Gary Shannon wrote:

>Every once and a while spelling reform rears its ugly
>head, and it was one of the first things I looked at
>when starting my project to create mutant English.
>But there is a way to _get_ spelling reform without
>_doing_ spelling reform: Replace the Romanji Aplhabet
>with a syllabary.
>That's raises the question, just how large would a
>syllabary have to be to semi-accurately represent all
>existing English words?
>Is there such a thing as a vowel-first syllabary?
>Some preliminary dinking around seems to show that
>vowel-first symbols (like "ak" and "or" instead of
>"ka" and "ro") might work better for English.

I think we'd need a Cree-oid syllabary.  That is, we allow for consonant
clusters, not as in Japanese.

Okay, well, English has the following (based on RP, possibly one of the
dialects with maximum distinctions) -

Vowels and Dipthongs(treated the same in English, so I'll treat them the
same here)

'Short' Series:


'Long' Series



/U/ (some dialects)
/@/, /3:/(also syllabic marker)
/A:/  as in 'father'.
/A:/ (/&/ in most dialects)

Not conclusive, but a fairly good summary.






Combine as appropriate.

For instance,  'grass' would be spelt with three characters. 'g',
'rA:'(Pronounced as /&/ in most dialects) and 's'.  That would work, right?