And what is this idea you speak of?
Radical spelling reform or partial modification?
=>And what is this idea you speak of? <=
World domination of course ;-) nah seriously you gave me this idea:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t409.htm
World domination of course ;-) nah seriously you gave me this idea:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t409.htm
I have no idea how many dialects there are in the English language. But I believe in standard pronunciation even if it could be a mirage. Learners can rely on dictionarys with which we can learn the correct pronunciation of each word, notionally.
In every language, orthografy should correspond with standard pronunciation. Long ago, English did not have any standard, so lexicografers had to depend on foreign standards. But now we have something to be called "standard".
OUGH words still remain, which is puzzling. CH sometimes has the /k/ sound, which is also puzzling. I am crying for some modifications. English is not only for native speakers. Don't be complacent! Learners would want to learn standard pronunciation thru streamlined spellings.
What? New learners cannot read simplifyed spellings? That's the question.
In every language, orthografy should correspond with standard pronunciation. Long ago, English did not have any standard, so lexicografers had to depend on foreign standards. But now we have something to be called "standard".
OUGH words still remain, which is puzzling. CH sometimes has the /k/ sound, which is also puzzling. I am crying for some modifications. English is not only for native speakers. Don't be complacent! Learners would want to learn standard pronunciation thru streamlined spellings.
What? New learners cannot read simplifyed spellings? That's the question.
For starters, in the case of English, there is no single standard, but rather a number of different standards, the most commonly known of which are General American English and Received Pronunciation. This fact in itself makes the idea of simply basing a single common orthography on "standard" forms impossible. However, there are other factors that complicate this even further. Even each of the individual "standards" have internal variation in practice; for example, there are conservative and progressive variants of RP besides more moderate versions of such, and in the case of General American English, it is often not quite clear what it is exactly in the first place. Furthermore, one has actual change in what is thought of as "standard" in places; in particular, in the UK as of late, RP has become increasingly deprecated, while at the same time Estuary English has risen to replace RP in many cases where it was once spoken, to the point that now politicians and other major public figures who would have in the past spoken primarily RP very often speak EE, for the specific reason that RP has become very unpopular with the general population today. Hence, it is not unlikely that EE will manage to replace RP's position as "standard English" in the UK, with the only thing that might prevent such being that EE is still strongly tied to the Thames region, even though aspects of EE can be heard in other dialects in other parts of UK today as well.
What standard? There is a different 'standard' in every major English-speaking country. And even those change. For example, the American standard shifted from a Midwest/Northeast mix in the '50s to a Midwest/West mix in the '00s, and in Britain the standard (I believe) is moving from RP to something more modern (Estuary-ish). So how many standards would we have? Having one global standard would mean that either only a small group, or no one, would speak the 'standard', and even if it's only three or four, to correspond to real dialects, then you would have the English language be effectively split up.
General American English, Received Pronunciation, and Estuary English? In these variants, pronunciation may be different. But they have a lot in common, I believe. How to pronounce long-O depends on where you come from. But long-O is still long-O. When you pronounce "ask", some people use short-A, and others broad-A. It's OK. Pronunciation can vary. That's why I disagree with radical reforms. I do not want to encurrage English to be split up.
I think some modifications are desirable. For example, I think it is better to use a, e, i, o, u respectively to represent short a,e,i,o,u. Consonant dubbling is often needed.
ex. boddy, coppy, hunny, menny, minnit, peddal, spred, uther, yung
I think some modifications are desirable. For example, I think it is better to use a, e, i, o, u respectively to represent short a,e,i,o,u. Consonant dubbling is often needed.
ex. boddy, coppy, hunny, menny, minnit, peddal, spred, uther, yung
What could be done is to take the basic rules of English spelling and throw out all the exceptions, changing their spelling to match the basic rules. However, we still have some problems. For example, would we have two different, equally acceptable spellings for words like either? And as far as some sounds, how would they be written? How would the vowel in 'wood' (and 'would', 'put', 'root') be transcribed? How would the zh sound (like in 'vision') be written? How would the two th sounds ('this' vs 'thin') be distinguished? And if we have all this consonant doubling, how would long words (like transportation) be written, considering how it would lengthen some considerably? By the way, short vowels get consonant doubling, not long ones. How would schwas at the beginning (allegiance) and end (the) of words be written? Would words like 'the' and 'a' develop into two new ways of being written each (one each for unstressed, and one each for stressed, versions)? How would 'ing' at the end of words be written (in my dialect, it is pronounced 'een', not 'ing'), and other such major differences between different dialects and accents? How would consonant doubling word for two-letter symbols (ng, th, th, sh, etc. - ngng? or would the vowel have to be changed?)? How would new modal verbs be written (haffta? haff ta? havv tu?)? There are many other problems, these are just what I can think of off the top of my head...
Would you need to have different spellings for short and long vowels? In my language, which is 100% phonetic, the same vowel is always spelt the same, no matter if it's short or long. You just know it from experience. (For example, long "aaaa" and short "a" are both spelt as A.)
That's an interesting idea. What is your language? The only problem is that in English, there are simply too many minimal pairs. How would we distinguish:
bean/bin
fell/fail
flap/flop
gang/gong
greet/grit
keen/kin
phlegm/flame
teen/tin
rat/rot
taffy/toffee
etc.?
bean/bin
fell/fail
flap/flop
gang/gong
greet/grit
keen/kin
phlegm/flame
teen/tin
rat/rot
taffy/toffee
etc.?
If people would spend as much time learning to spell as they do arguing for spelling reform, there'd be no reason to consider the latter. And it's actually easier to just learn to spell.
It keeps them out of mischief, teaches them about the etymology and helps to improve their spelling.
"That's an interesting idea. What is your language?"
It's Serbo-Croatian/Bosnian.
"If people would spend as much time learning to spell as they do arguing for spelling reform, there'd be no reason to consider the latter. And it's actually easier to just learn to spell."
I agree 100% !
It's Serbo-Croatian/Bosnian.
"If people would spend as much time learning to spell as they do arguing for spelling reform, there'd be no reason to consider the latter. And it's actually easier to just learn to spell."
I agree 100% !
In response to american nic
Modification is about reducing some exceptions. We cannot deal with everything irregular or unstable.
As for "either", it is better to let it be. For me, "ei" is a marker of irregularity. I don't know how to distinguish short "oo" and long "oo" when it comes to spelling. Additionally, it seems to me that some peeple pronounce "good" as "gude". Some reformers use "ZH", but it looks like Chinese. "TH" should remain, unvoiced or voiced. But "thyme" should change to "tyme".
On August 25, I mentioned short vowels. But now I have to explain to you some rules of consonant dubbling.
One-syllable words remain the same as long as they are fonetic. Exceptions are "scrole" and "strole", for example.
Consonant dubbling should occur after a short and stressed vowel. As for two-syllable words and their derivatives, this rule has to be absolute.
e.g.: better, dubble, heffer, bizzy, cadett
Surplus dubbled consonants should be denyed.
e.g.: terific, acount, corect, baloon, acommodate, comunicate, comittee, scrole, strole
As for words that have three or four syllables, logical dubbled consonants should be retained(e.g.: fallacy, gallery, oddity, occupy, terrible). But you don't have to spell "doccument", "mellody", and "tellefone".
Two-letter symbols or consonant clusters are not dubbled. But you still have "cattle", "dubble"(double), "hussle"(hustle), and "jossle(jostle).
Modification is about reducing some exceptions. We cannot deal with everything irregular or unstable.
As for "either", it is better to let it be. For me, "ei" is a marker of irregularity. I don't know how to distinguish short "oo" and long "oo" when it comes to spelling. Additionally, it seems to me that some peeple pronounce "good" as "gude". Some reformers use "ZH", but it looks like Chinese. "TH" should remain, unvoiced or voiced. But "thyme" should change to "tyme".
On August 25, I mentioned short vowels. But now I have to explain to you some rules of consonant dubbling.
One-syllable words remain the same as long as they are fonetic. Exceptions are "scrole" and "strole", for example.
Consonant dubbling should occur after a short and stressed vowel. As for two-syllable words and their derivatives, this rule has to be absolute.
e.g.: better, dubble, heffer, bizzy, cadett
Surplus dubbled consonants should be denyed.
e.g.: terific, acount, corect, baloon, acommodate, comunicate, comittee, scrole, strole
As for words that have three or four syllables, logical dubbled consonants should be retained(e.g.: fallacy, gallery, oddity, occupy, terrible). But you don't have to spell "doccument", "mellody", and "tellefone".
Two-letter symbols or consonant clusters are not dubbled. But you still have "cattle", "dubble"(double), "hussle"(hustle), and "jossle(jostle).
Etymology helps when you remember words. Very miserable, however, it is often used to justify illogical spellings. English is not Ancient Greek or Latin(or Lattin)!
The /f/ sound has to be represented by "f" or "ff".
e.g.: enuff, graffic, fotograf
When "CH" has the /k/ sound, use "k" before "e", "i", and "y". Use "c" in other cases.
e.g.: arkive, kemical, logomaky, caracter, caotic, cameleon(or cameeleon), colesterol, cromosome, sepulker
"SCH" has to be spelled "sk" or "sh" according to its pronunciation.
e.g.: skolastic, skool, skematic, skeme(or skeem?), skeptical, shwa, skedule/shedule
When the final "E" is pronounced with weak EE sound, use "-y".
e.g.: acmy, acny, aboriginy, apostrofy, catastrofy
The /f/ sound has to be represented by "f" or "ff".
e.g.: enuff, graffic, fotograf
When "CH" has the /k/ sound, use "k" before "e", "i", and "y". Use "c" in other cases.
e.g.: arkive, kemical, logomaky, caracter, caotic, cameleon(or cameeleon), colesterol, cromosome, sepulker
"SCH" has to be spelled "sk" or "sh" according to its pronunciation.
e.g.: skolastic, skool, skematic, skeme(or skeem?), skeptical, shwa, skedule/shedule
When the final "E" is pronounced with weak EE sound, use "-y".
e.g.: acmy, acny, aboriginy, apostrofy, catastrofy
With all of your 'moderate' reform rules, the language is just about as complex as it is anyway, but still native speakers would have to learn the new rules. Either it's a complete spelling reform, or none at all.