Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Hill Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.misc Subject: Re: Spelling reform on the keyboard? Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:41:13 +0100 Organization: timil.com Lines: 68 Message-ID: <52b36b88e4tim@invalid.org.uk> References: <77e2a26c52.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: GqAcIUbqh27oTTI3Dt5hJw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Pluto/3.04c (RISC-OS/5.18) NewsHound/v1.50-32 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.acorn.misc:5905 In article , wrote: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 2:55:24 AM UTC-6, Michael Bell wrote: > > I am a spelling reformer Good luck with that because words in English will NEVER be phonetic because we continually absorb foreign words which follow their own rules! I imagine you know how Ghoti is pronounced. A friend dropped that nickname: too many people called him 'Goatey'. > > and a member of > > http://www.spellingsociety.org/ One of the problems of spelling for > > English is that we only have only 26 letters for 44 sounds. One of > > the things we do is to use two letters together to write one sound, > > eg 'th' for the teeth on tongue sound in "the". The > > trouble with that we sometimes want to use them to sound separately, > > as in "foothold". So we need more letters, handwriting is > > not a problem, we can all learn, the big obstacle is mechanised text, > > and here technical progress has been in favour of reform, there are > > more letters, with unicode codings. All modern screens and printers > > will show and print these characters. We cannot let a subsequent > > text editor combine t + h to give Þ unless it has a great deal of > > knowledge of what is and is not corrent, in effect a spell-checker. > > How can we produce them on a qwerty keyboard? [Snip] > I would start by looking at already existing keyboards; [Snip] The one in front of you? ;-) Though it may give you only 12-ish, Isn't this one reason why more apps should support user-defined function keys as well as their own multifarious use of same? I have /for years/ had Key 9 |U in an Obey file in ADFS::harddisc4.$.!BOOT.Choices.Boot.Tasks This enables a single keypress to delete a line in some 'real' RISC OS (style-guide compliant?) apps, instead of the stretch which is required with the left hand - when the right is bemoused. Unfortunately, many (incomplete?!) applications appear to ignore User-Defined Function Keys. :-( There was even one macro inserter which used to link to the function key definitions. I forget which. At least that gave you a means to define them in the desktop, rather than at 'tinkering' level. There could be something like that in configure to insert whatever system-wide phonemes you want. System wide recognition of good, old UDFKs would go a long way to provide some users with the extra keypresses they desire. Once the key definition contains or generates the character definition you want, then it's just a matter of ensuring that developers include support in some way and allow extended spell-checkers with user dictionaries. -- from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com. * Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg * Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone * Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ ... "I honour'd him, I lov'd him; and will weep my date of life out, for his sweet life's loss" King John, Act iv, Sc.3