Non-English Orthography Reform

[Zontas]

Here's my solution to the problem. Long and short vowels a written as they normally are. ` is used for T2 and ́ is used for T1.

Swedish

/p/ Pp
/b/ Bb
/t/ Tt
/d/ Dd
/k/, /ɕ/ Kk
/g/ Gg
/j/ Jj
/ɕ/ Sj sj, Ŝŝ
/ɧ/ Hj hj, Ĥĥ
/m/ Mm
/n/ Nn
/ŋ/ Ng ng
/r/ Rr
/ɖ/ Rd rd
/ɳ/ Rn rn
/ɭ/, /ɽ/ Rl rl
/ʂ/ Rs rs
/h/ Hh
/l/ Ll
/f/ Ff
/v/, /ʋ/ Vv
/ɪ/, /iː/ Ii
/e/, /eː/ Ee
/ɛ/, /ɛː/ Ää
/a/, /ɑː/ Aa
/ɔ/, /oː/ Oo
/ʊ/, /uː/ Uu
/ɵ/, /ʉː/ Üü
/ʏ/, /yː/ Yy
/œ/, /øː/ Öö

Norwegian

/p/ Pp
/b/ Bb
/t/ Tt
/d/ Dd
/k/, /ç/ Kk
/g/ Gg
/j/ Jj
/ʃ/ Sj sj, Ŝŝ
/ç/ Hj hj, Ĥĥ
/m/ Mm
/n/ Nn
/ŋ/ Ng ng
/ɾ/ Rr
/ɖ/ Rd rd
/ɳ/ Rn rn
/ɭ/, /ɽ/ Rl rl
/ʂ/ Rs rs
/h/ Hh
/l/ Ll
/f/ Ff
/ʋ/ Vv
/ɪ/, /iː/ Ii
/ɛ/, /eː/ Ee
/æ/, /æː/ Ææ
/ɑ/, /ɑː/ Aa
/ɔ/, /oː/ Oo
/ɔ/, /uː/ Uu
/ʉ/, /ʉː/ Üü
/ʏ/, /yː/ Yy
/œ/, /øː/ Øø

Danish

/pʰ/, -/p/ Pp
/b̥/ Bb
/tˢ/, -/t/ Tt
/d̥/, -/ð̞/ Dd
/kʰ/, -/k/, Kk
/g̥/, -/ɪ̯/ Gg
/f/ Ff
/ʋ/, -/ʊ̯/ Vv (syllable-coda <g> after a back vowel is changed to <v>)
/s/ Ss
/ʁ/, -/ɐ̯/ Rr
/h/ Hh
/m/ Mm
/n/ Nn
/j/, /ɕ/ (after t, d) Jj
/l/ Ll
/ʌ/, /ɔː/ Åå
/ɔ/, /oː/ Oo
/u/, /uː/ Uu
/ɛ/, /ɛː/ Ææ
/e/, /eː/ Ee
/y/, /yː/ Yy
/i/, /iː/ Ii
/ø/, /øː/ Øø

The stød is represented by <h>

Icelandic

/pʰ/ Pp
/p/ Bb
/tʰ/ Tt
/t/ Dd
/kʰ/, /cʰ/, -V/x/(s or t) Kk
/k/, /c/, -V/ɣ/ Gg
/j/ Jj
/θ/~/ð/ Þð, Zz (translit.)
/s/ Ss
/v/ Vv
/h/ Hh
/i/ Ii
/ʏ/ Üü
/ɛ/ Ee
/ɔ/ Oo
/œ/ Öö
/a/ Aa

Faroese

/m/ Mm
/n/ Nn
/p/ Pp
/b/ Bb
/t/ Tt
/d/ Dd
/k/, /tʃ/ Kk
/g/, /dʒ/ Gg
/f/ Ff
/s/, /ʃ/ Ss
/ʒ/ Zz
/h/ Hh
/ʋ/, /v/ Vv
/ɹ/ Rr
/l/ Ll
/j/ Jj
/w/ Ww
/a/, /ɛaː/ Aa
/ɔ/, /ɔaː/ Åå
/ɛ/, /eː/ Ee
/ɪ/, /iː/ Ii
/ʊɪ/, /ʊɪː/ Üü
/ʊ/, /uː/ Uu
/ɔ/, /oː/ Oo
/œ/, /øː/ Øø
/œ/, /ɔuː/ Öö
/ʏ/, /ʉuː/ Yy

Elfdalian

/ɑ/, /ɑː/ Aa
/e/, /eː/ Ee
/i/, /iː/ Ii
/o/, /o:/ Oo
/ɔ/, /ɔː/ Åå
/ʉ/, /ʉː/ Uu
/ʏ/, /ʏː/ Yy
/æ/, /æː/ Ææ
/œ/, /œː/ Œœ
/p/ Pp
/b/ Bb
/t/ Tt
/d/ Dd
/k/ Kk
/g/, /ɤ/ Gg
/f/ Ff
/v/ Vv
/ð/ Ðð, Dh dh (translit.)
/s/ Ss
/h/ Hh
/j/ Jj
/w/ Ww
/dz̙/ Zz
/ts̙/ Cc
/r/ Rr
/ɭ/, /l/ Ll
(nasalization is marked by an ogonek)

I'm sorry Ossicone, all Scandinavian languages' orthographies are to hard for me to produce an example

Here's some examples (a little rusty, but I did my best)

Nurdanvindän o sulän tvi'estadä än gong om väm av dom som var starkast. Jüst do kom än vandrarä vägän fram insvept än varm kapa. Dom kom do öväräns om at dän som först kündä fo vandrarän at ta av säj kapan, han skülä anses vara starkarä än dän andra.

Jeg veit, furdan mannen, sum dü snakker um, ser üt.

Jeg ved, furdan mannen, sum dü snakker um, ser ut.

Can't find any Faroese samples that give Ipa.




Marginal Phonemes

/dʒ/ Dj dj
/tʃ/ Tj tj
/z/ Zz
/dz/ Dz dz
/ts/ Ts ts
/ʒ/ Zj zj
/w/ Ww
/æ/, /æː/ Ææ

[Ossicone]

I too can go to a lang's wiki page and assign letters to the phonemes listed.
You don't even give us a sample sentence or words.

[Zontas]

I too can go to a lang's wiki page and assign letters to the phonemes listed.
You don't even give us a sample sentence or words.

Give me five minutes, I had to take a shower.

[MrKrov]

Your five minutes are up.

[Zontas]

Your five minutes are up.

Okay. Go read my edits.

[Xing]

Here's my solution to the problem. Long and short vowels a written as they normally are.

The marking of vowel-length by doubling of the following consonant is one of the most problematic parts of Swedish orthography. There are quite a few exceptions to the rules, and this could be made more consistent (maybe that's what you propose).

` is used for T2 and ́ is used for T1.

I don't think it needs to be marked (since it's mostly morphologically determined). OTOH, marking of stress could mark a purpose - especially in longer words, where it may be unpredictable.

/ɧ/ Hj hj, Ĥĥ

/ɖ/ Rd rd
/ɳ/ Rn rn
/ɭ/, /ɽ/ Rl rl
/ʂ/ Rs rs

In many dialects, [ɧ] (I suppose that you mean the [x]-like sound) and [ʂ] are in complementary distribution. Also, it may look a little strange to write <Rd>, <Rn> and <Rl> with a capital <R>, since they never occur word-initially.

/ɔ/, /oː/ Oo
/ʊ/, /uː/ Uu
/ɵ/, /ʉː/ Üü

I don't see what's wrong with the present spellings:

/ɔ/, /oː/ Åå
/ʊ/, /uː/ Oo
/ɵ/, /ʉː/ Uu

The only problem is that <Oo> is sometimes used instead of <Åå> to represent /ɔ/ or /oː/.

[Xonen]

I guess that the english speaking audience is rather dominant in my mind

So basically, you're making an Estonian orthography for English speakers? Well, one of those matters of taste, I guess, but somehow, I can't help but feel that it might be somewhat more logical to make an Estonian orthography for, you know, Estonian speakers. (Well, except in that they already have one that works just fine.)

I thought <k> was always /k/.
Then Swedish happened.

I know about that. I guess they should use <c> instead. I mean a palatalized k. Was zum Teufel!

Sound change. AFAICT, Swedish <k> pretty much always reflects historical /k/. In most (but not all; there are still a few where <k> is always /k/) dialects, that changed to /c/ before front vowels, and thence to /cC/ to /ts\/ to either /tS/ or /s\/. /tS/ is standard in F-Swedish, and for that, I guess <k> an acceptable symbol. However, I do feel that <k> for /s\/ is kinda pushing it. Then again, I'm not sure if any other letter could represent the variation in different dialects much better... I guess <c>, as you suggest, could kind of work.

---

I too can go to a lang's wiki page and assign letters to the phonemes listed.
You don't even give us a sample sentence or words.

This. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't get the point of just posting lists of phonemes and graphemes, especially not for several languages at once. What purpose is that supposed to serve? Teach us a whole lot of pronunciation rules in orthographies nobody actually uses? I'll pass, thanks. To make things interesting, you'd need, at the very least, to post a sample of what the language would actually look like in your orthography. I'd also like to see some actual discussion on the logic you've been using in making your orthography.

Again, possibly one of those matters of taste, I guess. But I'm starting to think that maybe we should split this thread somehow to accomodate the different approaches.

[Ceresz]

Okay, I noticed this last night, but I was tired so I waited till morning to make a post and now a lot of what I wanted to say has already been said, but there are a few things I'd like to add.

---

I'm sorry Ossicone, all Scandinavian languages' orthographies are to hard for me to produce an example

If you can't even provide us with an example of your work, then why bother? There's a transcription of The North Wind and Sun on the Swedish phonology page, which tells me that you didn't look very hard. You simply glanced at the list of of supposed phonemes without doing any other research . Have you even thought about the various dialects?

I can tell you right now that, while I'm not an expert, I find the Faroese list of phonemes on Wikipedia very suspicious. Someone recently changed them for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure that [ʂ] isn't a phoneme in Faroese, and that [ɬ] probably represents the voiceless allophone of /l/. Like I said, I'm no expert on Faroese either, but if you'd done just a tiny bit of research beyond Wikipedia you would've noticed these things too.

As for [ʐ]... It looks like some kind of variation of [ɹ], so I'd be careful calling it a phoneme. Anyway, Faroese can be a tricky beast. I've seen [tʃʰ tʃ] represented as [cçʰ cç], lists with and without [w]... so, yeah. If you really want to get it right, I'd do some research if I were you.

I guess <c>, as you suggest, could kind of work.

But it wouldn't -- <c> is pronounced as before front vowels. I really don't see the problem with <k> for [ɕ] before front vowels, maybe because I grew up with it, but once you learn the exceptions to the rule it's not all too bad.

Again, possibly one of those matters of taste, I guess. But I'm starting to think that maybe we should split this thread somehow to accomodate the different approaches.

That might be a good idea, but I'd much rather prefer if people put some more thought into their orthography reforms.

[ABC]

Hungarian spelling looks especially ugly to me. Therefore,

/ɒ/ - a
/a/ - ä
/a:/ - aa
/e/ - e
/e:/- ee
/i/ - i
/i:/ - ii
/o/ - o
/o:/ - oo
/u/ - u
/u:/ - uu
/ø/ - ö
/ø:/ - öö
/y/ - ü
/y:/ - üü
/p/ - p
/b/ - b
/t/ - t
/d/ - d
/c/ - q
/ɟ/ - j
/k/ - k
/g/ - g
/f/ - f
/v/ - v
/s/ - s
/z/ - z
/ʃ/ - sh / š
/ʒ/ - zh / ž
/h/ - h
/ʦ/ - c
/ʣ/ - dz
/ʧ/ -ch / č
/ʤ/ - dzh / dž
/l/ - l
/r/ - r
/j/ - y
/m/ - m
/n/ -n
/ɲ/ - ń / nh

Seekešfeheervaaron sületett. Apai najapya, Orbaan Mihaay aallatorvoššegeed eeš aallatteńeesteeši brigaadvezetöö a maasodik vilaaghaaboruu utaan került Alčuutdobozra, ahol gazdaalkodaaššal foglalkozott. Eedesapya Orbaan Jöözöö mezöögazdašaagi üzemmeernök, eedešańya Šiipoš Eržeebet joojpedagooguš eeš logopeeduš.

[Ceresz]

Am I the only one who likes the current Hungarian orthography? I don't know much about it when it comes to its history, nor do I know much about various Hungarian dialects. Are there any specific problems with the orthography that you'd like to fix, or is this mainly a matter of aesthetics?

Edit: Oh, 2-4's post vanished.

[ABC]

Are there any specific problems with the orthography that you'd like to fix, or is this mainly a matter of aesthetics?

Aesthetics. I dislike medieval-style digraphs like zs, cs or sz. BTW, is Magyar your native language ?

[Ceresz]

No, why? Because of the <sz> in my nick ? That <sz> represents [ʃ], not .

[Zontas]

I added a few examples and significantly revized the exigeiology.

@Xing I changed those three letters for mainly aesthetic reasons.

And yes, I mean regularizing the length.

[Zontas]

No, why? Because of the <sz> in my nick ? That <sz> represents [ʃ], not .

I always pronounce it /ʒ/.

[Xing]

Nurdanvindän o sulän tvi'estadä än gong om väm av dom som var starkast. Jüst do kom än vandrarä vägän fram insvept än varm kapa. Dom kom do öväräns om at dän som först kündä fo vandrarän at ta av säj kapan, han skülä anses vara starkarä än dän andra.

I see that you change all short <e>'s to <ä>. What's the reason behind that choice? It's true that short <ä> and short <e> has merged in the standard language (as opposed to some dialects), but since there are so many common function words with <e>, I wonder if I would not choose <e> instead for the short vowel (it would also be consistent with older spelling practice, since <e> was probably more common before the spelling reform of 1906).

You don't seem to have any way of marking vowel/consonant length. (Or have I missed anything?)

tvi'estadä

[pittmirg]

Are there any specific problems with the orthography that you'd like to fix, or is this mainly a matter of aesthetics?

Aesthetics. I dislike medieval-style digraphs like zs, cs or sz.

While admitting the similarly medieval-style <sh>, <zh>, <ch>. But they're inspired by English, they're modern. English spelling conventions can be modern even when they reflect a Middle English pronunciation rather than the present one.

Hey, the háček idea has its roots in the medium ævum as well. Though the carons used to be dots initially, iirc.

[Creyeditor]

Okay, I admit: Orthography reforms of non-english languages was a game for me. I searched for the phonemes on Wikipedia and tried to work out a system to represent them. No, it was not difficult but it was fun. Real life Orthography reforms are kind of boring, because I know them from German. People always fight about etymology and pronounciation, about complexity and simplicity and in fact it doesn't really matter.

[Xonen]

I guess <c>, as you suggest, could kind of work.

But it wouldn't -- <c> is pronounced as before front vowels.

Not in the Great New Intuitivitified Swedish Orthography of the Future it isn't.

I really don't see the problem with <k> for [ɕ] before front vowels, maybe because I grew up with it

Exactly. Whether or not a certain spelling seems to make sense is of course at least partially a matter of how closely it resembles what you're used to - and obviously, the system you're most used to will in most cases be the one that's used for your native language. However, for anyone who hasn't grown up with Swedish orthography (and specifically as it's used in Sweden), [ɕ] doesn't really seem to bear much resemblance to any value of <k> we're likely to be familiar with.

[hr][/hr]

Okay, I admit: Orthography reforms of non-english languages was a game for me. I searched for the phonemes on Wikipedia and tried to work out a system to represent them.

Yeah, I kinda suspected as much. There's nothing wrong with that, as such, I suppose - but it's not really the point of this thread. We're discussing orthography reforms, and designing an orthography reform is about more than just assigning new letters to phonemes. Frankly, it should be pretty much a no-brainer, IMO, that you can't design an actual orthography for a language without knowing its phonology. And I think we can say we've established by now that looking up a list of phonemes on Wikipedia does not qualify as knowing the phonology.

Now, I guess we could move the "assign letters to lists of phonemes" game somewhere else, and leave this thread for those interested in actually discussing orthography reform?

Real life Orthography reforms are kind of boring

By contrast, I myself find long lists of phonemes and letters with no explanations anywhere incredibly boring. But to each their own.

Also, AFAICT, nobody's said anything about discussing real-life orthography reforms. Wasn't this supposed to be a thread for designing and discussing hypothetical spelling reforms of our own for natlangs?

People always fight about etymology and pronounciation, about complexity and simplicity

Not always, surely. I want to believe there are still some people in this world capable of having an intelligent discussion without it degenerating into a fight.

and in fact it doesn't really matter.

What?

[Creyeditor]

Frankly, it should be pretty much a no-brainer, IMO, that you can't design an actual orthography for a language without knowing its phonology.

Sometimes I doubt that someone can really know the complete phonology of a language. But you are right, one should have some thoughts on it that go beyond a phoneme list.

Also, AFAICT, nobody's said anything about discussing real-life orthography reforms. Wasn't this supposed to be a thread for designing and discussing hypothetical spelling reforms of our own for natlangs?

Yeah, but my orthography for german for example wasn't really a OR it was more like a Jok(r)eform.

and in fact it doesn't really matter.

What?

In Germany even some teachers use the old ortography, you can even find it in recently published books. That's why children cannot learn the new orthography, people write just like they want to, and nobody knows how to write certain words except for some scholars.
So in these days, in countries with a rather low illiteracy rate, it is very difficult to enforce an OR. Just my experience...

[Zontas]

Nurdanvindän o sulän tvi'estadä än gong om väm av dom som var starkast. Jüst do kom än vandrarä vägän fram insvept än varm kapa. Dom kom do öväräns om at dän som först kündä fo vandrarän at ta av säj kapan, han skülä anses vara starkarä än dän andra.

I see that you change all short <e>'s to <ä>. What's the reason behind that choice? It's true that short <ä> and short <e> has merged in the standard language (as opposed to some dialects), but since there are so many common function words with <e>, I wonder if I would not choose <e> instead for the short vowel (it would also be consistent with older spelling practice, since <e> was probably more common before the spelling reform of 1906).

You don't seem to have any way of marking vowel/consonant length. (Or have I missed anything?)

tvi'estadä

Xingoxa Yes I made short <e> /e/ for disambiguation purposes, shoulda kept it in in final -en or -et.

I didn't find a single source that told me consonant length was phonemic in Swedish (Ceresz, Ossicone I used more sources than Wikipedia, but I did the Scandinavian ones in a hurry so that's why it looks unlegit). As for vowels, I used the following rules 1) long in an open syllable, 2) short in a closed syllable, 3) an apostrophe denotes irregularities.