4 ms·
>> There's no such thing as "phonetically correct alphabet for English", because the diversity of English dialects As I stated in the comments below: "Most di
by thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
>> There's no such thing as "phonetically correct alphabet for English", because the diversity of English dialects
As I stated in the comments below:
"Most dialects could be considered separate languages with varying degrees of shared ancestry. For that reason, I am not including dialects in my generalization."
So, to be more precise, the Deseret alphabet was phoenetically correct for the English spoken by the Utah settlers circa 1850 to 1870.
- feoren 3y agoOne of the main purposes of language -- especially written language -- is to communicate ideas as widely as possible. Excluding "dialects" is excluding the vast majority of English speakers, especially if you define a dialect as anything different from "English spoken by Utah settlers circa 1850 to 1870". There's a reason these conlangs don't catch on: they're rooted in false and frankly hubristic notions about language, such as: - Language never changes. Okay, well, it used to change constantly, but that stops starting now! - The way we talk is obviously correct and will always be correct, and everyone else is wrong. But this is a cool alphabet to know if you really need to write a message to a mid-19th-century Utah settler. Oh, wait, they wouldn't be able to read it either. But I'm sure it made Brigham Young feel superior to everyone else, which was its actual purpose all along.
- elliekelly 3y agoWhen I read Don Quixote I watched Professor González Echevarría’s lectures[1] on YouTube and one of the things he often repeats throughout the course is something along the lines of “the only difference between a different language and a different dialect is an army”. [1]https://oyc.yale.edu/spanish-and-portuguese/span-300 https://oyc.yale.edu/spanish-and-portuguese/span-300