Ingglish speling reform?

[Salus Maior]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

[Immoren]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two?

Create new words. *nods*

[Salus Maior]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two?

Create new words. *nods*

You're not serious.

[Zaldakki]

Woords like photograph and photography wouldn't be as clearly related if based off phonetics.

[Herrebrugh]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

Never heard of homonyms?

[Immoren]

Create new words. *nods*

You're not serious.

But that's how language works.

[Zaldakki]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

You'd still be able to able to tell their meanings by context. The amount of ambiguity there would be is way too overestimated by people, unless you're actively trying to misunderstand what is said.

[Salus Maior]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms?

I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used.

So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

Never heard of homonyms?

Wouldn't that just complicate the English language further? Reading wise anyway. If I wrote the word "see" alone, based on your version of spelling, how would one easily tell if I were saying "sea", as in the body of water, or "see" as in sight?

[Zaldakki]

Never heard of homonyms?

Wouldn't that just complicate the English language further? Reading wise anyway. If I said the word "see" in a sentence, based on your version of spelling, how would one easily tell if I were saying "sea", as in the body of water, or "see" as in sight?

Context would make it obvious.

[Herrebrugh]

Never heard of homonyms?

Wouldn't that just complicate the English language further? Reading wise anyway. If I said the word "see" in a sentence, based on your version of spelling, how would one easily tell if I were saying "sea", as in the body of water, or "see" as in sight?

It's not "my version". I support the old system with "oe" thrown in just for the lulz.

Read and weep:

bow – a long wooden stick with horse hair that is used to play certain string instruments such as the violin
bow – to bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow – the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow – a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow – to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)
Bow – a district in London
bow -- a weapon to shoot projectiles with (e.g. a bow and arrow)

[Salus Maior]

Wouldn't that just complicate the English language further? Reading wise anyway. If I said the word "see" in a sentence, based on your version of spelling, how would one easily tell if I were saying "sea", as in the body of water, or "see" as in sight?

Context would make it obvious.

What if I wrote the word alone? Outside of a sentence.

[Zairoon]

Just asking, but is it possible for English to be a creole?

As in a mix of languages? Or as in culturally?

There's many folks in Hawai'i that speak a pidgin form of English, Quebecois sometimes speak what Anglophones call Frenglish, there's Spanglish in California and Florida; but I think as far as English goes, it annexes other languages and dialects rather than blending. English doesn't seem to allow for much competition in that regard. But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

There are many more than that. Papua New Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Belize all have widespread English Creole languages, and I'm sure there are plenty more that I haven't heard of.

I'm surprised English seems to be becoming the "dominant" language (for trade and academia, at least). It's such a goddamn inconvenient language. I read a while back about how there were a load of scholars in the 18th (I think) century who basically modified the spelling of loads of English words to make them appear more like Latin words. That pissed me off.

[Zaldakki]

Context would make it obvious.

What if I wrote the word alone? Outside of a sentence.

You could say that about any word in the dictionary with more than one definition.

[Zaldakki]

As in a mix of languages? Or as in culturally?

There's many folks in Hawai'i that speak a pidgin form of English, Quebecois sometimes speak what Anglophones call Frenglish, there's Spanglish in California and Florida; but I think as far as English goes, it annexes other languages and dialects rather than blending. English doesn't seem to allow for much competition in that regard. But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

There are many more than that. Papua New Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Belize all have widespread English Creole languages, and I'm sure there are plenty more that I haven't heard of.

I'm surprised English seems to be becoming the "dominant" language (for trade and academia, at least). It's such a goddamn inconvenient language. I read a while back about how there were a load of scholars in the 18th (I think) century who basically modified the spelling of loads of English words to make them appear more like Latin words. That pissed me off.

No language is objectively inconvenient.

[Skeckoa]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms? I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used. So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

Context, the same way we do now. Konteks, the same way wee do now. Example, Produce. We understand how to pronounce it and what it means based off contecs.

I have an idea, pay attention in school so you learn how to spell and pronounce the damn words.

So why shouldn't we try to improve it?

[Olivaero]

Question: If we do change our language spelling to be based purely on phonetics, how are we going to distinguish synonyms? I notice in your sample that you used "too" where "to" should have been used. So, how would you distinguish "To" (as in, "to do something"), from "Too" (as in: "Me too!"), and Two? Or are we just going to erase those words cause we feel like it?

Context, the same way we do now. Konteks, the same way wee do now. Example, Produce. We understand how to pronounce it and what it means based off contecs.

I have an idea, pay attention in school so you learn how to spell and pronounce the damn words.

So why shouldn't we try to improve it?

Because it's a massive undertaking that will almost definitely get ignored and will definitely be widely unpopular with native English speakers themselves.

[Bezombia]

Zis hreed iz ay yjockee.

[Skeckoa]

Because it's a massive undertaking that will almost definitely get ignored and will definitely be widely unpopular with native English speakers themselves.

even simple changes like adding f's to places that have /f/ sounds?

[Rephesus]

I wot lie, I really didn't like it when I first saw it, but I can read it, and if I can read that fine as an anglophone I'm sure it would be easier for new learners to understand than our current form of spelling. That said, as pointed out before, we have had our current spelling for a very long time, and if you change the spelling its not English any more (It's Ingglish ). Either way, I think English should remain.

That said, for sic-fi purposes when English becomes the sole interstellar communication language of the human race, we should probably reform it to make it simple for everyone to understand (meaning changing grammar et all)

Until that point, lets leave it please.

[Olivaero]

Because it's a massive undertaking that will almost definitely get ignored and will definitely be widely unpopular with native English speakers themselves.

even simple changes like adding f's to places that have /f/ sounds?

Yes.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In repli to Z OP, "thu" haz too much 'u' and not enuf 'a' or 'e' unles ure aksent iz funnee. I woeud rekomend simplee uzing "Z" insted.

But on a more serious note, if we're going to write things phonetically; then I shall insist upon going down Shaw's route and using the full phonetic alphabet and the Queen's English.

And on an even more serious note, since I'm one of the lucky native speakers; I say let the foreigners struggle: it helps us to distinguish relatively uneducated foreigners without so much difficulty. (Also to a large extent it works to distinguish uneducated locals).

[Rephesus]

In repli tu Z OP, "thu" haz too much 'u' and not enuf 'a' or 'e' unles ure aksent iz funnee. I wood rekomend simplee uzing "Z" insted.

But on a more serious note, if we're going to write things phonetically; then I shall insist upon going down Shaw's route and using the full phonetic alphabet and the Queen's English.

And on an even more serious note, since I'm one of the lucky native speakers; I say let the foreigners struggle: it helps us to distinguish relatively uneducated foreigners without so much difficulty. (Also to a large extent it works to distinguish uneducated locals).

Generally speaking those uneducated foreigners who have bad english can speak twice or three times as many languages as the Anglophones who mock them

[Zaldakki]

Zis hreed iz ay yjockee.

Ok I've been able to read all the reforms, but not this one?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Generally speaking those uneducated foreigners who have bad english can speak twice or three times as many languages as the Anglophones who mock them

But English is the lingua franca and nowadays most educated people know to spend the time to learn it properly as a result.

One major problem with the spelling reforms which I noticed while trying my own hand is that different accents can still lead to wildly different spelling. It seems to me highly unlikely that we can standardize on spelling unless we can standardize on pronunciation; and frankly I don't want to have my pronunciation standardized.

[Sediczja]

Zis hreed iz ay yjockee.

Ok I've been able to read all the reforms, but not this one?

"This thread is a joke".

I concur.