Some challenges:
- French
- Irish
- Estonian
Give them a fully logographic system with a one-to-one character to morpheme correpondencearilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
That may be a problem with Irish as the two aren't the same. :parilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
What if there are several presigious dialects, or if the "most popular" and "most prestigious" dialect aren't the same?arilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
– An jénéral, k e s k vux fet l dimanc maten?Batrachus wrote:Some challenges:
- French
Deine Rechtschreibung ist sehr häßlich.Skógvur wrote:Ikh habe eine nüwe rekhtskhrijbung für thüwdskh gemakht! Si ist bezzer!
Bitte nicht.Skógvur wrote:thüwdskh
Sicher.Thakowsaizmu wrote:Deine Rechtschreibung ist sehr häßlich.Skógvur wrote:Ikh habe eine nüwe rekhtskhrijbung für thüwdskh gemakht! Si ist bezzer!
The most popular and most prestigious dialects are almost always the same, exeptions to this are extremely rare.Xing wrote:What if there are several presigious dialects, or if the "most popular" and "most prestigious" dialect aren't the same?arilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
Not the case in Sweden according to some poll. People voted for Gothenburg dialect as the nicest one and Stockholm didn't do well at all, and Stockholm is obviously closer to standard.arilando wrote:The most popular and most prestigious dialects are almost always the same, exeptions to this are extremely rare.Xing wrote:What if there are several presigious dialects, or if the "most popular" and "most prestigious" dialect aren't the same?arilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
By popular i meant most speakers.Skógvur wrote:Not the case in Sweden according to some poll. People voted for Gothenburg dialect as the nicest one and Stockholm didn't do well at all, and Stockholm is obviously closer to standard.arilando wrote:The most popular and most prestigious dialects are almost always the same, exeptions to this are extremely rare.Xing wrote:What if there are several presigious dialects, or if the "most popular" and "most prestigious" dialect aren't the same?arilando wrote:Make them have a simple, one to one corrospondence of letter to phenome based on the most popular and prestigious dialect.
There is also the problem that many speakers will use two or more varieties of a language. Further, phonemic analyses are not always uncontroversial, even for a single variety.arilando wrote: By popular i meant most speakers.
This, of course, is a fundamental decision you need to make when designing your own orthography for a natlang which already has one. Do you attempt to create a "realistic" spelling reform (i.e. one that might even hypothetically have some chance of succeeding if you could somehow manage to get official support for it), or or just design a new system based on other considerations (logicality, efficiency, aesthetics, whatever)? In most of my own reform ideas, I've more or less followed the former approach: I try to make spellings more regular, but also to keep them familiar and easily legible. However, since I'm fairly sure none of us is actually seriously trying to replace the established orthography of a language, this is pretty much a matter of taste.Xing wrote:There is also always the trade-off how much of familiarlity one wants to sacrifice for the sake of regularity. It would be one thing if the languages we were dealing with were ideal, theoretical systems, not situated in any historical or cultural context. But natlangs are not such things.
Well, if you create a system where the language only has one standard form, then by definition it won't be pluricentric anymore. Problem solved!Especially for pluricentric languages, it can be rational to make the written language a compromise between the various varieties.