Print

Print


I wanted to ask, if Shwa is phonemic and not phonetic, how does it handle phonemic distinctions in one language that are allomorphs in other languages? Example: Armenian k' and k (/kĘ°/ versus /k/) and the English /k/ sounds or, and I'm hoping someone will confirm I haven't made this up, (Polish?) dark /l/ versus light /l/ and the English /l/. Would, say, English use the dark l or light l form when writing (assuming they're going to be using the same letter for the same sound)?
On 26 Jul 2011, at 18:58, Adam Walker wrote:

> I find the "gaits" quite interesting.  It's one of my favorite parts of this
> script.  I'm not convinced that the script is etirely practicle, but then
> Roman isn't all that practical for some of its common uses either.  I just
> think the use of one script as an alphabet, an (at least pseudo-) abjad and
> an abugida as well as a hangul-type script is a fascinating and novel idea
> that is worthy of a lot more respect than it has thus far been shown here.
> No, I'm not going to adopt it for writing English, but then I'm addicted to
> Roman for that purpose.  But the script itself is fascinating.
> 
> Adam
> 
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> On 25 Jul 2011, at 21:35, And Rosta wrote:
>> 
>>> Forgive my evangelism, but I see the other features of Shwa, beyond
>> simply being a scratchbuilt panlinguistic phonemic script, as adding to its
>> allure:
>>> - it's featural (like Hangul)
>> 
>> Why is that alluring?
>> 
>>> - it only needs a 20-key keyboard
>> 
>> Speech-to-text doesn't need a keyboard at all. Nor does a pencil.
>> 
>>> - (Mr. Everson) the option of using different gaits may make it more
>> familiar to people who aren't using an alphabet
>> 
>> Which means two things. One, that a given gait just makes a pastiche of the
>> script those people are already using (so why should they wish to use
>> something else), and two, that it renders the script illegible to people
>> except for the gait they are used to.
>> 
>>> - I hope it will turn out to be beautiful
>> 
>> Which is in the eye of the beholder, of course. Though the gaits make it
>> unbeautiful to me, since they prevent inter-gait legibility.
>> 
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>>