Nooalf Discussion
POSTED BY: m52nickerson
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 13:45
VIEWED: 39366
PAGE 6 of 17
You have debated Linguistics Doctorates and they have conceded you were right about the number of sounds in the English language? I would love to have their names and citations of those debates.
Of course I doubt you have those. You think that you can magically write whatever you want here and I have no way of disputing it without me reading your site. That makes zero sense. Whatever you post here I can address, dispute and debunk based on available information. The internet is a wonderful thing. Claims you make on your site do not constitute facts. You can't cite your own website and be taken seriously.
You somehow think that because not all linguistic schools agree on the total number of sounds it indicates the whole premise is flawed. Yet they all agree there are at least 40. You also think that because some people choose to mock you in you own language it somehow means that it proves something or that easy to use means better.
You want me to study your system more, yet you make claims of how easy it is to understand. What do you think I don't get about it? It is a 1 to 1 symbol to sound, supposedly, phonic writing system. I have even brought up pretty specific issues about it, such as the change of "th" to "X". You have addressed few of those. You simply keep going back to your unfounded claims as if repeating them enough times will make them true.
It won't.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You coud keep asking specific questionz till I hav rewritten the entire site here. The X and x for the 2 TH soundz iz explained on the LOJIK page better than I coud off the top uv my hed here.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Find it, de-convert it, and post it.
If you ever hope for this to be taken seriously your answers to questions such as this can't be "download my font and try to decode this page."
You should also know it backwards, forwards, and upside fucking down.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tried to find sum uv the specific exchanjez in the saundspel forum, but they were way back in the late 90z, early 2000z. And the place alwayz wuz hard to navigate.
[url] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/msearch_adv]
I hav had conversationz in email, in forumz, on the fone and in person with hundredz uv people on this subject. I dont hav a perfect memory, so cant say who, where, or wen the 2 or 3 Ph.D.z were.
Closest I can get for you iz Dr. David Boulton at [url] http://www.childrenofthecode.org/] Had a dozen or so conversationz with him over the yirz.
About Digrafs. They are bad lojik.
TH, for example, iz essentailly a set uv statements:
1. T immediately befor H duz not make the T sound
2. H immediately after T duz not make the H sound
3. T and H imediatly next to each other in that order makes the X sound.
But the stoopid just keeps bilding frum there!
TH makes both the X and x soundz and there are a number uv wordz in which they do not make either sound!
But why X ?
Sum uv the advantajez are:
1. Simple, only 2 linez for x and 3 for X.
2. Distinctiv. Hard to mistake for other letterz, even in poor conditionz.
3. Alredy available, or similar.
4. No solid sound association in traditional spelling, making forward compatability eazier.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Tried to find sum uv the specific exchanjez in the saundspel forum, but they were way back in the late 90z, early 2000z. And the place alwayz wuz hard to navigate.
[url] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/msearch_adv]
I hav had conversationz in email, in forumz, on the fone and in person with hundredz uv people on this subject. I dont hav a perfect memory, so cant say who, where, or wen the 2 or 3 Ph.D.z were.
Closest I can get for you iz Dr. David Boulton at [url] http://www.childrenofthecode.org/] Had a dozen or so conversationz with him over the yirz.
Unfortunately your word is simply not good enough in a debate. You can't makes statements such as you did and expect anyone to simply believe you.
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:About Digrafs. They are bad lojik.
TH, for example, iz essentailly a set uv statements:
1. T immediately befor H duz not make the T sound
2. H immediately after T duz not make the H sound
3. T and H imediatly next to each other in that order makes the X sound.
But the stoopid just keeps bilding frum there!
TH makes both the X and x soundz and there are a number uv wordz in which they do not make either sound!
But why X ?
Sum uv the advantajez are:
1. Simple, only 2 linez for x and 3 for X.
2. Distinctiv. Hard to mistake for other letterz, even in poor conditionz.
3. Alredy available, or similar.
4. No solid sound association in traditional spelling, making forward compatability eazier.
Well the first thing is your description of the rule is far more complicated than it really is. You only need a single rule.
"TH" together makes a [ð] (the th in this) sound or an [?] (th in thin) sound.
"TH" basically becomes its own symbol, and the sounds it represents are very close. In fact just learning that "TH" makes a [ð] sound is enough for people to be able to use it effectively.
The only advantage that using X and x has is that they are single letters, but that is not much of one and certainly not enough make a whole sale change.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
This is an interesting discussion.
I think that invented languages can be designed which are more efficient (than English) for the skilled user. There have been various attempts throughout history.
I think the ability to raise children into a society where the language is in use is very useful in its proliferation. One can imagine a colony all electing to use the language, and their children growing up learning it first, and using it readily and instinctively.
This thing being discussed isn't quite an invented language, but rather an invented way to represent a language. But I think the principles and problems are the same.
The average person has no real incentive to learn and employ this thing in their daily lives. It is not useful outside the circle of code adherents. It is a lot like learning Klingon.
Something someone might do for fun or as a hobby, but not as likely to catch on large-scale because the average person will not have interest in adopting it. The effort is better spent elsewhere.
In my opinion.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JO753
The argument is that it's supposed to be intuitive and easy. The problem for me is that I have to sound out every word I don't recognize, almost always more than once. It's as time-consuming as reading license plates and trying to figure them out, but not as entertaining. Anyway, that makes reading VERY slow, as a result of the slowness and difficulty I find I read very few of the alternately-spelled posts.
I have sympathy for a person who has personally found the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and just can't wait to share the revelation with the world. But it doesn't seem to generate a lot of meaning in others, and that fact just isn't getting any traction.
Also, when someone claims they're a mechanical genius, the first thing I want to ask for is proof - show me what you have built that's so awesome. Without proof, it comes across as a wild claim that detracts from the credibility of the claimant.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, M52? Anthony gets it!
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The argument is that it's supposed to be intuitive and easy. The problem for me is that I have to sound out every word I don't recognize, almost always more than once.
How fast coud you read wen you were in kindergarten? Like any skill, practice makes iit eazy. I'v been writing this partly fonetisized junk for 7 yirz in the Skeptics Forum and most uv the memberz dont mind anymore.
Quote:
I have sympathy for a person who has personally found the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and just can't wait to share the revelation with the world. But it doesn't seem to generate a lot of meaning in others, and that fact just isn't getting any traction.
Revolutionz are rarely eazy. Even wen they happen by themselvez with everybodyz willing participation (such az the internet), therez a bunch uv work and long established institutionz bekum obsolete.
Quote:
show me what you have built that's so awesome.
A tall order, since its difficult to explain the difference between sumthing accomplished thru ordinary engineering skill and the rezult uv talent.
I coud tell you about my best example that illustrates the contrast, but that woud just be more text on your screen.
If you hav the patience to try to really understand it, this iz a good example:[url] http://www.zolkorp.com/TRiSeK.html]
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I was tempted to say something snarky about your claim to talent being a failed geometry device.
But then I realized that to even attempt such a failure required more skill than I possess.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Well the first thing is your description of the rule is far more complicated than it really is. You only need a single rule.
"TH" together makes a [ð] (the th in this) sound or an [?] (th in thin) sound.
"TH" basically becomes its own symbol...
Try putting that in a computer program. It will crash into itself instantly.
This is what I'm talking about. Traditional English spelling conditions children to accept nonsence while their minds and brains are in the crucial formative years.
I didnt even list all the problems with the digraph idea. Theres a very big and very obvious wun. 50 quatlooz to the 1st person to state it here!
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME