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: /&/ /E/ /I/ /Q/ /V/ 'Long' Series /Ej/ /i:/ /Aj/ /@u/ /u:/ Others: /U/ (some dialects) /@/, /3:/(also syllabic marker) /A:/ as in 'father'. /A:/ (/&/ in most dialects) /O:/ Not conclusive, but a fairly good summary. Consonants ------------ Stops: /p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ /g/ Fricatives: /f/ /T/ /s/ /v/ /D/ /z/ /h/ Nasals: /m/ /n/ Approximants: /r/ /l/ /w/ /j/ 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?