Ingglish speling reform?

[Forsher]

In my opinion, spelling reform of English is necessary because of its burgeoning status as a global lingua franca, a role it is not suitable for, since its spelling makes no sense.

Large parts of it do make sense. It also looks mind-bogglingly better than that rubbish at the start of the OP.

What I have attempted to do with this proposal is to keep it contained to a normal 'qwerty' keyboard, and make it standardised, while also making sure it can be read by native English speakers. My inspiration for this proposal came from Dutch spelling, and the old reform proposal "Soundspel".

For those of you who maybe didn't understand why I used "ny" instead of "ng", it was because of the word "English" which has the "n" and "g" sounds right after each other, meaning that writing that sound as "ng" would cause a problem.

What do you think, NSG?
Does English need spelling reform?
If it does, is my proposal a good idea?
Do you have a better proposal for English spelling reform?

English does not need spelling reform. The very features that make it suitable as a lingua franca (i.e. relatively small alphabet, adaptability) are generally violated by spelling reforms. Yours doesn't really have that problem but it is ridiculous ugly (which, to me, is reason enough to reject it) and introduces unnecessary complexity to the situation.

Phonetic spelling proposals, by the way, are inherently non-standardised because, shockingly, English speakers in one part of the world don't pronounce things in the same way. Essentially, you're saying, "Let's go back to how it was before printing."

Besides, Ancient Greek is older, Latin, Egyptian, are older than even Middle English, yet they are accessible and readable. Try again.

Yes, to people who have learnt those languages. What is your point?

Old English is not understandable to modern speakers, it has to be learnt in the same way that I would German. Middle English is, as far as I recall, possible to understand if one tries very hard. For many, early modern English (eg Shakespeare) is a slog. While it is possible to understand the OP's "idea" for us, I am not entirely convinced that the reverse would hold true (i.e. someone used to that form would not find our English, which is perfectly fine, understandable).

Can we at least agree to turn all the c's, ch's, q's, and k's into k's?

I'll be honest though, any proposal will not look like OP's. What makes up a "good" reform is up to debate. Don't just say -no- because you look at a proposed passage and didn't like its aesthetic appeal.

Hatk? Hmm...

That's moronic. Soz, moronik.

Oh, I'll look at them and reject every damn one of them because they're all inherently rubbish, it's just an added bonus if I can say it's ugly too (which most of them are).

Not this again ...

I think you'll find that the middle one is completely different.

So, because I hunt down and rutlessly identify snarks, there are three questions. Firstly, is spelling unnecessary? Secondly, is spelling becoming obsolete? And, lastly, is spelling reform needed? No, no, no.

I'm not entirely convinced that the "ruthlessly" was a deliberate spelling mistake. On the other hand, who knows if not me?

I concur with the Dread Lady.

Perhaps you should read what she linked to.

That's legit. Cwic cuestion, why is it that Germanic languages uses "K" as the default. Was it lice that in English as well pre-1066?

Lice for like. Not to nit pick but yeah...

All languages have accents, yet many of them still manage to standardize. Can we at least agree that some of the more obvious consonants should be fixed?

English is standardised. Ignoring the North American habit of disagreeing with the rest of the world over the spellings of standard words and the -ise -ize thing but on the scheme of things these don't matter much.

[Zaldakki]

Different? Yes. Erratic? No. No language's grammar is erratic.

Well, to us, it does seem like it. We have a very rigid government organization regulating the tiniest details of our language, so English, with its "come one, come all" attitude is "erratic" in regards to French.

For example, new inventions in English are almost immediately adopted into popular lexicon, followed shortly by the dictionaries. In France, it takes months, in a good estimate, years in a bad one, for l'Académie to find French alternatives to by then popularly adopted English words, as with the relatively quick rise of social media.

This has resulted in the rise of the infamous, much maligned, Franglais, which to some of our politicians/public figures is the example of the death of France.

Don't be unhappy(?), your language is simply neuter. It's not necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, English's neuter-like qualities significantly contributed to its relatively quick dominance of the world's languages.

À mon avis, l'Académie est trop prescriptive. Real language rules, no matter the language, are based on how people actually speak, not rules that some academy arbitrarily prescribes.

[Zaldakki]

What about Middle English spelling rules, but not the actual spellings they used for those words? Like the way Chaucer would have spelled Modern English if he heard its pronunciation?

We aren't all familiar with Middle English. Care to provide an example?

For example, Chaucer spelled knight as knight in Middle English because it was pronounced [ˈkniçt]. But if he heard a modern English pronounce knight, he would probably spell it as nait.

[Kelinfort]

...no...this would cause a huge amount of problems.

[Edward Scissorhands]

...no...this would cause a huge amount of problems.

Unfortunately people like to "fix" things that aren't broken.

[Sebastianbourg]

I have a question, are double contractions grammatically-correct?

[Geilinor]

Might as well start speaking Dutch if we're going to spell like that.

[Zaldakki]

I have a question, are double contractions grammatically-correct?

This single-apostrophe preference may be to blame for the rarity of double contractions like we’d’ve (which I use), couldn’t’ve (also good), or I’mn’t (which I definitely do not use). In fact, I might as well put in a plug here for double contractions, of which I’m a big fan, but it seems too few people are. Sprinkle some who’d’ves into your writing sometime. It’s superfun; your cheerfulness will increase at least twice as much from a quick double contraction as from an emoticon, I promise. See? The emoticon just can’t compete.

[Olerand]

English's grammatical rules are so different and erratic.

You know, English speakers learning French in school frequently complain about French grammar being erratic.

Erratic? Someone should give those kids the Bescherelle triad. Bescherelle's books are the "alpha and omega" authority, so to speak, on French grammar/conjugation/orthography, for those who do not want to consult the Academy itself.

French is very organized, so much so that the conjugation book(there is one for grammar/conjugation/orthography each) are filled with repeated tables of verbs that are, for example, similarly conjugated according to their position in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd group; the very few exceptions being unique verbs like avoir(to have), or être(to be).

Those kids need to study harder, their teachers should consider, um, "publicly shaming" them, as is too often the case for those who don't "keep up with the pace" in French schools.
I'm sure that will motivate them.

À mon avis, l'Académie est trop prescriptive. Real language rules, no matter the language, are based on how people actually speak, not rules that some academy arbitrarily prescribes.

La France en général est prescriptive. L'Académie simplement reflète la société.

[Skwar]

Laik it or not, Inglish is ae Jermanik langwej, and such, when spelt fonetikalie it luukz leik wun.

Luukz leik uglie

[Namabia]

Aesthetically speaking, this is - as many have pointed out - rubbish.

Financially, to change the lingua franca world-wide would be ludicrous. Plus Websters and Oxford dictionaries already act as a form of "governing" body for the language by adding/subtracting words occasionally. Not to note that most, not all, but most internet coding, contracts, signs, and thousands of other things that we take for granted are written in contemporary English. That's a crap ton of things to change.

In addition to that, English is Germanic, but the contemporary forms found around the globe are a far shot off from the Old English/Middle English language that, quite frankly, is brutal to try to decipher without having been taught how to speak it.

Grammatically, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, there are a plethora of words, but that is believe it or not a good thing! Being descriptive and concrete with detail is never a bad thing especially for:
- Government
- Finances
- Contracts
- Jobs
and many many more!

To be short, this would take way to much time and money and cause a crap ton of problems.

Plus, why fix something that works fine as is?

[Vazdaria]

Version 1.0:

Ai rekognais that Inglish dus not hav ae verie guud sistem ov speliny. Thus, it iz neseserie for thu langwej that iz biecominy thie global 'lingwa franka' too hav a speliny sistem that is standardeizd and kan be understuud bai boeth nativ spiekerz and thoez niu too thie langwej. Laik it or not, Inglish is ae Jermanik langwej, and such, when spelt fonetikalie it luukz leik wun. Ai am komplietelie shuur that thoez riediny this kan stil understand wot Ai am saeing, regardles of thie niu sistem.

Version 1.1:

Ai rekognais that Ingglish dus not hav ae verie guud sistem ov speling. Thus, it iz neseserie for thu langwij that iz biecoming thie global 'linggwa franka' too hav a speling sistem that is standardeizd and kan be understuud bai boeth nativ spiekerz and thoez niu too thie langwij. Laik it or not, Inglish is ae Jermanik langwej, and such, when spelt fonetikalie it luukz leik wun. Ai am komplietelie shuur that thoez rieding this kan stil understand wot Ai am saeing, regardles of thie niu sistem.

Changed "ny" digraph to "ng", and added a "g" after the "ng" where a hard "g" follows a "ng".

In my opinion, spelling reform of English is necessary because of its burgeoning status as a global lingua franca, a role it is not suitable for, since its spelling makes no sense.
What I have attempted to do with this proposal is to keep it contained to a normal 'qwerty' keyboard, and make it standardised, while also making sure it can be read by native English speakers. My inspiration for this proposal came from Dutch spelling, and the old reform proposal "Soundspel".

For those of you who maybe didn't understand why I used "ny" instead of "ng", it was because of the word "English" which has the "n" and "g" sounds right after each other, meaning that writing that sound as "ng" would cause a problem.

What do you think, NSG?
Does English need spelling reform?
If it does, is my proposal a good idea?
Do you have a better proposal for English spelling reform?

Dear L-rd......

[West Aurelia]

It should be kept the same. There is no reason to completely overhaul the language that millions of people speak.

[Greater Beggnig]

Laik it or not, Inglish is ae Jermanik langwej, and such, when spelt fonetikalie it luukz leik wun.

Luukz leik uglie

Well, you can keep spelling English like it's French, Latin and Dutch all at once as you do know if you really want.

[Aden Protectorate]

I am for a reform of English. As a native speaker and one taught to read using Phonetics I totally understood the paragraph.

Though I found how it looked somewhat brackish that is only because I was trained to see it in a certain way. I am sure the next generation, if they were brought up in this spelling system would not notice this and it would look completely normal to them.

However one thing that would be a problem would be with different dialects, for instance a Liverpudlian (Scouse) speaker and a Ottawa Valley Twang speaker would have different spellings. Making it difficult to standardize and would probably cause someone, somewhere to have a headache.

For instance awl (li) and aal (ovt) (all).

Or rehform (li) and reeform (ovt) (reform).

[Ruridova]

I'm honestly surprised I could read those paragraphs in "reformed English" at all.

In all honesty, I'd rather deal with the little inaccuracies of English than relearn how to spell every word ever.

[Weimar Germany]

A significant portion of the problems associated with English spelling are to do with the fact that we don't pronounce the vowels and consonants consistently ourselves. It is a pre-dominant phenomenon to weaken any unaccented/unstressed vowel to what's called a schwa, denoted by an up-side-down e in IPA phonetics. This phenomenon happens unconsciously as we speak quickly, but it also becomes less prominent when we speak slowly.

Take the word 'prominent' for example. In regular speech we tend to place the accent on the first syllable, preserving the vocalic qualities of the 'o', but in the second syllable, the 'i' sound is only preserved when we speak slowly or to clarify the word, and the third syllable is almost never pronounced with a regular 'e'. The same thing happens with enclitics, such as 'of' and 'a'; these words are so insubstantial that they regular elide into the following word, hence 'of' is not usually pronounced as whatever 'of' would suggest, but rather more like 'av', while 'a' is pronounced when emphasized for singularity 'ey' as in 'hey' but otherwise just 'uh'.

Don't mistake this observation as criticism, but this is exactly what makes a person's English recognized as 'natural'. If we want spelling to reflect speech exactly in every possible circumstance, we may have to develop alternate spellings when words are emphasized or de-emphasized. I should therefore advise against spelling reform, simply because this language is not used to sanction by law but only usage. English as we know it is a living language that evolves beyond the confines of the written form; should we attempt to define it with such precision, then English might one day become a dead language like Attic Greek or Latin.

---

cf. ὁ means 'the [masculine]' in Greek. Even though it does not carry an accent, it is always pronounced as 'ho', and never 'huh'. ποιοῖο, however silly this word sounds, is also pronounced exactly as it is spelt, and the accent remains over the penult, regardless whether it is emphasized or not.

[Cetacea]

I41 thnk u dum,Y nt jst st8 txt speek, fuk speln. Fuk Englz 2

[Nivko]

I've also been thinking about this recently and have also made an alternative english that looks more like this:

Ai rekognais ţāt Ingliş das not hav āi veri gud sistem of speling. Thas, it is nesesari for ţi lāngwij that is bikaming ţi gloubal 'lingwa frānka' tu hāv āi speling sistem ţāt is stānderdaizd ānd kān bi anderstud bai bouţ nāitiv spikers ānd ţous nu tu ţi lāngwij. Laik it our not, Ingliş is āi Jermānik lāngwij, ānd sac, wen spelt fonetikli it luks laik wan. Ai am komplitli shor ţāt thous riding ţis kān stil anderstānd wot ai ām saiying, rigardles of ţi nyu sistem.

Differences from normal english:

• Includes new letters ş (pronounced "sh"), ţ (pronounced "th") and ā (see Vowel Pronunciations)
• Letter c makes "ch" sound
• j is only used for 'soft g' sound (e.g. giraffe), and g is only used for 'hard g' sound (e.g. grape)
• q is removed, because kw can take its place
• A lot of vowel are different, they actually represent what is meant to be pronounced.
• No useless double letters

Letter	Pronunciation	Example
A	aa	architect, ascend
Ā	ah	apple, algebra
E	eh	elivate, exhale
I	ee	inside, inhale
O	oh	octagon, oppress
U	uu	blue, food

I've got no idea why there's a massive gap above the table, so that's why I put it in a spoiler

Some of you may disagree with the vowel pronunciations due to your accent, but I think the majority would pronounce those vowels in the ways presented.

[Sebastianbourg]

I've also been thinking about this recently and have also made an alternative english that looks more like this:

Ai rekognais ţāt Ingliş das not hav āi veri gud sistem of speling. Thas, it is nesesari for ţi lāngwij that is bikaming ţi gloubal 'lingwa frānka' tu hāv āi speling sistem ţāt is stānderdaizd ānd kān bi anderstud bai bouţ nāitiv spikers ānd ţous nu tu ţi lāngwij. Laik it our not, Ingliş is āi Jermānik lāngwij, ānd sac, wen spelt fonetikli it luks laik wan. Ai am komplitli shor ţāt thous riding ţis kān stil anderstānd wot ai ām saiying, rigardles of ţi nyu sistem.

Differences from normal english:

• Includes new letters ş (pronounced "sh"), ţ (pronounced "th") and ā (see Vowel Pronunciations)
• Letter c makes "ch" sound
• j is only used for 'soft g' sound (e.g. giraffe), and g is only used for 'hard g' sound (e.g. grape)
• q is removed, because kw can take its place
• A lot of vowel are different, they actually represent what is meant to be pronounced.
• No useless double letters

Letter	Pronunciation	Example
A	aa	architect, ascend
Ā	ah	apple, algebra
E	eh	elivate, exhale
I	ee	inside, inhale
O	oh	octagon, oppress
U	uu	blue, food

I've got no idea why there's a massive gap above the table, so that's why I put it in a spoiler

Some of you may disagree with the vowel pronunciations due to your accent, but I think the majority would pronounce those vowels in the ways presented.

No, I insist we should replace the 'th' digraph with the þ (called thorn or þhorn).

[The Orson Empire]

In my opinion, spelling reform of English is necessary because of its burgeoning status as a global lingua franca, a role it is not suitable for, since its spelling makes no sense.

Large parts of it do make sense. It also looks mind-bogglingly better than that rubbish at the start of the OP.

English only looks better to you because that is a language you are very familiar with and has been taught to you. To use an example, a person who only knows Spanish would have the same reaction when trying to read English.

Nevertheless, I do not support "reforming" the English language, at least to what the OP wants.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I think having any body, akin to the Académie française, deciding on what the English language should be, is idiotic and completely ignores the undirected evolution that has made English so useful and adaptable. Let the people who use it gradually adapt it if they wish, not some committee making massive changes in one go screwing up a whole generation in the process.

[Immoren]

Obviusli it shud luk laik þis. Kombineissön ov Finish spelling wiþ þorn þroun in. Oor meibi not.

[Elke and Elba]

Well, English is indeed slightly screwed that ghoti can be read as fish, but it's not changeable, unfortunately.

Either you 1) do it radically like Ataturk's Turkish that eliminates all the silly problems at once - which isn't possible due to the decentralised nature of English that will probably cause the spawning of two Englishes like Norwegian Bokmal and Nynorsk; or 2) do it slowly which will be even more painful as the Chinese tried to do (there was supposed to be a version 2 of Simplified Chinese that was abandoned, but its legacy can be still felt today as this small group of people taught using Simplified Chinese version 2 had used the same way to write for decades later - words that neither Trad. Chinese nor Simplified Chinese writers can understand at all.)

[Forsher]

Large parts of it do make sense. It also looks mind-bogglingly better than that rubbish at the start of the OP.

English only looks better to you because that is a language you are very familiar with and has been taught to you. To use an example, a person who only knows Spanish would have the same reaction when trying to read English.

Nevertheless, I do not support "reforming" the English language, at least to what the OP wants.

You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

It looks ugly because it is aesthetically unpleasing. For instance, I am not familiar with a great many languages but, when written down, they can be pleasing to my eye. That's ugly for that reason, for its being ugly. It's unbalanced. It doesn't have a natural flow that real languages have when you look at them. Some would go as far to say it is fugly... and I wouldn't disagree. I have seen more attractive proposals to boot.

Telefone versus telephone, though, is more interesting. A large part of my dislike of that is because it is unfamiliar but there is a slight degree of imbalance in that telephone is not weighted as heavily towards the front part of the word as telefone.

Well, English is indeed slightly screwed that ghoti can be read as fish, but it's not changeable, unfortunately.

Except no, it really, really can't. English does follow rules. There are exceptions to pronunciations that apply only because they're positioned in specific ways. Sure you get your boughs and coughs, but ghoti is never going to be said fish, goatie maybe but never fish.