Non-English Orthography Reform

[Xonen]

1) I didn't know outside of a few irregular verbs that 'thou' had a separate conjugation.

That doesn't really explain why you're using third-person verb forms with it, but that's really no biggie. (That is, thou is instead of, say, thou are; the latter would still be kind of anachronistic, but it would be in the correct person.)

2) My sources usually are omniglot, sources from their page, and sometimes a few essays that pop up upon google. I'm just too lazy to post my sources (now I don't remember them).

I don't think anyone's said anything about posting sources. That's not really the problem here. Sure, if someone asks where you've found some piece of information, it's good to be able to link to a source, but by default, there's no requirement that you need to post sources for everything you say.

[Celinceithir]

I meant to write a longer response to this thread, but it seems Celinceithir already said pretty much everything I wanted say.

I’m very glad that you found my input constructive!

A few things:

1) I didn't know outside of a few irregular verbs that 'thou' had a separate conjugation. I'm sorry for my inaccuracy *bows down*. […]
@ Celinceithir

3) A few of these are for aesthetic, but mostly spread out letter use.

• Lh lh is used instead of Ll ll because the nativized pronunciation of voiceless "l" is the exact same sound.
• /v/ is Vv because of an analogy with other brythonic languages and the fact it's used in Argentine Welsh.
• /D/ is simply Dh dh due to an analogy with Th th.
• Cornish actually has no official orthography, among other things; and Breton while very transparent, isn't very aesthetic and forgot to include the Gwenedeg dialect in the standard.

No problem; it is a common error! There are many common misconceptions about ‘thou,’ and the thought that it takes the 3rd person singular is one of them. At least you avoided the old stumbling block of thou/thee confusion in these posts! Another interesting thing to note, while I’m at it, is that ‘thou’ was not used as the 2nd person singular to refer to each and every person. It was the 2nd person singular informal, and so there existed a T-V distinction in formality similar to tu/vous or du/Sie.

I can entirely understand the thinking behind the majority of the changes that you propose, but I really suggest that, if you’re serious about spelling reforms, taking practicalities and speaker community response into mind are two things that are essential. One of the many lovely things about living in Wales is that the language is everywhere – on signs, on road surfaces, on government correspondence; anything official must be bilingual. As a result, major changes to Welsh orthography would lead to logistical nightmares.

Take changing <ll> to <lh> due to parallels with <rh> (though I must stress, /ɬ/ ≠ /l̥/, the latter of which does not exist in Modern Welsh, so it is a false analogy of sorts.) <Ll> is by far one of the most common letters in Welsh place names; just the component ‘llan’ forms part of around 600-700 place names in Wales. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of signs in the country would have to be changed, and the resultant manufacturing and man-hour costs? Change <f> to <v> and most roads in Wales would have to be repainted, because of how commonly ‘araf’ (slow) appears on them.

There is already ill will towards the language, the cost of translations and the bilingual movement from many quarters without landing the taxpayer with large bills to change things that aren’t broke and don’t really need fixing. I can definitely understand why one would think that the Brythonic languages being written in a similar manner might be a boon (though I would venture to say that most Welsh speakers are not au fait with Breton or Cornish orthography and vice versa), but on the same line, it might be nice for English orthography to be brought more in line with other Germanic languages. Both will not happen – people resist minor changes, such as the 1990 French orthographical rectifications (I certainly am one in that number), let alone major shifts away from well-established orthographies, which completely change the orthographies’ æsthetics.

The key to a successful serious spelling reform is focusing in on the things that are truly inconsistent or confusing and finding a way to address them, without altering the look of the written language to the extent that existing speakers reject the proposals. With Welsh, the process might include disambiguating between long and short vowels before nasals and liquids in the written form – currently, <en> can be read as /ɛn/ as in pen or /eːn/ as in hen, <in> as /ɪn/ prin or /iːn/ as in gwin, etc, and the learner must commit each word’s pronunciation to memory. Use a circumflex when it’s a long vowel that appears in these circumstances – hên, gwîn – and you can make the orthography clearer without changing its look drastically. Get to know the language speaker and learner communities of most languages and you’ll find usually that the last thing folk want is an orthographical sea change, but that a few small fixes to make the existing system more transparent.

[...]To be fair, there could always be of some benefit to change spelling to adapt to other languages - it could facilitate for learners, and to adapt loanwords to the language. Nevertheless, I think it's a quite minor issue, and if there is an established orthography, such changes would probably not outweigh the costs.

And of course, you're 100% right that if you think of spelling reforms as a serious issue, something that could/should really benefit people, rather than as some abstract language game or something very hypothetical - you need some familiarity with the language.

I think we could safely say that the more intricate problems in acquiring spelling reforms are not simply to match each phoneme in a given language variety with some ASCII-compatible character. If that really was the main issue, well, then I think English orthography would have been reformed a long time ago.[...]

Absolutely; if a language does not have an established orthography, it does make sense to create one with links to other, neighbouring languages. That’s why I don’t begrudge modern Cornish and Breton’s use of <k> etc, despite their divergence from traditional orthographical norms – it makes sense that they should use forms that are as clear as possible to Anglophone and Francophone would-be learners, respectively. That’s why I also think that, whilst I’m not a fan of Manx orthography, it shouldn’t be replaced with something more akin to Gaelic varieties, but it should continue to look like a weird Anglo-Welsh hybrid; just a more regular and transparent Anglo-Welsh hybrid. With Welsh itself though, I really think the current conventions aren’t an issue; I would venture to say that the majority of non-Welsh-speaking Anglophones in the UK are aware of the 'infamous’ Welsh <ll>, for instance.

If only it were as simple as replacing each sound with a character! It would quite possibly lead to some unæsthetic orthographies, but would make the job of proponents of language reform much simpler. Instead, a successful reform proposal is all about the finer details and will involve a great deal of compromise too.

[Zontas]

The changes don't have to be taken in to effect on already existing text, but any future text.

Also, the welshified pronunciation voicless l is /K/, and it stems from the same sound change as voiceless r; hence the change.

I am aware of the T-V distinction English once had, but that's a foreign concept and quite unnecessary.

[Celinceithir]

In such a circumstance, people would be surrounded by one orthography (which has a pedigree dating back hundreds of years), and expected to use another, crafted by someone with a cursory knowledge of the language, and filled with unnecessary changes that disfigure a very well-established orthography and which do not address any of the relatively few actual comprehension problems the prior script has? Sorry, but that is preposterous. If the Welsh Assembly ever enacted these changes, they would divorce future generations of Welsh learners, brought up under this system, from easy comprehension of hundreds of years of Welsh literature published beforehand. All for superfluous changes that do nothing to aid comprehension or clarity. Indeed, being surrounded by two systems would detract greatly from that.

I tried to give you some insight from the perspective of an erstwhile resident of Wales, and from a Welsh learner and speaker. I also tried to help you see that successful, reasonable and useful orthographical reform proposals are not about getting up a Wikipedia phonology page, making a list of phonemes and allophones and allotting them new characters that take do not take the previous unanimously conventions much into account. Unless you want to just do it as a game, language reform is hard work and requires real knowledge of the language. On the basis of your response, which skips over the substance of my post, I now feel somewhat annoyed with myself for, evidently, wasting my time on this effort.

I am aware of the T-V distinction English once had, but that's a foreign concept and quite unnecessary.

So resurrecting thou is imperative, but knowing how to use it correctly is not. Got it.

[Xonen]

In such a circumstance, people would be surrounded by one orthography (which has a pedigree dating back hundreds of years), and expected to use another

To be fair, I think that's actually quite a common occurrence with orthography reforms. Road signs and stuff written in the old system don't just get replaced overnight, nor do even all new books or newspapers immediately switch to the new one; there tends to be a transition period that can last like twenty years. (Also, on the matter of toponyms and other proper nouns, it's not out of the question for those to retain their old spellings even once a new orthography becomes established.) Then again, this tends to work out better with less drastic reforms, and in any case, is certainly a good argument against fixing stuff that isn't broken.

I am aware of the T-V distinction English once had, but that's a foreign concept and quite unnecessary.

So resurrecting thou is imperative, but knowing how to use it correctly is not. Got it.

Well, strictly speaking, "thou" was originally a singular pronoun; addressing people in the plural in formal contexts was simply a social convention that was prevalent at a time (and still is in many parts of Europe, but at least waning in others). So I suppose you could make a case for wanting to revive the pronoun without reviving old social norms. Of course, at least personally I find fighting against language change in general pretty quixotic, at best (and especially when the change in question happened centuries ago), but anyway.

[Zontas]

What Xonen said.

Also- Celen just because I want changes to happen doesnt mean I expect them to.

Calm the fuck down!

[Xonen]

What Xonen said.

Just to be clear, I do mostly agree with all of Celinceithir's criticism.

Calm the fuck down!

what

[Celinceithir]

To be fair, I think that's actually quite a common occurrence with orthography reforms. Road signs and stuff written in the old system don't just get replaced overnight, nor do even all new books or newspapers immediately switch to the new one; there tends to be a transition period that can last like twenty years. (Also, on the matter of toponyms and other proper nouns, it's not out of the question for those to retain their old spellings even once a new orthography becomes established.) Then again, this tends to work out better with less drastic reforms, and in any case, is certainly a good argument against fixing stuff that isn't broken.

This much is true; but a sensible reform of Welsh might involve no more than a few score signs being changed. This reform would see the vast majority of signs in Wales being changed, quite possibly several times because I can certainly imagine people defacing them back to the elegant and efficient current system . I'll readily admit to one or two things about Welsh that could benefit a little from disambiguation, but none of those things can be remedied without due detail. All I suggest to is for folk to move away from superficial, big changes and move toward smaller but more meaningful ones if they want realistic changes. It has clearly fallen on deaf ears with Helios in this circumstance, but I hope that other budding spelling reformers might take something from that advice.

Well, strictly speaking, "thou" was originally a singular pronoun; addressing people in the plural in formal contexts was simply a social convention that was prevalent at a time (and still is in many parts of Europe, but at least waning in others). So I suppose you could make a case for wanting to revive the pronoun without reviving old social norms. Of course, at least personally I find fighting against language change in general pretty quixotic, at best (and especially when the change in question happened centuries ago), but anyway.

You have a point there, certainly. I just am somewhat bemused, quite frankly, at attempts to revert language change, which generally are futile. I don't begrudge such attempts - it is a free language, after all - but I can't help but wonder where one draws a rather arbitrary line on what is useful to import from the past and what is not.

Also- Celeninceithir just because I want changes to happen doesnt mean I expect them to.

Calm the fuck down!

It is rather unnecessary for you to address anyone in such an abrasive and vulgar manner, particularly someone who has been trying to help you in the misguided belief that you were interested in the realistic boundaries of spelling reform rather than a 'let's assign different graphemes to things' game. I don't know what alternative universe you're in where I was not 'calm,' or presented my the bulk of my arguments in anything but a patient and equanimous manner, but I sure hope the weather is nice there.

[Zontas]

Perhaps thou misunderstood me. I know the changes wont catch on- I just want them to. The thread is not about how everyone's changes will catch on- but what we want all want to. Also- if thou thinkst that all I am doing is just going to Wikipedia and assigning letters to the phonemes listed- thou have not been paying attention. And you also seemed to fail to notice how thou wast coming off to me- was condescendation required? Oh- and excuse my impolite brevity- I am typing this X-BOX internet.

@Xonen Thou should make a separate thread for a discussion on the revival of "thou". The one going on here is clogging this thread.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Actually, to make it quite clear, I do not have any hope or even thought that any of the "reforms" I have proposed would catch on in the slightest. Indeed, the one for Latin simply cannot catch on, as it would be completely superfluous and silly. I did that purely for fun, as I stated. And, even though it was all for fun, it was better thought out, presented and included more examples than any of the so called reforms you have proposed.

[Zontas]

Actually, to make it quite clear, I do not have any hope or even thought that any of the "reforms" I have proposed would catch on in the slightest. Indeed, the one for Latin simply cannot catch on, as it would be completely superfluous and silly. I did that purely for fun, as I stated. And, even though it was all for fun, it was better thought out, presented and included more examples than any of the so called reforms you have proposed.

Which is why I made a separate thread for "just for fun" posts that Ossicone, being logical and understanding as usual- locked.

[Ossicone]

And I locked it because it looked no more than a random jumble of letters.

If you just want somewhere to post stuff in your 'reforms' you are free to use the spam thread or the language practice thread (there is no rule against personal orthographies).

Edit: You know what, you can use the Rite Inglish yor way! thread for this. I'll rename it the Rite Yor Way! thread but you'll need to provide an English translation.

And finally, if you spent half as much time on your posts as you do whining about why you can't do better posts, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Thakowsaizmu]

And finally, if you spent half as much time on your posts as you do whining about why you can't do better posts, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[CMunk]

The latest version of my phonetic/phonemic orthography for Danish:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23487073/Phonetic%20Danish.pdf

Yes, I know it looks Vietnamese, but it's the result that pleases me the most... so far.

[Thakowsaizmu]

I think your Danish looks cool

[Zontas]

Fransæs/French- Sorta needs to regularize things out don'tya think? Can't be a world language w/out regulation out of chaos. Besides, the French always wanted to one-up the English in something (I proudly boast not even being Indo-European).

Note: All consonants are dropped word-finally if not liason'd. Geminates are doubled graphemes. Geminate hard g is <ghh> before (i, e). If a word lacks liason but the pronunciation is carried if affixes are added, then the grapheme gains an h before it or nm for n, mn for m, gnm for gn, td for t, sz for s, gc for g, hl for l, and zs for z. Said h's and other unpronounced consonants are dropped once the affix is added. <ph>, <bh>, <th>, <dh>, <ch> (hard), and <gh> become <f>, <v>, <t>, <d>, <c/q>, and <g/gh>. <Kk> only appears in names an foreign words.

/m/, / ⁿ/ m if non-nasalizing or non-geminate <mh>
/n/, / ⁿ/ n, if non-nasalizing or non-geminate <nh>
/ɲ/, / ⁿ/ ñ/ gn, if if non-nasalizing or non-geminate <ñh/ gnh>
(/ŋ/) uhhh... ng?

/p/ Pp
/b/ Bb
/t/ Tt, d at the end of some words
/d/ Dd
/k/ Cc (a, o, u) Qq (i, e); at the end if the word is correlated to hard c it becomes -q, if correlated to q then -cq, if correlated to liasoned hard g then -g, soft then -gh
/g/ Gg (a, o, u) Gh gh (i, e)

/f/ Ff
/v/ Vv, also -f
/s/ Ss (-s takes over -ss, -ce, -x in a few words, -s- takes over -ss-)
/z/ Zz (-z takes over -x, -s; -z- takes over -s-)
/ʃ/ Xx or Ch ch, haven't decided
/ʒ/ Jj (takes over -ge)
(/x/) Kh kh

/ʁ̞ʷ/ Rr
/l/ Ll
/ʎ/ ł/ lh -l
/w/ Ww (all places)
/j/ Yy (all places)
/ɥ/ Uu (before a vowel, even <u>)

(/tʃ/) Ch ch or Tch tch, haven't decided
(/dʒ/) Dj dj

<Hh> Used to separate digraphs, and is spelled initially in words that have aspirated h only (bar its name).

/i/ Ii
/e/ Éé/ Aeae
/ɛ/ Ææ/ Aiai
/ɛ:/ Ee -è
/œ/ Œœ/ Oeoe
/ø/ Œ́œ́/ Eueu
/y/ Üü / Uu uu or Uu, haven't decided
/u/ Ůů/ Ou ou or Uu, haven't decided
/o/ Óó or Auau
/ɔ/ Oo
/a/ Aa
/ɑ/ Ââ/ Aaaa
/ə/ -è-, -e (as it never occurs word-initially)

The circumflex is used to differentiate homophones, except for <Aa> which gains an acute accent (for /a/), and a grave accent for /ɑ/.

Example:

Je ne comprand pas.

I don't understand.

Any questions besides "Půrcwe?"

[Omzinesý]

Why should Basque loans be written differently?

[Zontas]

Why should Basque loans be written differently?

It's just for unassimilated loans. All others become (T)ch(t)ch.

Can't think of another language with the digraph <Txtx> representing /tS/.

[Xing]

Wouldn't something similar apply to unassimilated loan-words from any language? Isn't it a part of what it means for loan-words to be unassimilated, that they have not yet (at least not fully) adapted to the phonology and/or orthography of the borrowing language?

[Zontas]

Wouldn't something similar apply to unassimilated loan-words from any language? Isn't it a part of what it means for loan-words to be unassimilated, that they have not yet (at least not fully) adapted to the phonology and/or orthography of the borrowing language?

Oh, well I'll go change it.