Re: [9fans] Simplified Chinese plan 9

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> That's true but isn't exactly the same thing. "Irregularly" pronounced
> combinations are still valid combinations. I'd say the universal example
> for languages that are written in Latin alphabet or a variation thereof
> would be the (notorious) 'fgsfds.' It's an invalid combination because
> there is _no_ pronunciation at all--except 'figgis-fiddis' which is a
> really recent, and ground-breaking, invention ;-)

by this definition, one could devise a valid input method
with which it would be impossible to type "xyzzy".

> no written language stands independent of its pronunciation rules.
> alphabets need a somewhat larger set of rules than syllabaries, but
> that's true independent of language.

i'm not sure they are fully dependent.  consider acronyms.  or even
variable names.  (sometimes these need to be referred to
in speech.)  there are special hacks for making these
pronouncable.  in mathematics the same symbol can
have many pronunciations that depend entirely on the
context.

i'm not a linguist, but the linguists i know subscribe to the
viewpoint that the written and spoken language are separate.
and evolve separately.  i would derive from this that writability
is independent of pronouncability.

trying to think as a linguist, i would consider spoken acronyms
to be cognates from the written language.

as an homage to j. arthur seebach i'd say, "english is *neat*".

- erik