Non-English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
DrGeoffStandish
banned
Posts: 581
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53

Re: Íslenska

Post by DrGeoffStandish »

Skógvur wrote:Mixing ‹ø› and ‹ö› would look terrible.
I agree.
Skógvur wrote:Since Icelandic uses accents for historically long vowels, one could possibly have fun with ‹ő› for those.
You're not correct here, Icelandic æ used to be long and has no accent.
Skógvur wrote:There is a difference between the case ‹æ› versus ‹ö› and ‹y› versus ‹i›, and this is the fact that ‹y› isn't actually used for anything else than etymology and could easily be removed, but to try to respect old œ in a way that would be consistent with the rest of the orthography is a much more difficult thing, as there is still retention of the short version,
Old Norse ø - a very rare sound - merged with Old Norse ǫ into ö, that's the point of ö. Compare this with how Old Norse u turned into a "y" [ʏ]; hence, y is also retained, but it's spelled u.
Skógvur wrote:while in this case both long and short y/ý have merged completely into i/í.
There are examples of ø > e (e.g., kømr > kemur), though.
Skógvur wrote:I think the issues are not comparable.
I think they are.
Skógvur wrote:Seriously, though, the orthography is fine. I wouldn't like to do anything with it.
I doubt you've got the power to change it anyway. [:D]
Skógvur wrote:Jag tycker till og med själv att meddelandet ovan för ser surt ut, så om du missuppfattar det som så vore det inget underligt, men det är jag ej, ser jag då till här att nu tala om. Jag bara undrar hvadan engelskan kom, för den tyckte jag lustig här.
Antagligen postade jag meddelandet i fel tråd. [:'(]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen »

Moved the preceding three posts from the Íslenska thread in the Nordic forum.
User avatar
Batrachus
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 118
Joined: 04 Mar 2012 11:35
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Batrachus »

Irish really needs a cyrillic script.
:ces: Native
:slk: Mutually intelligibile with native language
:eng: Almost fluent
:esp: Little
:deu: Little more
:epo: Everybody can speak it!
:con: Speedlang
Fanael
sinic
sinic
Posts: 331
Joined: 19 Jul 2012 21:26

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Fanael »

Batrachus wrote:Irish really needs a cyrillic script.
Fully agree.
I was even thinking about making one.
User avatar
Batrachus
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 118
Joined: 04 Mar 2012 11:35
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Batrachus »

My attept for estonian language:
a, ä, e, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, ö, p, r, s, t, u, ü and v stay.
ë is used for <ɤ>.
y is used to mark palatalized letters.
Short letter are single, long are made by doubling a letter and for superlong acute (or double acute) is used.

If I only had IPA example...
:ces: Native
:slk: Mutually intelligibile with native language
:eng: Almost fluent
:esp: Little
:deu: Little more
:epo: Everybody can speak it!
:con: Speedlang
Thakowsaizmu
runic
runic
Posts: 2518
Joined: 13 Aug 2010 18:57

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Thakowsaizmu »

Batrachus wrote:Irish really needs a cyrillic script.
Thakowsaizmu wrote:Һало! Кимэр а тъа сибъ. Тъа бигэн гальиг агам.
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Íslenska

Post by Xonen »

Morpheus wrote:This is the most important issue in my opinion:

Change y and ý to i and í, respectively; this acknowledgment of the delabialization process is analogous to how Old Norse (ON) ǿ has merged with ON ǽ both in pronounciation and spelling - i.e., æ - in Modern Icelandic.
Examples: styðja v. 'support' and þýða v. 'explain' become stiðja and þíða, respectively. Compare with, e.g., ON bǿn n. 'prayer' which is written bæn in Modern Icelandic.

(Of course, one could alternatively make the orthography more consistent by respecting the distinction between ON ǿ and ǽ. The former could be written ø and the latter æ in Modern Icelandic. Hence, bøn n. 'prayer' but næmur adj. 'quick at learning'.)
So your problem isn't that the phonemes /I/ and /i/ both have two spellings, but rather that the spelling is inconsistent in being more etymological in one place than in another? Now, I can sort of understand this myself, but I'm afraid that's probably an issue only a hardcore language geek would care about. [:D] Most people who actually need to use the orthography in their daily lives are probably not all that concerned by this. A bigger problem for them, I presume, is remembering which words to spell with <i í> and which with <y ý> - and that, I think, might be a real reason to consider getting rid of the latter pair in spelling.

Still, as I've said before, having two spellings for the same sound isn't always just a bad thing. I personally would keep <y ý> at least in the most common words, to disambiguate homophones, and for the i-umlauted versions of <u ú>. In other situations, <i í> could perhaps become acceptable variants, but I don't think I'd go as far as to prohibit using the traditional spellings altogether.
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Íslenska

Post by Xing »

Xonen wrote:
So your problem isn't that the phonemes /I/ and /i/ both have two spellings, but rather that the spelling is inconsistent in being more etymological in one place than in another? Now, I can sort of understand this myself, but I'm afraid that's probably an issue only a hardcore language geek would care about. [:D]
[+1]

The fact that etymological considerations are employed inconsistently need not be a big problem. A small amount of weird spellings need not be something that calls for reform. But if an orthography has too many weird feartures - reform would probably be a desibrable option.
User avatar
CrazyEttin
sinic
sinic
Posts: 435
Joined: 28 Feb 2011 19:43

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by CrazyEttin »

I was bored, so i made up a system to write Finnish in Devanāgarī.

You can use ऎ and ऒ for short e and o, respectively, but the problem comes with ä, ö and y. So i stole diacritic ॔ from Sanskrit (I have no idea what it's used for in that lang) for them, to be used like umlaut in latin script.

Example (From the first poem in Kalevala):

Mieleni minun tekevi, aivoni ajattelevi
मिऎलॆनि मिनुन् तॆकॆवि, ऐवॊनि अयत्तॆलॆवि
lähteäni laulamahan, saa'ani sanelemahan,
ल॔ह्तॆअ॔नि लौलमहन्, साऽअनि सनॆलॆमहन्,
sukuvirttä suoltamahan, lajivirttä laulamahan.
सुकुविर्त्त॔ सुऒल्तमहन्, लयिविर्त्त॔ लौलमहन्.
Sanat suussani sulavat, puhe'et putoelevat,
सनत् सूस्सनि सुलवत्, पुहॆऽऎत् पुतॊऎलॆवत्,
kielelleni kerkiävät, hampahilleni hajoovat.
किऎलॆल्लॆनि कॆर्किअ॔व॔त्, हम्पहिल्लॆनि हयोवत्.
User avatar
Batrachus
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 118
Joined: 04 Mar 2012 11:35
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Batrachus »

It reminds me that I tried to write finnish in cyrillic once [:P]
:ces: Native
:slk: Mutually intelligibile with native language
:eng: Almost fluent
:esp: Little
:deu: Little more
:epo: Everybody can speak it!
:con: Speedlang
User avatar
DrGeoffStandish
banned
Posts: 581
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53

Re: Íslenska

Post by DrGeoffStandish »

Xonen wrote:Still, as I've said before, having two spellings for the same sound isn't always just a bad thing.
As you know, that's not the issue. The issue is the inconsistent treatment; remembering the old [y] sound in the writing is apparently holy, but not remembering the old [ø]. (Nope, spelling it ö and bunch it together with the old u-umlauted a is not how to remember the short old [ø].) Either kep it all or get rid of it all.
Xonen wrote:I personally would keep <y ý> at least in the most common words, to disambiguate homophones, and for the i-umlauted versions of <u ú>.
This principle is something I personally loathe. If two words are pronounced the same they can very well be spelled the same, as long as you are consistent in other aspects of the orthography.
Xing wrote:The fact that etymological considerations are employed inconsistently need not be a big problem.
Well, why being satisfied by a merely functional product when it could be perfect? At least the producer should care, and I consider myself a producer of orthographies. Why am I a member of this community otherwise?
Xing wrote:A small amount of weird spellings need not be something that calls for reform.
i disagree, but you're correct in that the world won't end because of a few anomalies.
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen »

Morpheus wrote:
Xonen wrote:Still, as I've said before, having two spellings for the same sound isn't always just a bad thing.
As you know, that's not the issue. The issue is the inconsistent treatment;
Your issue is the inconsistent treatment. But at that point, I was talking about the issue in the way it's relevant to normal speakers of the language.
Xonen wrote:I personally would keep <y ý> at least in the most common words, to disambiguate homophones, and for the i-umlauted versions of <u ú>.
This principle is something I personally loathe. If two words are pronounced the same they can very well be spelled the same, as long as you are consistent in other aspects of the orthography.
Personally, I'm more interested in how well the orthography functions in practice than in how "consistent" it is in some respects that a normal speaker of the language will never even notice.
Xing wrote:The fact that etymological considerations are employed inconsistently need not be a big problem.
Well, why being satisfied by a merely functional product when it could be perfect?
Because if it's not broken, don't fix it.

I guess it once again boils down to the question of what approach to spelling reform we want to take here:
Earlier in this thread, I wrote: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 a "realistic" reform, "etymological consistency" doesn't rank very highly as a reason to do anything, IMO. In a purely theoretical one, OTOH, there's nothing stopping you from making it your primary concern if that's what you want. But which approach you prefer is ultimately just a matter of taste.
User avatar
DrGeoffStandish
banned
Posts: 581
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by DrGeoffStandish »

Xonen wrote:But which approach you prefer is ultimately just a matter of taste.
Not taste, criteria. My criteria are more sophisticated than yours. I thought you were a conlanger rather than a natlanger. A conlanger is interested in the deeper issues and sees when something fundamental is broken. You say that one shouldn't fix what's not broken. I agree, but apparently I see that something is broken (in Icelandic, for example) while you're not. Exactly what are you doing in this community, Xonen? You're apparently no a conlanger at heart, you're a natlanger and should join another community where practical language learning is in focus.
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Ànradh »

Morpheus wrote:Not taste, criteria. My criteria are more sophisticated than yours. I thought you were a conlanger rather than a natlanger. A conlanger is interested in the deeper issues and sees when something fundamental is broken. You say that one shouldn't fix what's not broken. I agree, but apparently I see that something is broken (in Icelandic, for example) while you're not. Exactly what are you doing in this community, Xonen? You're apparently no a conlanger at heart, you're a natlanger and should join another community where practical language learning is in focus.
He disagrees with you, therefor he shouldn't be part of the forum? What?
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen »

Morpheus wrote:
Xonen wrote:But which approach you prefer is ultimately just a matter of taste.
Not taste, criteria. My criteria are more sophisticated than yours. I thought you were a conlanger rather than a natlanger. A conlanger is interested in the deeper issues and sees when something fundamental is broken. You say that one shouldn't fix what's not broken. I agree, but apparently I see that something is broken (in Icelandic, for example) while you're not. Exactly what are you doing in this community, Xonen? You're apparently no a conlanger at heart, you're a natlanger and should join another community where practical language learning is in focus.
Wow. [:|] I disagree with you on one little thing and this is the response? Jesus.

Anyway, no, you don't get to say who gets to be a member of this board - not to mention to define the level of being obsessed with your idea of "sophistication" it takes to be a conlanger in general. Really, what are you doing in this community - or any community, for that matter? Someone this convinced of their own superiority shouldn't need to exchange ideas with anyone.

---

Oh, and for everyone: There is absolutely no rule against being more interested in natlangs than in conlanging here. Not that designing hypothetical orthography reforms exactly counts as "practical language learning", anyway.
User avatar
Ossicone
vice admin
vice admin
Posts: 2909
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 05:20
Location: I've heard it both ways.
Contact:

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Ossicone »

Morpheus wrote:
Xonen wrote:But which approach you prefer is ultimately just a matter of taste.
Not taste, criteria. My criteria are more sophisticated than yours. I thought you were a conlanger rather than a natlanger. A conlanger is interested in the deeper issues and sees when something fundamental is broken. You say that one shouldn't fix what's not broken. I agree, but apparently I see that something is broken (in Icelandic, for example) while you're not. Exactly what are you doing in this community, Xonen? You're apparently no a conlanger at heart, you're a natlanger and should join another community where practical language learning is in focus.
Modicone: I'm going to issue a informal warning because I think this post (specifically the italicized portion) to be treading closely to breaking the rules. I'd classify telling someone they dont belong on the forum as a personal attack.
The House Rules wrote:1. First and foremost: No flaming. In some places on the net, it's apparently considered acceptable to resort to insults and name-calling at the slightest provocation, but this board isn't one of them. This doesn't mean you aren't allowed to disagree with people, of course. You do have the right to criticize other people's posts, as long as the criticism is constructive and aimed only at the content - but as soon as you start attacking them personally, you're crossing the line.
------

I don't see why being a conlanger should imply anything besides an interest in the creation of languages. Nor do I see why that should/would affect a persons design goals for an orthography. Some people tend to prefer deep systems while others prefer more shallow systems - that is just personal preference. Also, this forum is not solely dedicated to the art of conlanging, that is why we have a subforum on 'Linguistics & Natlangs.'
User avatar
DrGeoffStandish
banned
Posts: 581
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 00:53

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by DrGeoffStandish »

Lodhas wrote:He disagrees with you, therefor he shouldn't be part of the forum? What?
Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it? Morpheus is so cruel. [:'(]
Xonen wrote:Someone this convinced of their own superiority shouldn't need to exchange ideas with anyone.
I'm not superior. Not in linguistics anyway.
Ossicone wrote:Modicone: I'm going to issue a informal warning because I think this post (specifically the italicized portion) to be treading closely to breaking the rules. I'd classify telling someone they dont belong on the forum as a personal attack.
I kindly suggest that you file a report to the highest ranked admin in this community. [tick]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen »

Morpheus wrote:
Lodhas wrote:He disagrees with you, therefor he shouldn't be part of the forum? What?
Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it? Morpheus is so cruel. [:'(]
I don't know about cruel; worse things have happened to me than getting flak for absurd reasons on an internet forum. I do find this rather arrogant, though, and just plain... bizarre. [:S] You ask for people's ideas on an Icelandic spelling reform, and when I provide mine, you basically respond with "mine is better than yours, GTFO from this board". While complaining in another thread about how no-one wants to discuss stuff with you. :roll:
Xonen wrote:Someone this convinced of their own superiority shouldn't need to exchange ideas with anyone.
I'm not superior.
Well, to avoid giving the impression that you consider yourself to be, I suggest not calling your approach to stuff "more sophisticated" (as if that were some kind of objective truth) in the future. Furthermore, and more importantly, I suggest you quit telling people what they need to be in order to qualify as conlangers or members of this board.
Ossicone wrote:Modicone: I'm going to issue a informal warning because I think this post (specifically the italicized portion) to be treading closely to breaking the rules. I'd classify telling someone they dont belong on the forum as a personal attack.
I kindly suggest that you file a report to the highest ranked admin in this community. [tick]
Why should she? First of all, she ranks quite high enough herself that you should take what she says seriously. Second, she didn't call this a serious rules violation; she's just asking you to tone down your rhetoric a bit.
User avatar
Zontas
greek
greek
Posts: 484
Joined: 31 Jul 2011 01:30
Location: Menulis, Miestas, Pragaras

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Zontas »

I love to do these [<3] !

Vietnamese

/m n ɲ ŋ/ m n ñ/nh ṅ/ng
/p t tʰ c k/ p t th c k
/ɓ ɗ/ b d
/f v s z ʂ ʐ x ɣ h/ f v s z j r x g h
/l j w/ l y w

/i ɨ u e əː o ɛ ə ɔ a aː/ i ɨ u ē ö ō e ë o a ā
/˧ ˨˩ ˧ˀ˥ ˧˩ ˧˩˧ ˦˥/ x* x̃ x́ x̀ x̆ x̋
̆
*this tone is unmarked, <x> is also a sample letter.

Example: [Tale of Kieu]

Tram nam trong kóy ṅɨöy tā,
Cɨ́ tā̃y cɨ́ mḕñ xe̋o lā̃ ge̋t ñaw.
Trā̆y kwā mṑt kuṑk bē̆ zëw,
Ñɨ́ṅ dyē̆...etc. This was to the best of my patience.
Last edited by Zontas on 19 Sep 2012 23:45, edited 1 time in total.
Hey there.
User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 01:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Non-English Orthography Reform

Post by Ear of the Sphinx »

Reworking Vietnamese vowels:

/i ɨj uj/ ‹i yi ui›
/ɨəj uəj/ ‹ye ue›
/e əːj oj/ ‹ei əi oi›
/ɛ əj ɔj/ ‹e əe oe›
/aːj/ ‹ai›
/aj/ ‹ae›

/iw ɨw u/ ‹iu yu u›
/iəw ɨəw/ ‹io yo›
/ew əːw o/ ‹eu əu ou›
/ɛw əw ɔ/ ‹eo əo o›
/aːw/ ‹au›
/aw/ ‹ao›

/ɨ/ ‹y›
/iə ɨə uə/ ‹iə/ie yə uə/uo›
/əː/ ‹əy›
/ə/ ‹ə›
/aː/ ‹ay›
/a/ ‹a›

I hope it makes sense.
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Post Reply