Ingglish speling reform?

[The Two Jerseys]

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. Diacritical. Marks. EVER.

And we have to keep "q", because "kw" doesn't work with "que".

[Conscentia]

You think it's different in other languages?
The French for lol is mdr - mort de rire - died of laughter.

I don't know if it's different in other languages, and I never stated such. Nor did I say English was the only language to have violent connotations in its expressions.

It was implied by how you described English.

[Immoren]

No. Diacritical. Marks. EVER.

Why not?

[Conscentia]

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. Diacritical. Marks. EVER.

And we have to keep "q", because "kw" doesn't work with "que".

Kw doesn't, but I think "cu" looks nice there - "cue".

[Conscentia]

No. Diacritical. Marks. EVER.

Why not?

It requires taking one's hand off the page for one.

[Cymrea]

By colloquial, I mean where a phrase is used to mean something completely different than it's literal meaning. Like, "My uncle kicked the bucket last week."

That phenomenon is also by no means particularly unique to English; metaphorical and idiomatic constructions are found in all languages.

When did I say it was unique to English?

Yeah; it is a matter of convenience. But convenience is so core to language use that it can't be confined to textspeak.

I don't know, man. Through the progressions in school from phonics to Language Arts to English classes, the language seemed anything but convenient at its core.

Those aren't superlatives. In any case, violent metaphors and hyperbole are common to many languages because they're so effective at communicating a point, and I wouldn't say they're particularly prevalent in English or any other language that has pushed out other languages or been used by prolific conquerors.

I did mean hyperbole, but I usually mentally reserve that for phrases like, "It was literally a million times heavier!" I do think they're quite prevalent, though, especially in popular culture. And again, I'm not claiming that English is unique in this way.

[Immoren]

Why not?

It requires taking one's hand off the page for once.

You've to take hand off the page anyway at some point.

[The Two Jerseys]

No. Diacritical. Marks. EVER.

Why not?

Because we have letter combinations that do the job without having to add keys to the keyboard.

Kw doesn't, but I think "cu" looks nice there - "cue".

Still doesn't work with the suffix "-que".

Unique/unicue
Critique/criticue
Physique/physicue

See what I mean?

[Cymrea]

I don't know if it's different in other languages, and I never stated such. Nor did I say English was the only language to have violent connotations in its expressions.

It was implied by how you described English.

It was not implied, you're inferring it. Incorrectly, as it happens.

[Conscentia]

Kw doesn't, but I think "cu" looks nice there - "cue".

Still doesn't work with the suffix "-que".

Unique/unicue
Critique/criticue
Physique/physicue

See what I mean?

Nope. Looks fine to me.

[Immoren]

Because we have letter combinations that do the job without having to add keys to the keyboard.

But that's inferior solution.

[The Nihilistic view]

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?

WTF is this shit? Makes less sense than a Banker totally pissed and high on coke.

[ESTU]

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?

Completely agree that English is in serious need of spelling reform, though I would have to disagree with some specifics about your proposal. What I take issue with mainly is the continued use of digraphs and the lack of good phonetic consistency for single vowels. With the addition of some additional letters, I propose a slight revision. Note that I spell things a little different from you.

Version 1:

Ai rekʊgnaiz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ei veiri gʊd sıstəm uv speliŋ. Ðus, ıt ız neseseirri for ðu laŋwıȷ ðæt ız bicumiŋ ði globəl liŋwu frænku tµ hæv ei speliŋ sıstəm ðæt ız stændərdaizd ænd kæn bi undərstʊd bai boþ neitıv spikərz ænd ðoz nµ tµ ðu laŋwıȷ. Laik ıt or nat, Ɨŋglıʃ ız ei Jərmænik laŋwıȷ, ænd æz suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli ıt lʊks laik wun. Ai æm kumplitli ʃər ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undərstænd wut ai æm seiiŋ, rigardles uv ðu nµ sıstəm.

Here the "a" is always the /a/ in "father", "e" is always the /e/ in "men", "i" is always the /i/ in "spelling", etc.
Some new letters are added to avoid redudancy. [IPA letters I chose for convenience. I'm not advocating them as replacements.]:

"µ" is /u/ as in "too"
"ð" & "þ" are the "th" of "the" and "this" respectively.
"æ" is the /a/ of "am"
"ʊ" is the /oo/ of "good"
"ŋ" is the "ng" of "spelling"
"ʃ" is the "sh" of "english"
And finally, "ə" is the schwa most commonly found in all these "-er" syllables.

You'll also notice that I chose "c" for "ch" (so it finally can make up its mind) and undotted all the "j"s and short "i"s. The main reason for the undotting will become apparent in Version 2.


Version 2 (Abbreviated version):

Ȧ rekʊgnȧz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ė vėri gʊd sıstm uv speliŋ. Ðus, t z nesesėrri f ð laŋwıȷ ðæt z bicumiŋ ð globl ‘liŋwu frænku’ µ hæv ė speliŋ sıstm ðæt z stændrdȧzd ænd kæn b undrstʊd b boþ nėtıv spikrz æ ðoz nµ µ ð laŋwıȷ. Lȧk t o nat, Ɨŋglıʃ z ė Jrmænik laŋwıȷ, æ æ suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli t lʊks lȧk wun. Ȧ æm kumplitli ʃr ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undrstænd wut ȧ æm sėiŋ, rigardles v ð nµ sıstm.

As you can see, I've removed the schwa, as I found it unecessary unecessary, and abbreviated all the "i" ending dipthongs by dotting the first vowels. I've also abbreviated the common, short words we overuse. Eg: "z" = "is", "æ" = "&"/"as", "o" = "or", etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, while this is all well and fun, wouldn't it be more convenient to simply create a logographic system like the Chinese have. Lets be honest. The purpose of an alphabet is to show how the word sounds (at least that should be the purpose ), not what it represents. It is easy enough to learn how to pronounce a word, quite another to remember what it means. We already use a wide array of pictographic symbols for a variety of things. Why not create more and standardize them?

[Immoren]

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?

Completely agree that English is in serious need of spelling reform, though I would have to disagree with some specifics about your proposal. What I take issue with mainly is the continued use of digraphs and the lack of good phonetic consistency for single vowels. With the addition of some additional letters, I propose a slight revision. Note that I spell things a little different from you.

Version 1:

Ai rekʊgnaiz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ei veiri gʊd sıstəm uv speliŋ. Ðus, ıt ız neseseirri for ðu laŋwıȷ ðæt ız bicumiŋ ði globəl liŋwu frænku tµ hæv ei speliŋ sıstəm ðæt ız stændərdaizd ænd kæn bi undərstʊd bai boþ neitıv spikərz ænd ðoz nµ tµ ðu laŋwıȷ. Laik ıt or nat, Ɨŋglıʃ ız ei Jərmænik laŋwıȷ, ænd æz suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli ıt lʊks laik wun. Ai æm kumplitli ʃər ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undərstænd wut ai æm seiiŋ, rigardles uv ðu nµ sıstəm.

Here the "a" is always the /a/ in "father", "e" is always the /e/ in "men", "i" is always the /i/ in "spelling", etc.
Some new letters are added to avoid redudancy. [IPA letters I chose for convenience. I'm not advocating them as replacements.]:

"µ" is /u/ as in "too"
"ð" & "þ" are the "th" of "the" and "this" respectively.
"æ" is the /a/ of "am"
"ʊ" is the /oo/ of "good"
"ŋ" is the "ng" of "spelling"
"ʃ" is the "sh" of "english"
And finally, "ə" is the schwa most commonly found in all these "-er" syllables.

You'll also notice that I chose "c" for "ch" (so it finally can make up its mind) and undotted all the "j"s and short "i"s. The main reason for the undotting will become apparent in Version 2.


Version 2 (Abbreviated version):

Ȧ rekʊgnȧz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ė vėri gʊd sıstm uv speliŋ. Ðus, t z nesesėrri f ð laŋwıȷ ðæt z bicumiŋ ð globl ‘liŋwu frænku’ µ hæv ė speliŋ sıstm ðæt z stændrdȧzd ænd kæn b undrstʊd b boþ nėtıv spikrz æ ðoz nµ µ ð laŋwıȷ. Lȧk t o nat, Ɨŋglıʃ z ė Jrmænik laŋwıȷ, æ æ suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli t lʊks lȧk wun. Ȧ æm kumplitli ʃr ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undrstænd wut ȧ æm sėiŋ, rigardles v ð nµ sıstm.

As you can see, I've removed the schwa, as I found it unecessary unecessary, and abbreviated all the "i" ending dipthongs by dotting the first vowels. I've also abbreviated the common, short words we overuse. Eg: "z" = "is", "æ" = "&"/"as", "o" = "or", etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, while this is all well and fun, wouldn't it be more convenient to simply create a logographic system like the Chinese have. Lets be honest. The purpose of an alphabet is to show how the word sounds (at least that should be the purpose ), not what it represents. It is easy enough to learn how to pronounce a word, quite another to remember what it means. We already use a wide array of pictographic symbols for a variety of things. Why not create more and standardize them?

Obviously someone should create English logograph.

[Conscentia]

Obviously someone should create English logograph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbols

[The Nihilistic view]

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?

Completely agree that English is in serious need of spelling reform, though I would have to disagree with some specifics about your proposal. What I take issue with mainly is the continued use of digraphs and the lack of good phonetic consistency for single vowels. With the addition of some additional letters, I propose a slight revision. Note that I spell things a little different from you.

Version 1:

Ai rekʊgnaiz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ei veiri gʊd sıstəm uv speliŋ. Ðus, ıt ız neseseirri for ðu laŋwıȷ ðæt ız bicumiŋ ði globəl liŋwu frænku tµ hæv ei speliŋ sıstəm ðæt ız stændərdaizd ænd kæn bi undərstʊd bai boþ neitıv spikərz ænd ðoz nµ tµ ðu laŋwıȷ. Laik ıt or nat, Ɨŋglıʃ ız ei Jərmænik laŋwıȷ, ænd æz suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli ıt lʊks laik wun. Ai æm kumplitli ʃər ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undərstænd wut ai æm seiiŋ, rigardles uv ðu nµ sıstəm.

Here the "a" is always the /a/ in "father", "e" is always the /e/ in "men", "i" is always the /i/ in "spelling", etc.
Some new letters are added to avoid redudancy. [IPA letters I chose for convenience. I'm not advocating them as replacements.]:

"µ" is /u/ as in "too"
"ð" & "þ" are the "th" of "the" and "this" respectively.
"æ" is the /a/ of "am"
"ʊ" is the /oo/ of "good"
"ŋ" is the "ng" of "spelling"
"ʃ" is the "sh" of "english"
And finally, "ə" is the schwa most commonly found in all these "-er" syllables.

You'll also notice that I chose "c" for "ch" (so it finally can make up its mind) and undotted all the "j"s and short "i"s. The main reason for the undotting will become apparent in Version 2.


Version 2 (Abbreviated version):

Ȧ rekʊgnȧz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ė vėri gʊd sıstm uv speliŋ. Ðus, t z nesesėrri f ð laŋwıȷ ðæt z bicumiŋ ð globl ‘liŋwu frænku’ µ hæv ė speliŋ sıstm ðæt z stændrdȧzd ænd kæn b undrstʊd b boþ nėtıv spikrz æ ðoz nµ µ ð laŋwıȷ. Lȧk t o nat, Ɨŋglıʃ z ė Jrmænik laŋwıȷ, æ æ suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli t lʊks lȧk wun. Ȧ æm kumplitli ʃr ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undrstænd wut ȧ æm sėiŋ, rigardles v ð nµ sıstm.

As you can see, I've removed the schwa, as I found it unecessary unecessary, and abbreviated all the "i" ending dipthongs by dotting the first vowels. I've also abbreviated the common, short words we overuse. Eg: "z" = "is", "æ" = "&"/"as", "o" = "or", etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, while this is all well and fun, wouldn't it be more convenient to simply create a logographic system like the Chinese have. Lets be honest. The purpose of an alphabet is to show how the word sounds (at least that should be the purpose ), not what it represents. It is easy enough to learn how to pronounce a word, quite another to remember what it means. We already use a wide array of pictographic symbols for a variety of things. Why not create more and standardize them?

[Vladislavija]

Using þ or θ in place of 'th' seems like a good idea.

And we should also reform grammar!

[Phocidaea]

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.

I have literally never heard of an English dialect where the vowels are pronounced as you suppose. The first sound in both "ascend" and "oppress" is a schwa, which you don't account for anywhere, you fail to distinguish between "long" ("oh") and "short" (sh"o"rt) O and the different sounds of "look" and "food", and let's not get into the jaw-droppingly awful way you think English diphthongs should be represented.

Also, on the consonant front, you do realize there are two different th-sounds, right?

Why not?

Because we have letter combinations that do the job without having to add keys to the keyboard.

Kw doesn't, but I think "cu" looks nice there - "cue".

Still doesn't work with the suffix "-que".

Unique/unicue
Critique/criticue
Physique/physicue

See what I mean?

Or you can just replace them with a C or K because that's how they're actually pronounced!

[Immoren]

Obviously someone should create English logograph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbols

...
...
I should've remembered these.
Memories of Men are short indeed.

[ESTU]

Completely agree that English is in serious need of spelling reform, though I would have to disagree with some specifics about your proposal. What I take issue with mainly is the continued use of digraphs and the lack of good phonetic consistency for single vowels. With the addition of some additional letters, I propose a slight revision. Note that I spell things a little different from you.

Version 1:

Ai rekʊgnaiz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ei veiri gʊd sıstəm uv speliŋ. Ðus, ıt ız neseseirri for ðu laŋwıȷ ðæt ız bicumiŋ ði globəl liŋwu frænku tµ hæv ei speliŋ sıstəm ðæt ız stændərdaizd ænd kæn bi undərstʊd bai boþ neitıv spikərz ænd ðoz nµ tµ ðu laŋwıȷ. Laik ıt or nat, Ɨŋglıʃ ız ei Jərmænik laŋwıȷ, ænd æz suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli ıt lʊks laik wun. Ai æm kumplitli ʃər ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undərstænd wut ai æm seiiŋ, rigardles uv ðu nµ sıstəm.

Here the "a" is always the /a/ in "father", "e" is always the /e/ in "men", "i" is always the /i/ in "spelling", etc.
Some new letters are added to avoid redudancy. [IPA letters I chose for convenience. I'm not advocating them as replacements.]:

"µ" is /u/ as in "too"
"ð" & "þ" are the "th" of "the" and "this" respectively.
"æ" is the /a/ of "am"
"ʊ" is the /oo/ of "good"
"ŋ" is the "ng" of "spelling"
"ʃ" is the "sh" of "english"
And finally, "ə" is the schwa most commonly found in all these "-er" syllables.

You'll also notice that I chose "c" for "ch" (so it finally can make up its mind) and undotted all the "j"s and short "i"s. The main reason for the undotting will become apparent in Version 2.


Version 2 (Abbreviated version):

Ȧ rekʊgnȧz ðæt Ɨŋglıʃ duz nat hæv ė vėri gʊd sıstm uv speliŋ. Ðus, t z nesesėrri f ð laŋwıȷ ðæt z bicumiŋ ð globl ‘liŋwu frænku’ µ hæv ė speliŋ sıstm ðæt z stændrdȧzd ænd kæn b undrstʊd b boþ nėtıv spikrz æ ðoz nµ µ ð laŋwıȷ. Lȧk t o nat, Ɨŋglıʃ z ė Jrmænik laŋwıȷ, æ æ suc, wen speld fʊnedıkli t lʊks lȧk wun. Ȧ æm kumplitli ʃr ðæt ðoz ridiŋ ðis kæn stıl undrstænd wut ȧ æm sėiŋ, rigardles v ð nµ sıstm.

As you can see, I've removed the schwa, as I found it unecessary unecessary, and abbreviated all the "i" ending dipthongs by dotting the first vowels. I've also abbreviated the common, short words we overuse. Eg: "z" = "is", "æ" = "&"/"as", "o" = "or", etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, while this is all well and fun, wouldn't it be more convenient to simply create a logographic system like the Chinese have. Lets be honest. The purpose of an alphabet is to show how the word sounds (at least that should be the purpose ), not what it represents. It is easy enough to learn how to pronounce a word, quite another to remember what it means. We already use a wide array of pictographic symbols for a variety of things. Why not create more and standardize them?

[Conscentia]

It requires taking one's hand off the page for once.

You've to take hand off the page anyway at some point.

You'd have to take it off the page more often.

[Immoren]

You've to take hand off the page anyway at some point.

You'd have to take it off the page more often.

Some how latin variant symbols extra dots and slashes have managed this day in other languages.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, because it works just fine as-is.

[Conscentia]

You'd have to take it off the page more often.

Some how latin variant symbols extra dots and slashes have managed this day in other languages.

Doesn't make it desirable.

[Skeckoa]

This reminded me of Ingles Sin Barreras. "Hi! My name is Peter. How are you today?"
- Jai. Mai neim is Piter. Jau ar llu tudei?

So many memories.

No, because it works just fine as-is.

Fun fact. English native speakers take longer (despite equal quality of schools, or better even) to learn how to read than their italian, spanish counterparts. (languages with very consistent orthographies)