid dokkiumentz prypéerd foar póllisimékerz.
(Jes, ai nou dhat ai am iuzing unséppereetid kómpaundwúrdz hyr, but dhat iz hau oal djermannik langgwidjiz udher dhen ingglisj du it.)
Násjenalintéllidjenséstimitz (NIEz) aar Íunaitidstéetz fedderal guvernment dokkiument dhat aar dhy oathoritétiv esésment ov dhy Dirékter ov Násjenalintéllidjens (DNI) on intéllidjens rylétid tu ee paartíkkiular násjenalsikíuritiíssiu. NIEz aar prodúusd bai dhy Násjenalintéllidjenskáunsel and iksprés dhy koordineetid djudjmentz ov dhe Íunaitidstéetzintéllidjenskommíuniti, dhy gruup ov 16 IS-intéllidjenséedjensyz. NIEz aar klassifaid dokkiumentz prypéerd foar póllisimékerz.
(Jes, ai nou dhat ai am iuzing unséppereetid kómpaundwúrdz hyr, but dhat iz hau oal djermannik langgwidjiz udher dhen ingglisj du it.)
<<(Jes, ai nou dhat ai am iuzing unséppereetid kómpaundwúrdz hyr, but dhat iz hau oal djermannik langgwidjiz udher dhen ingglisj du it.) >>
So you're going a little beyond just spelling reform eh?...
Although, maybe not, because in English these words really ARE units, albeit not conventional...hmmm
I like your use of accent marks to indicate stress where it does not fall on the default first syllable. I too prefer that, although my keyboard does not allow me to easily add markers, so I omitted them
So you're going a little beyond just spelling reform eh?...
Although, maybe not, because in English these words really ARE units, albeit not conventional...hmmm
I like your use of accent marks to indicate stress where it does not fall on the default first syllable. I too prefer that, although my keyboard does not allow me to easily add markers, so I omitted them
One of my aspirations is to take Modern English, reform the spelling, and make minor changes to grammatical anomalies (illogical inconsistencies) and have it be used as a viable international language like Esperanto or Interlingua.
It would have the benefit of being close enough to English that anyone with any knowledge of the language would be able to master it with ease.
My calling : )
It would have the benefit of being close enough to English that anyone with any knowledge of the language would be able to master it with ease.
My calling : )
One note about my use of joined compounds is that it actually only applies to true compounds, and not adjective-noun sequences. The key factor that I have used to separate the two is that for a true compound, the greatest stress falls on the syllable of the *first* component word with primary stress for that word, whereas for adjective-noun sequences the greatest stress falls on the syllable of the noun with primary stress.
This results in things like "unséppereetid kómpaundwúrdz", as the greatest stress falls on the primary stress of the second component word. That indicated that "unséppereetid" is acting as an adjective, but "kómpaundwúrdz" is acting as a true compound.
As for my use of diacritics, I intentionally use them in such a fashion that the average literate English-speaker who would be familiar with this orthography, were it instituted, would probably not really need the diacritics, even though they would be included for completeness and lack of ambiguity. The matter is that the orthography is really not meant to be "read aloud" to begin with, as one needs to remember the differences between that represented and one's own dialect to properly do so; in particular, many of the forms represented are very conservative in nature and do not take reduction into account, such as having "egéin" for "again" and "riällaiz" for "realize", and thus would sound weird to many if directly read aloud. Hence, it is not asking for much more to remember which syllables have primary stress, where digraphs versus vowel sequences are present, and where /V/ versus /U/ and /@/ versus /E/ are present if diacritics are not written.
This results in things like "unséppereetid kómpaundwúrdz", as the greatest stress falls on the primary stress of the second component word. That indicated that "unséppereetid" is acting as an adjective, but "kómpaundwúrdz" is acting as a true compound.
As for my use of diacritics, I intentionally use them in such a fashion that the average literate English-speaker who would be familiar with this orthography, were it instituted, would probably not really need the diacritics, even though they would be included for completeness and lack of ambiguity. The matter is that the orthography is really not meant to be "read aloud" to begin with, as one needs to remember the differences between that represented and one's own dialect to properly do so; in particular, many of the forms represented are very conservative in nature and do not take reduction into account, such as having "egéin" for "again" and "riällaiz" for "realize", and thus would sound weird to many if directly read aloud. Hence, it is not asking for much more to remember which syllables have primary stress, where digraphs versus vowel sequences are present, and where /V/ versus /U/ and /@/ versus /E/ are present if diacritics are not written.
>>So you're going a little beyond just spelling reform eh?...<<
I should also have noted that what I am trying to do here is basically create a complete self-contained orthography for English, rather than a mere "fix" of the existing one. As a result, even things like how words are separated, capitalization, and punctuation are valid things to be modified.
Ai sjûd oalso hav notid dhat hwot ai am traiing tu du hyr iz besikli kriéet ee kumpliet sêlfkuntéend oarthógraffi foar ingglisj, radher dhen ee myr "fiks" ov dhy igzísting wun. Az ee ryzúlt, yven thingz laik hau wurdz aar seppereetid, kappitelaizéesjen, and punktiuéesjen aar vallid thingz tu by moddifaid.
I should also have noted that what I am trying to do here is basically create a complete self-contained orthography for English, rather than a mere "fix" of the existing one. As a result, even things like how words are separated, capitalization, and punctuation are valid things to be modified.
Ai sjûd oalso hav notid dhat hwot ai am traiing tu du hyr iz besikli kriéet ee kumpliet sêlfkuntéend oarthógraffi foar ingglisj, radher dhen ee myr "fiks" ov dhy igzísting wun. Az ee ryzúlt, yven thingz laik hau wurdz aar seppereetid, kappitelaizéesjen, and punktiuéesjen aar vallid thingz tu by moddifaid.
Sum moor mainoor fiksiz - "kumpliet" sjûd by "komplýt" and "sêlfkuntéend" sjûd by "sêlfkontéend" ebúv.
<Ai sjûd oalso hav notid dhat hwot ai am traiing tu du hyr iz besikli kriéet ee kumpliet sêlfkuntéend oarthógraffi foar ingglisj, radher dhen ee myr "fiks" ov dhy igzísting wun. Az ee ryzúlt, yven thingz laik hau wurdz aar seppereetid, kappitelaizéesjen, and punktiuéesjen aar vallid thingz tu by moddifaid. >
wow okay, I see.
Before realizing that the above text was actually a transcription it was very difficult to read...I basically had to sound it out syllable by syllable before arriving at comprehension. This orthography, although very phonetic and practical reminds me a little of Serbian, however you use more that one symbol per sound ("ie", "oa", etc) in many cases.
Still, it is a difficult pill to swallow for the current English reader...
wow okay, I see.
Before realizing that the above text was actually a transcription it was very difficult to read...I basically had to sound it out syllable by syllable before arriving at comprehension. This orthography, although very phonetic and practical reminds me a little of Serbian, however you use more that one symbol per sound ("ie", "oa", etc) in many cases.
Still, it is a difficult pill to swallow for the current English reader...
The thing is that it really is not meant to be read aloud, symbol by symbol, because it is very conservative, including a number of distinctions that have been lost in most English dialects today or which are only extant in particular English dialect groups today, and does not mark vowel reduction. To really be able to get something out of it by how it is actually written, one needs a good knowledge of English diachronics since Late Middle English, and particularly need a good knowledge of the sound changes of the late Early New English period.
Take my example of "egéin" - this in standard West Saxon Old English came from "on" + "gegn" and became "ongean", but not all modern English dialects or orthography reflect West Saxon pronunciation, which is clear in this case. The matter is that current "ai" here really implies that it had the dipthong /ai/ or /Ei/ during the Middle English period, and very many instances of /ai/ or /Ei/ came from a vowel followed by /g/ in the Old English period, which really indicates that the /g/ in "gegn" was not actually lost in all Old English dialects. As a result, there is the possibility that present "again" had either /e:/ or /Ei/ during the Middle English period, and due to later mergers, these merged in most English dialects. However, as the current orthography reflects it, and it causes no problems for modern English speakers, I am treating "again" as having had /Ei/ during the Middle English period.
Consequently, I have "egéin" for "again", which literally represents is actually /@"gEin/. However, the diphthong /Ei/ has merged with /e:/ in most English dialects as /eI/ or /e:/, which would make /@"geIn/; if one wrote out that with the conventions of this orthography, "again" would be "egéen". However, in very many English dialects a shortening and laxing of said /eI/ or /e:/ occurred, resulting in /@"gEn/.
Consequently, one would have to know the history of the word "again" to understand why I spell it as "egéin", when many dialects would have the pronunciation spelling "egén", and for those that do have /eI/ or /e:/ in "again", "ee" is much more common than "ei" in my orthography while reflecting merged phonemes in most English dialects. Thus, one is just expected to remember the spelling "egéin", as I doubt that the average person is going to have much knowlege of English diachronics.
Take my example of "egéin" - this in standard West Saxon Old English came from "on" + "gegn" and became "ongean", but not all modern English dialects or orthography reflect West Saxon pronunciation, which is clear in this case. The matter is that current "ai" here really implies that it had the dipthong /ai/ or /Ei/ during the Middle English period, and very many instances of /ai/ or /Ei/ came from a vowel followed by /g/ in the Old English period, which really indicates that the /g/ in "gegn" was not actually lost in all Old English dialects. As a result, there is the possibility that present "again" had either /e:/ or /Ei/ during the Middle English period, and due to later mergers, these merged in most English dialects. However, as the current orthography reflects it, and it causes no problems for modern English speakers, I am treating "again" as having had /Ei/ during the Middle English period.
Consequently, I have "egéin" for "again", which literally represents is actually /@"gEin/. However, the diphthong /Ei/ has merged with /e:/ in most English dialects as /eI/ or /e:/, which would make /@"geIn/; if one wrote out that with the conventions of this orthography, "again" would be "egéen". However, in very many English dialects a shortening and laxing of said /eI/ or /e:/ occurred, resulting in /@"gEn/.
Consequently, one would have to know the history of the word "again" to understand why I spell it as "egéin", when many dialects would have the pronunciation spelling "egén", and for those that do have /eI/ or /e:/ in "again", "ee" is much more common than "ei" in my orthography while reflecting merged phonemes in most English dialects. Thus, one is just expected to remember the spelling "egéin", as I doubt that the average person is going to have much knowlege of English diachronics.
<<["ju: "d'{_^u: "Ri:M_^a:e_^s "ha:o_^ "hA:Rd_} "dE_o?d_0 "me_ok "TI_-~:Nks "1n Ri"E_^{M_^14_0i "fO:R "I_-~:n's't'1~nts "mae_^ "o~:n "da:e_^@:M\3_+?k_}t "I_-f "d_0E_r:R "A:R "nE_r:Ro: 1~:"nVf "t_h@: "E_^{?kSM:i "fe_oTfM:i: R3_+?pR@"z3_+~? "ma:e "da:e_^@:M\3_+?k_}t "A:R "dZ_03_+~:nR=:M:i: "nI:RM\i: 1:"M\3_+dZ_01:bM: "O:R "E_o? "M\is't' "v'E_r:Ri: "hA:Rd_0_} "t_h@: "Ri:d_0] >>
That's exactly much what I had in mind. No point going halfway with our spelling reform proposals. I think this orthography has a certain "modern" or "technical" look to it -- well suited to the computer age we live in.
Now we just have to sell this to the rest of the English-speaking population :)
That's exactly much what I had in mind. No point going halfway with our spelling reform proposals. I think this orthography has a certain "modern" or "technical" look to it -- well suited to the computer age we live in.
Now we just have to sell this to the rest of the English-speaking population :)
We should introduce furigana to English. Subtext which says pronunciation of hard words.