I just recently saw this spelling suggested as a reform for "thorough". I don't get it. It's not pronounced that way is it?
"therro"
It's pronounced "thu-row", where th is voiceless, so therro would actually make sense. Check it out on Merriam Webster online if you are unsure about the pronunciation.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Please for the love of God and all that is decent and holy, NO MORE SCHOONMAKER!
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!
Please for the love of God and all that is decent and holy, NO MORE SCHOONMAKER!
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!
In answer to John, no, nobody pronounces it that way except in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley.
@Johnny: It's not about the consonant, it's about the vowel quality. "Therro" wouldn't work for about 99% of North Americans.
@Johnny: It's not about the consonant, it's about the vowel quality. "Therro" wouldn't work for about 99% of North Americans.
I'd say that "thorough" IS pronounced "therro," but it definitely would never be spelt that way.
And by "therro," I'm assuming you mean that the first syllable rhymes with "her" and the second syllable rhymes with "so."
:D
And by "therro," I'm assuming you mean that the first syllable rhymes with "her" and the second syllable rhymes with "so."
:D
No, "therro" would not be an appropriate spelling *except* if you were from Philadelphia or the Delaware Valley, because most North Americans would interpret such a spelling as ["TE@`oU] or ["TEr\oU], when in reality almost all North Americans would pronounce it as ["T3`oU] or ["TVr\oU]. Schoonmaker is the same fool who says that "nourish" should be spelled as "nerish" because, allegedly, it rhymes with "cherish". And if you argue with him, he'll tell you that you're part of a tiny, pedantic minority, when in reality you're representative of about 99% of North Americans.
Schoonmaker is a fool, and his proposed spelling reform is one of the most idiotic and linguistically uninformed that you will ever see. Please, if you're unsure about a pronunciation, just check it on a reputable online dictionary like dictionary.cambridge.org or dictionary.com; and if you see anything written by that dolt, just run from it like the plague.
Schoonmaker is a fool, and his proposed spelling reform is one of the most idiotic and linguistically uninformed that you will ever see. Please, if you're unsure about a pronunciation, just check it on a reputable online dictionary like dictionary.cambridge.org or dictionary.com; and if you see anything written by that dolt, just run from it like the plague.
Just to be clear, in a *reasonable* spelling reform, "thorough" would become "thurro", not "therro".
That's a topic of great debate. I'm not a proponent of English spelling reform myself, but I would imagine that a reasonable spelling reform would be one that adequately represented the phonemic inventory of the language with a minimum of obscurantism, and one that was broad enough to include most of the major English dialects.
And what's about the English dialicts which aren't considered ''major''? How do you think do their speakers feel about being put away by such a reform? If you consider all the things concernig a reform, and if you are honest to yourself, you will find that there's nothing justifying the violation of a spelling system which has grown over many hundrets of years. That's the identity of the English language, if you change it, you will end up with another language.
<<when in reality almost all North Americans would pronounce it as ["T3`oU] or ["TVr\oU]>>
Lazar, I said "therro" would make sense because I was thinking of pronouncing it that way. But you are right too, because you can also take it as ["TE@`oU] or ["TEr\oU]. So, after all, the one you proposed, "thurro", would be better because we would get rid of the ambiguity.
Anyway, I didn't know about Schoonmaker. LOL.
Lazar, I said "therro" would make sense because I was thinking of pronouncing it that way. But you are right too, because you can also take it as ["TE@`oU] or ["TEr\oU]. So, after all, the one you proposed, "thurro", would be better because we would get rid of the ambiguity.
Anyway, I didn't know about Schoonmaker. LOL.
Never mind Americans, this wouldn't work for British English either. We say 'thurr-uh'.
Skywise, I cannot agree that the identity of English, or any other language, lies in its orthography. Dutch has undergone seven reforms in the last two centuries without damaging its identity in the least.
In addition, the accents of English are certainly diverse, but not so diverse that a single spelling system accommodating them all cannot be created without the irregularities of traditional orthography. Such a system will over-distinguish from the viewpoint of any one accent, ignoring the various mergers that have not become universal. However, distinctions that have everywhere been merged away, such as vain/vein or rum/rhumb, need no longer be maintained. In addition, complete irregularities can be repaired by analogy.
In addition, the accents of English are certainly diverse, but not so diverse that a single spelling system accommodating them all cannot be created without the irregularities of traditional orthography. Such a system will over-distinguish from the viewpoint of any one accent, ignoring the various mergers that have not become universal. However, distinctions that have everywhere been merged away, such as vain/vein or rum/rhumb, need no longer be maintained. In addition, complete irregularities can be repaired by analogy.
The problem that I see with "therro" or even "thurro" is that it might be interpreted as "Thoreau".
Reform is silly seeing as we have so many dialects across the many English speaking countries.
Most English speaking countries, bar America, pronounce it thuh-ruh.
Most English speaking countries, bar America, pronounce it thuh-ruh.