--- In sslist@yahoogroups.com, "Rikd Cmei5" <londheart@...> wrote:
>
> --- In sslist@yahoogroups.com, "jimdotz" <jimdotz@> wrote:
> >
> > The file I have uploaded... is meant to be an example of an
> > alphabet that is based on pre-defined values. It it NOT meant to
> > be a take-it-or-leave-it proposal.
>
> Well that's good, because, as Group creator, I put a picture of a
> famous American on the homepage in a spirit of internationalism,
> hoping that such sentiment would be returned, only to find that
> you're downloading something that begins to make the Group look
> like it really is mainly for Americans. No doubt your proposal is
> close to your heart and not intended to tread on anyone else's
> toes, but - do you see what I mean?


Hi, Rikd...

The picture of Benjamin Franklin was the first feature I noticed
about your site; it gave me hope that, in his spirit, this could
be a practical, productive group, more interested in results than
in theory. I hope you noticed that I quote Franklin in my paper.

I think you may have misinterpreted the spirit of my contribution.
It is meant to be an example of the kind of result that can emerge
out of working from a set of clearly defined values. I admit freely
that it is biased toward American English. That is a result of my
choice to use General American as the spelling accent. I genuinely
hope to expand my thinking internationally.


> The good news is that we seem to have started with a balance: a
> Briton, an Australian (going by 'au'), and an American. But the
> usual absence of English-speaking Africa, etc.


I look forward to considering the whole family of accents. I would
also like to add Indian and Carribean English accents to your list.


> > What I hope is that we can establish a values-based framework
> > upon which to build a final product.
>
> Or 'products.'
> I feel that the idea of one 'final product' goes against a) the
> concept of continual progress, b) the personal freedom which the
> new technology brings, and c) personal privacy - surely everyone
> is free to spell as they like in the comfort of their own home,
> especially when there is no-one else involved (e.g., when reading
> something, or writing for oneself)? But that doesn't necessarily
> imply that they don't want ideas and suggestions from others.


I agree. First, let me say that I expect any results we produce to
be re-evaluated at least once every century. Accents evolve. It is
the failure to account for that fact that got us into this mess.

I will suggest that we develop several "intemediate" alphabets in an
effort to better understand the specifics of how the various accents
differ. By systematically varying the values used to create each
"intermediate" alphabet, we can compare outcomes dispassionately,
and then, ONLY then, should the compromising between accents begin.

In short, I think we need to give each (major) accent a fair chance
to be "the spelling accent", and once we have that accomplished, we
can then work toward unification.


> 'Qixpel' doesn't go well with the phrase 'final product.' It
> employs keyboard numerals, which can't be capitalised, thus
> silently suggesting that perhaps we even need to look at alphabets
> and keyboards/keypads. Not all that revolutionary in view of the
> texting community, is it? Or, on the other hand, as I think Steve
> Bett once suggested, will the constraints involved in texting
> disappear with technological progress and personal comms
> equipment upgrades? This is a difficult field where one can't feel
> certain of anything.

While we need to consider the technology of spelling, it is only
one of the many values we should consider. Others include the degree
of pure phoneticism, the degree of phoneme-grapheme uniqueness, the
use of non-traditional symbols, use of a single case or dual case,
the role of traditional conventions such as silent letters and
capitalization, etc.


> > It seems to me that the neverending chattering in other
> > spelling reform groups is pointless blather without such a goal.
>
> I'm glad you said that, because it was on the basis of that common
> sentiment that I set up Saundspel 2 (which Qixpel grew out of) and
> perhaps it also influenced the setting up of this one. Without the
> constraint of group democracy, and respect for it, I felt, the
> moderator could virtually ensure that conclusions, even tentative
> ones, were never reached, and lead discussion into an interminable
> and credibility-lacking oblivion. And this when there are forces
> at work in the spelling reform movement who seek to impose.
> By a weird coincidence, yesterday's English and Spanish 'Words of
> the Day' seemed relevant to this particular spelling reformers'
> concern, so I couldn't resist forwarding them.
>
> > I look forward to developing a productive working relationship
> > with everyone here, so let me start by asking you to think about
> > the values that should be built into a Reformed English Alphabet.
>
> Again, I'd have to take issue with the indefinite article singular.
> I'm not sure we even want a 'Final Solution' to end all debate.
> It's a possibility, perhaps even a desirable one - but not
> necessarily. One thing perhaps worth thinking about is that people
> use spelling in very different situations with very different
> constraints.
>
> Rikd

I agree that the debate should never die, but it MUST make progress,
or we will forever be mired in our current awful system.

...Jim (from Long Island, New York)