Talk:Phonemic orthography

message: Georgian language claims that there are 14 true alphabets. Anyone know what they are?
:Sounds like a nonsense claim to me... Morwen 23:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: True alphabets

message: How can International Phonetic Alphabet be used as an example of a phonemic alphabet? Don't you see the phonemic x phonetic conflict mentioned later in the article?
: You can do this by using IPA characters in order to write the phonemes of the language. Roman orthography is practically useless for a lot of languages, and the IPA is a good starting point for a phonemic orthography. Sure, it's primarily a phonetic alphabet, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a phonemic alphabet by omitting some features. thefamouseccles
::Quite. The requirements of a phonemic orthography are basically a subset of those for a phonetic orthography . -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International Phonetic Alphabet

message: The article seems to talk equally much on both topics (phonemic and phonetic orthographies). Perhaps rename (and restructure) it to cover both notions?--Imz 06:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to: phonemic and phonetic orthography 

message: How can Interlingua be considered phonemic when the sound [f] can be spelled "f" or "ph", the sound [r] "r" or "rh", the sound [t] "t" or "th", the "c" can be read [k] or [ts], the "ch" can be read [k] or [ʃ], the [k] can be spelled "c", "q" or "ch", the "g" can be read [g] or [ʒ], the "j" can be read [ʒ] or [j], the [ts] can be spelled "c" or "t", the "w" can be read [w] or [v]?
: That characterization of Interlingua is highly misleading. It includes pronunciations that occur only in foreign words ("w" as [w] or [v]), pronunciations that are not generally accepted ("j" as [j]), and repeats one complaint three time in different variations ("ch" as [k] or [ʃ], [k] as "c", "q" or "ch", [ts] as "c" or "t"). Interlingua has a few exceptions to phonemicity, but so does Finnish, which is listed as having good phonemic correspondence.
: Here is a more accurate representation of Interlingua's letters and sounds. There are also the digraphs ph, th, and rh, but they have one sound as well.
:a one sound
:b one sound
:c two sounds
:d one sound
:e one sound
:f one sound
:g two sounds
:h one sound
:i basically one sound, can be a semi-consonant
:j one sound
:k one sound
:l one sound
:m one sound
:n one sound
:o one sound
:p one sound
:q one sound
:r one sound
:s basically one sound
:t marginally two sounds
:u basically one sound, can be a semi-consonant
:v one sound
:w rare
:x basically one sound
:y one sound
:z one sound
:I listed Interlingua as having "a good grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence", not as being phonemic. 66.68.174.245 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize of course that you have weakened the definition of phonemic orthography to make it just mean predictable pronunciation based on spelling without also implying the opposite. Now one can claim that French has a phonemic orthography, which I don't think is the intention. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are different terms for languages where there is a predictable pronunciation based on spelling (e.g. French) and languages where there is a predictable spelling based on sound (I believe Arabic is like this). I can't remember what they are though. Does anyone know? -- Q Chris 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Interlingua, it is a bad example of phonemic orthography.Cameron Nedland 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlingua 

message: For an example of the difficulty in creating a phonemic alphabet for English, the cot/caught merger is probably a better example. Bad/lad split seems to affect less than 10 words, but the caught/cot merger affects a huge chunk of the English language, and is also a lot more recognizable to language enthusiasts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.27.154 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cot/caught merger 

message: It says grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence, which is the usual when talking about the very correspondence. However, it is trully a grapheme-to-(allophone or phoneme) correspondence, isn't it? Take this example (which is from the allophone page): cat v table - those t's are different phonemes, but the same allophone. Because the everyday description is going to be this more common name grapheme-to-phoneme, I think we should keep it; but we should also link out to a separate page that defines it, or if not then at least handle the ambiguity here where it occurs. — robbiemuﬃn page talk 13:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it backwards.  the cat/table example shows the same phoneme but different allophones.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  Yes I do have it backwards!  :)  Ok, I've made a backup of this eternally confusing fact to my page... may I delete this section now? — robbiemuﬃn page talk 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this section in the talk page?  There's no reason to delete it.  Other editors may make the same mistake.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence

message: Hi,
Since there's been a bit of a revert war over using Korean as an example, I thought I'd throw my two bits in. Hangul is morphophonemic, not phonemic. That is, while it restricts itself to phonemic distinctions, it does not simply transcribe words according to their pronunciation, but according to their morphology. We have a bit of this in English with -s. This is pronounced either /s/, as in cats and walks, or /z/, as in dogs and goes, but in all cases it given the same spelling, conflating those two phonemes. German and Russian do the same kind of thing with final stops. For example, German Bad is pronounced /bat/; the /d/ only shows up with a following vowel, as in Baden /baden/. Turkish, on the other hand, is purely phonemic: 'to do' is spelled etmek, as it is pronounced, even though morphologically that first consonant is a dee, as can be seen in ederim 'I do'. (This is just off the top of my head. If the examples are wrong, the principle is still sound.) Hangul is like German here rather than Turkish. It used to be phonemic, but that was changed when the modern orthography was established in the 19th-20th centuries. See Hangul#Orthography. kwami (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thank you very much. You clear up the thing with the intelligible examples. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean 

message: The present list of languages with "a good grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence", is a little arbitrary. I understand it just wants to give some examples, but I feel it would be nice/interesting/useful to make it more systematic. That is, I would like to make a list of languages with excellent, good, fair (etc) levels of regularity in the spelling system. Unfortunately I'm also afraid this could arise endless flame wars over which language is "best"... I'd give it a try, anyway.
:Such a presentation should be based on sources, not only to adhere to our standards but also to prevent such flame wars.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More systematic list of languages with regular spelling 

message: Should Japanese be considered to have phonemic orthography? The Hiragana and Katakana syllabaries have a virtually 100% grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence.
This of course is completely turned on its head when throwing in Kanji...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneeka2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, mostly. (if you ignore kanji, like you said). I would say hiragana orthography is 99% phonemic, though (は/わ and お/を being the most notable exceptions). Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese 

message: I just expanded and rewrote this article by combining the information existing on this same topic from a number of different articles. Information has been taken from:
*grapheme
*phoneme
*morphophonology
*alphabet
*orthography
I now intend to revise those articles by writing the appropriate sections as summaries, with a link to this article as the full exposition.
Victor Yus (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded version

message: The movement represented at shwa.org has a phonemic orthography including gait. This modern system may stand up to the rigors that defeat traditional orthographies in phonemic representation. Opinions on this example would be appreciated.Rgdboer (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone's hobby recreation of IPA with a whole lot of symbols that would need to be learned. Complete orthographies are useless for normal writing, how many people realise that when they say "pin" the p is aspirated but is "spin" it isn't? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern orthography 

message: In this page, it's said that language that have phomenic orthography doesn't have separate word for "to spell". But in Malay, at least Indonesian, have a word "mengeja" with same meaning. Malay alphabet is nearly phomenic, with exception the word that is from loanword, like "bank", and also have no separate word for e schwa and front e.  — Christian Irwan (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always ask, "how do you write it?", which would be the same thing.  We should never claim a language has no word for s.t. unless we have a very good source.  — kwami (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malay word for "to spell" 

message: In the morphophonemic features section, it states that the English past tense morpheme is written -ed regardless of whether it is pronounced as /d/, /t/ or /ɪd/. I don't believe this to be strictly true, as in British English the words spelt, spilt, smelt, learnt etc are perfectly valid spellings. Also, AFAIK the past tense forms of feel, lean and sweep are always felt, lent and swept. Granted, there are some words "spelt"-ed regardless of regional variation, such as kicked, tossed (although I believe these two both had now obsolete -t forms: kickt and tost) and brushed, the statement still seems to be inaccurate. Thoughts? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 'lent' is past tense of 'lend'; I think lean is always 'leaned' in past tense, but not sure. You're completely correct, though. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusive ''-ed'' spelling of the past tense morpheme

message: "In an ideal phonemic orthography, there would be a complete one-to-one correspondence."
I beleave the article misses the fact that Serbian language using the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet developed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić is the only one which has this perfect "one-to-one correspondence". The Serbian Cyrillic alphaber was adopted by late 19 century and was created by Karadzic on the principle of "write as you speak and read as it is written". The alphabet consists of 30 letters each one corresponding to a different sound, and allways that sound, regardless of the letter combinations. Also, it has no diacritics neither hard/soft signs as other Cyrillic alphabets do. Practically most people in former Yugoslavia know this uniqueness of the Serbian language and alphabet, possibly no one came here to add that information simply because they missed this article. FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideal phonemic orthography 

message: some words are spelled differently and here are some examples;
basin- bäsín
anamorph-
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cf6f:9560:80dc:a9f0:1d42:eda0 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  phonetic words 

message: "A disputed example of an ideally phonemic orthography is Serbo-Croatian language. In its alphabet (Latin as well as Serbian Cyrillic alphabet), there are 30 graphemes, each uniquely corresponding to one of the phonemes. This seemingly perfect yet simple phonemic orthography was achieved in the 19th century,"
Disputed by whom? And why seemingly perfect?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.114.196 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section sounds like Serbo-Croatian language dos not have ideal phonemic orthography 

message: Hang on, why is Breton on the list? It doesn't even have a standardized form and its pronounciation varies 76.157.162.44 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breton shouldn't be on the list