| Quote: | |  | |
| Moreover there's an interesting guide on how to write Allemanic, geared towards Wikipedia contributors. It may be of use to those who are in the writing group. Link | |
| | |
Yes and no. The Wiki alemanisch is written in different kinds of spelling anyway, they do not respect all these rules.
They can write how they like, but there are a couple of purely etymologically wrong decisions. One example:
| Quote: |  | |
| falsch isch zum Byspil: "er isch z Basel gbore" -richtig: er isch z Basel gebore (no besser: z Basel uff d Wält ko) | |
| | |
Of course, it is wrong to write gbore, because it is just not said that way. But
gebore is a local or modern ge- prefix that does not stand the history of the area:
When g- stands before p,t,k, it is absorbed (assimilated) by it and there is no trace of it. This is why he writes
ko in the example above (for gekommen).
When g- stands before b.d,g, it is also assimilated, but it mutes them to p,t,k. Actually, if you want to be linguistically perfectly accurate, you should historically linguistically correctly write
pore for
geboren. If you argue that your alemanic dialect does not have p,t,k anyway, then it just assimilates totally as b,d,g and there is not
ge- as this -
e- is an etymologic contradiction.
But there is nothing wrong with a modernized form, as long as one knows it is a modernized form and one accepts it as such.
This website does not give a satisfactory spelling answer to the long vowels, they do as they want and how they feel. Fine, nothing wrong with that but why just with the long vowels and not the rest too? They want a normalization of the spelling, they should not forget parts of it on the way.
In other words: it is an attempt to propose a unifying spelling, but it is as weak as any other attempt made before. If you write Swiss German or Alemanic, make you own decisions based on the linguistical facts you can get your hands on, and this message is just yet an other very limited and modest stone to that building.