A - a
B - b
(C -c has been removed because it is useless)
D - d
E - e
F - f
G - g
H - h
I - i
J - j
K - k
L - l
M - m
N - n
O - o
P - p
(Q - q has been removed because it is useless)
R - r
S - s
T - t
U - u
V - v
W - w (renamed "wynn")
(X - x has been removed because it is useless)
Y - y
Z - z
Þ - þ (thorn)(this letter makes the "th" sound as in "the")
Ʃ - ʃ (esh)(this letter makes the "sh" sound as in "should")
Ŋ - ŋ (eng)(this letter makes the "ng" sound as in "singing")
Don't I know you from the flat earth forums awhile ago?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 15:08
Why get rid of X? Let's use it for /ʃ/ instead of Ʃ.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 16:22
Xut up, xitpuxer. Xeex.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 18:08
Áj fink inglis sud bí riten jüzing -- ó, sit, dér iz nó þ in disz álfábet (áj szupóz jü kud üz "th", thó). In ádisön, it luksz fuking wírd. Át líszt /dʒ/ iz ízi tü reprizent, thó.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 20:26
I think English should be written using English, how about?
J̬oz̬ sistemz az̬ sili. J̬uz δə J̬uz̬älik Fənətik Älfəbet insted. Džəst luk ät häu̯ kul it luks!
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-16 19:39
>>63
Nonsens, the skript Ä diväzd iz simplï mór efišwnt end fankšwnwl, the simpwl glič konsɵrning the letwr 'w' wil sún bï rïzolvd ven Ä fänd a rïplësmwnt for the vavwl.
Agreed. This change in the alphabet is much needed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-16 21:48
This change is mainly about the sounds, not the alphabet. As it is, the alphabet itself is fine, I can write these words you are reading with it, and it is understandable; thus, there is no problem with it. Case closed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 0:13
>>65
Dú jú think this duz not luk gë? Ä, tú, sudjest júziŋ "ə" fór thə tónləs unstresd văwəl. Its a bit hard to täp, thó.
Alsó, jú júz "nav" for "now" -- isənt that ambigjúus? Äv júzd "ă" tú reprizent it hïr, althó Ä dónt think haviŋ a siŋəl letər pɵr văwəl is nesəserilï a gud thiŋ... Thɵr ar far tú meni văwəls in this langwidj! I alsó think "langwidjiz" iz a bit clumzi, but I dón't nó wat thï altɵrnativ iz...
>>62
Djust to ček, šudənt this bï ritən "reprizentid"? Ov kórs, this häläts a probləm... Difərənt däalekts sumtäms prónăns the sëm wɵrd in difərənt wëz. Hă dú langwidjiz with fonïmik órthografïz handəl this, apart from not haviŋ this probləm in thə fɵrst plës?
Bónus points: cănt thï amănt ov erərz Ä aksidentalï mëd in this póst.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 13:23
>>68
(I'm restricted to standard character map at the moment, and can't be bothered to copy-paste, so I unfortunately have to type this post in the old, redundant, ancient way)
Having a single letter for every vowel might not be a good thing, yes, but I believe at least for the most commonly used ones there should be discerning characters, and with the usage of diacritics this could be expanded easily.
The second issue, is a far greater one - and some of the errors I made are indeed related to the way I pronounce those words. Maybe an approach similar to standard german could be taken, a centralized version would correspond to the standard, with a standard speech stemming from it - the other dialects would not be represented as directly - they still would have resemblance, I suppose, but there is only so much that could be done. The problem with this, however, would be deciding what the "central" version is.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 16:48
there is too much printed material and too many speakers of english
it will never be reformed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 17:11
>>70
thanks a lot for that information, captain obvious, that clears things up.