Re: Zvelebil/Epstein/McReynold Comparison Rob Zook Fri, 10 Jul 1998 17:42:39 -0500 At 04:49 PM 7/10/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 3:26 PM > > >>Original Brit >>Zvelebil: Epstein: Zook: Reynolds: English: > > >also: > ch tc ? ch church Yup missed that one. I'd put it as tc as well. >>Saul, if you've revised your system, please repost the thing in it's >>entirety. Not everyone may have kept up with all those posts. I just >>posted the orginal, as I remember it. > >I haven't revised it beyond abandoning the extra vowels. You remember >it accurately as far as I can tell, and I'll be going through it all >in a future post to explain its motivations. > >Incidentally, to further confuse matters, I can see a lot of >possibility in the direction of some of Ryan's suggestions. >Especially, if we use and for the sounds in "church" and >"judge" respectively, that eliminates one of the two-character signs >() and one of the three-character signs (). Well, the only thing I don't like about that is it seems less elegant than having the symbols for that set of sounds structurally similar to the IPA versions. With for and for , and for and for . Those I definitely liked, but hey I'm easy about it do, and for does look a little more recognizable than for , if less accurate phonetically. >Also, if we follow the logic of for /x/, we could use for /f/, >freeing to represent the voiceless W (currently at ) and thereby >eliminating the other three-character sign () by replacing it >with ... Now, this idea, I do like. Maybe we can come up with a combination of our three sets of likes and dislikes (and anything else that comes up), that we all can live with? I think we got two votes for the vowel+h diagraphs (hint, hint :). Rob Z. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit! -- The Tick