Adding letters to the alphabet

A layperson shouldn't have to be concerned with terminology and its nuances anyway, and the deficient spelling is plain as day. How about reconciling your "dogma" with this next lot of pairs? :)
(I'm sure most of the anomalies would apply to your accent too)

his, bis
were, here
wear, hear
there, these
this, his
THat, THank
are, hare
hearse, hearsay
please, lease
was, war
wart, cart
FORester, FORever
choir, reservoir
thyme, rhythm
lose, nose
loose, choose
money, stoney
bone, one
love, move
abode, above
women, woman
cover, hover
proven, oven
bother, brother
trouser, mouser
hood, brood
bury, fury
burry, furry
hurry, slurry
lure, pure
as, gas
bass, brass
base, phase
gross, loss
pour, hour
touch, pouch
tough, bough
cough, rough
laugh, faugh
height, weight
sieve, siege
live, live
luggage, mirage
sabotage, adage
upstage, hostage
Missouri, Mississippi
mule, rule
mute, chute
chute, CHutney
but, put
headache, moustache
cache, attache
vague, argue
said, maid
bread, mead
git, gin
margarine, margarita
beak, steak
elite, incite
police, entice

OK, a few could be phonemes, but boy, we shouldn't have to look so closely. Those dictionaries with pronunciation key sure come in handy for you non-native speakers.

Still not convinced English orthography is demented? I've got plenty more:

row(1), row(2)
crow, brow
now, tow
gnaw, gnat
so, to
he, the
year, bear
tier, trier
wand, hand
wonder, ponder
(mis)use (1), (mis)use (2)
lousy, louse
dose, hose
mISer, mISestimate
mIserly, mIserable
Gel, Gelding
Gild, Giraffe
gem, get
geese, gee
gaol, aorta
sooTHeD, tooTHeD
cooky, kooky
shook, spook
food, flood
floor, boor
child, chill
earth, hearth
desert, dessert
head, bead
beast, breast
deaf, leaf
fiche, niche
tomb, comb
push, lush
chic, chick
chicane, chicory
siGnal, signage
sIGnet, signed
huge, luge
busy, pussy
wussy, fussy

I generally agree with Mxsmanic, but not in everything. It's true that English spelling isn't very consistent, but like he says, there still is a very strong correlation between sounds and symbols. As a non-native English speaker, I can usually pronounce new English words correctly. Actually, I only have problems with words that were borrowed from other languages (particularly French). As I said before, French spelling seems much more inconsistent than English to me. Besides, a lot of native English speakers don't even know the most obvious and logical rules of their language, while a lot of foreigners learn to write perfect English despite its inconsistencies. So, I think that people tend to exaggerate when they complain about English spelling, I think it's just laziness. Some people keep saying: "Good spellers are born, not made." Well I think good spellers are TAUGHT.
And when it comes to grammar, I think English is one of the easiest languages on Earth. So I really think there is no reason for native English speakers to think they are smarter than others because they speak "such a hard language".

You'll need a lot more than that handful of examples to persuade me. There are more than a million words in the English language; almost all of them follow coherent rules of pronunciation. They have to, since nobody can memorize an individual pronunciation for every word.

Good spellers are indeed taught, in two ways: (1) they are taught to read using phonics, not look-and-say; and (2) they are taught to develop larged and varied vocabularies in English.

Sanja,

You wrote: "French spelling seems much more inconsistent than English to me."

I can tell you firsthand it is far more consistent as I am Francophone (I've used it in my daily life since I was born). Peculiar yes, but systematic and coherent in many more ways than English spelling could possibly be, as it has none of the rhythmic issues of English and a much smaller margin for error. eg. a nasal cannot be misrepresented: hypothetically, if "in ban vun" (un bon vin) somehow started to appear (say in the case of new vocabulary) it could potentially throw the system out of kilter. The same examples applies in distinguishing the most obvious: "u" and "ou" vowels. In English, this aspect is flawed even at the most fundamental level for the grassroots words. eg. do, no; nut, put; sew, few; shoe, toe.

It's only recently that French has started to borrow more and more technological terms from English at a phenominal rate, but most worldly people (of other tongues) recognise these English terms and their impact anyway.

Teenagers are bad spellers for a number of reasons including: they are lazy but the poor orthography of English exacerbates the problem. They don't put in the effort, have the drive or obligations of the ESL learners, and that's why ESLers will generally always outdo them. I'm not saying however, that orthography is solely at fault. It's just a fraction of the problem. How much? It's subjective.

Mxsmanic,

"look-and-say" (consider also: "speed reading") is only possible once a level of proficiency is reached in assimilating the anomalous spelling conditions of English. eg. a large enough vocabulary foundation which comes about by rote discipline. Memorisation is the only key in all the examples I've been actively demonstrating, whether it involves "ough" clusters; "do, no; but, put; sew, few; shoe, toe." If you hadn't memorised all of these pairs, you would logically assume they all rhymed. (which of course, they don't) These building blocks provide the tools for deciphering the greater vocabulary, like a spin-off effect.

To prove all what I've said: a bad speller could undertake a dictation, using the most primitive of phonetic symbols for words you verbalise, record them correctly in this denotation, yet could not spell them.

Seplling reform would probably be a bad idea for the reason I stated above. There are some phonemic distinctions that are made in some accents but not others. What should be done about them? Spelling some phonemic distinctions differently might not do very well in part apart of the English speaking world where they're pronounced the same.

A example is the word pair ''wine'' and ''whine''. In some accents they are pronounced the same but in other accents they are pronounced differently. So, should the distinction be included or ignored in a spelling reform proposal.

Here are some other examples of word-pairs of phonemic distinctions that are pronounced the same in some accents but differently in others.

tide, tied
liar, lyre
toe, tow
soul, sole
groan, grown
thrown, throne
dough, doe
no, know
chord, cord
corps, core
war, wore
whether, weather
staid, stayed
allowed, aloud
main, mane
sail, sale
suit, soot
put, putt
eight, ate
buck, book
meat, meet
vein, vain
leak, leek
beach, beech
vain, vane
cook, kook
pull, pool
vein, vane
steel, steal
hat, at
coup, coo
road, rode
site, sight
isle, aisle
pause, paws
faun, fawn
lennon, lenin
yak, yack
bread, bred
lead (the metal), led
read (past tense of read), red
knight, night
mite, might
knot, not
dew, due
mews, muse
blew, blue
tore, tour
write, rite
wreck, reck
harm, arm
thine, vine
gnome, nome
metal, mettle
coal, cole
gram, graham
bleu (cheese), blew
whole, hole
medal, meddle
paw, pa
Rhode, rode
taught, tot
peace, piece
meter, metre

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


Other distinctions made in some accents but not others,

SYLLABIC ''N'' VS. (SCHWA) FOLLOWED BY [N]

In some accents ''bitten'' and ''mitten'' rhyme and in others they don't.

SYLLABIC ''M'' VS. (SCHWA) FOLLOWED BY [M]

In some accents the ''m'' in ''prism'' and the ''om'' in ''blossom'' are pronounced the same but in other accents they're pronounced differently.

In some accents ''dial'' and ''tile'' rhyme but in other accents they don't.

In some accents ''boil'' and ''loyal'' rhyme but in other accents they don't.

In some accents ''owl'' and ''towel'' rhyme but in other accents they don't.

In some accents ''coir'' and ''foyer'' rhyme but in other accents they don't.

SYLLABIC ''L'' VS. (SCHWA) FOLLOWED BY [l]

In some accents ''metal'' and ''mettle'' are pronounced the same but in other accents they're pronounced differently.

SYLLABIC ''R'' VS. (SCHWA) FOLLOWED BY [r]

In some accents ''meter'' and ''metre'' are pronounced the same but in other accents they're pronounced differently.

Other optional sounds listed in the dictionary. Foreign sounds in English borrowed words,

The nasal vowel in ''grand prix'' and ''contretemps''.

The ''a'' sound in ''patte'' distinct from the ''a'' sound in ''pat'' and the ''a'' sound in ''father''.

The ''oeu'' sound in ''hors doeuvre'' different from the [e:(r)] sound in ''burn''.

Also, some Scots make a distinction when it comes to past tenses/participles of words that end in a vowel sound to where ''tied'' and ''tide'', and ''allowed'' and ''aloud'', and ''staid'' and ''stayed'', and ''brood'' and ''brewed'' are pronounced differently. If the alphabet were extended to include in letter for each phoneme in the English language, should it include a letter for past tenses/participles that end in a vowel sound or should that distinction be ignored.


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Here are some other examples of word-pairs of phonemic distinctions that are pronounced the same in some accents but differently in others.


tide, tied
liar, lyre
toe, tow
soul, sole
groan, grown
thrown, throne
dough, doe
no, know
chord, cord
corps, core
war, wore
whether, weather
staid, stayed
allowed, aloud
main, mane
sail, sale
suit, soot
put, putt
eight, ate
buck, book
meat, meet
vein, vain
leak, leek
beach, beech
vain, vane
cook, kook
pull, pool
vein, vane
steel, steal
hat, at
coup, coo
road, rode
site, sight
isle, aisle
pause, paws
faun, fawn
lennon, lenin
yak, yack
bread, bred
lead (the metal), led
read (past tense of read), red
knight, night
mite, might
knot, not
dew, due
mews, muse
blew, blue
tore, tour
write, rite
wreck, reck
harm, arm
thine, vine
gnome, nome
metal, mettle
coal, cole
gram, graham
bleu (cheese), blew
whole, hole
medal, meddle
paw, pa
Rhode, rode
taught, tot
peace, piece
meter, metre
bite, byte
The vowel sound in ''brute'' vs. the vowel sound in ''fruit''.
chews, choose
chute, shoot
The vowel sound in ''myth'' vs. the vowel sound in ''with''.
The vowel sound in ''arrest'' vs. the vowel sound in ''microphone''.

There are many others too. In some accents ''hurry'' and ''furry'' rhyme but in other accents they don't. In some accents ''bad'' and ''lad'' rhyme but in other accents they don't. Some people from Wales use a voiceless ''l'' sound in Welsh borrowed ''ll'' words and names such as ''Llwyd'' distinct from the ''l'' sound in ''light''

'''''''''''''''''''''''''

So, then if the alphabet were extended and a new letter was added for each sound in the English language or if spelling were reformed with the 26 letters we have, then how should it deal with phonemic distinctions made in some accents but not other?

I think it would be very hard to make the spelling reform in English, because a lot of new letters should be added to the alphabet if we want to represent all the sounds correctly. In my language (Bosnian - Serbo/Croat) each sound is represented by one symbol, but that was easy to do in my language because all the sounds are very clear and distinctive. I thought about possibility to do that in English and came to the conclusion that it would be very hard, if not impossible, because English has much more different sounds. So I am really against that spelling reform, because current spelling works just fine to me.

A phonetic writing system would make it harder for people to read in some cases. I know there are some homophones that are spelled differently, though I can only think of a few at the moment. Under a phonetic system, they would be spelled the same, which would require the use of context to find the meaning, thus slowing down readers. Other languages have solutions for this, of course. Spanish makes use of orthographic accents to distinguish homophones, while Japanese uses kanji (Chinese characters). I think that if a new system were made, it should use some method to distinguish homophones.

Sanja,

I know ESL learners generally can't distinguish certain "ea" sounds, say, between "heal" and "hear". I think this is what you meant when wrote "very clear and distinctive" regarding your language (Bosnian - Serbo/Croat).

Actually, comparing: (seat, sit); (hood, mood); (pool, pull); (filled, field); (bad, bud) are better examples as they really do involve different phonemes. But for me, these sounds are just as clear and distinctive as any others.

Having explained that (and I don't mean to sound cocky), it is very hard for an ESL learner to see exactly the complexity of the situation. You compound all this with the "homophone void" (the other posters wrote about), rhythm, schwa and the differing accents of English speakers, I think it would be almost impossible to reform English spelling.

The situation in English is no more complicated than in any other language.

There is no difference between the vowel sound in heal and the vowel sound in hear, so naturally ESL students don't hear one, and none need be taught. Some English speakers may make a distinction between them, but that's their problem.

Nope, you're wrong again: two different phonemes where I live, likewise in the USA. LOL!

American Heritage Dictionary:
"heal" (hēl)
http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/H0105400.html

"hear" (hîr)
http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/H0106900.html


Anyway, you obviously didn't bother to read the second paragraphy,
where I explain how ESL students also have difficulties distinguishing words like "sit" and "seat".

Are you sure you have ESL students? It sounds like a shady practice.

I don't see any difference between the "ea" sound in "hear" and "heal", they sound exactly the same to me. However, I could NEVER have any problems distinguishing "sit" and "seat", because "sit" is short and "seat" is long. And I'm sure most ESL students would agree with me.

As I've said, there's no difference between these two vowels, no matter what your dictionary says. Hear is pronounced /hir/ and heal is pronounced /hil/.

It looks like what you mistake for a different phoneme is just the dicionary's way of marking a rhoticized vowel. /i/ doesn't sound rhotacized (nor is /E/ in "care") but apparently these lexicographers feel otherwise. I mark /@/+/r/ rhotacized because it usually is in rhotic pronunciations of English, but not /i/ or /E/ because they are not.

Anyway, it's the same vowel in both words, in any case.

Sanja,

Most ESL students have a problem with it. Have you ever heard Penelope Cruz speak, compared to when she first started out? Her gains aren't that great for someone dependent on English for a career.

As for French and speakers of other Romance languages: they have traditionally always had problems with 'i' in "sit" and 'ea' in "seat". You can see this by the way they write. eg. "living" is mistaken for "leaving", and vice-versa. It's like the classic "ay" for "é" that Anglophones adopt when learning French or Spanish.