Ingglish speling reform?

[Rephesus]

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.

I highly doubt that 'Most educated people' even know english. Many? Absolutely, but a majority of the world's educated population has 'properly learned' English? Nah.

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.

I rather like the standardized North American accent, its the most simple way of speaking english (plus when you sing in english regardless of your accent it sounds closer to this than any other Accent). That said, Accents are a major determining factor in a person's cultural identity and I wouldn't want a single accent to be impressed upon all anglophones (because y'know, forcing people to speak like you hasn't gone over well in the past, look at the British Commonwealth )

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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

I highly doubt that 'Most educated people' even know english. Many? Absolutely, but a majority of the world's educated population has 'properly learned' English? Nah.

I never said they managed it properly.

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.

I rather like the standardized North American accent, its the most simple way of speaking english (plus when you sing in english regardless of your accent it sounds closer to this than any other Accent).

It most certainly does not. You simply can't sing any choral music with an american accent, it becomes nasal and you end up sounding like a cowboy from Texas. All proper music must be sung with an English accent, c.f. King's Cambridge. (Besides most Americans can't pronounce 't' differently from 'd').

[Rephesus]

It most certainly does not. You simply can't sing any choral music with an american accent, it becomes nasal and you end up sounding like a cowboy from Texas. All proper music must be sung with an English accent, c.f. King's Cambridge. (Besides most Americans can't pronounce 't' differently from 'd').

And most Brits can't pronounce 'er'

Anyway, if 'Texas Cowboy' is your measure for a Standard North American accent, then I guess Shakespeare is mine for England

[The Liberated Territories]

I reconize þatt Inglish duz not haff a veri good sistem of spelling. þus, it iz nessesseri for þe langwej þatt iz becoming þe global 'linguwa franka' too haff a spelling sistem þatt iz standardized and can be understood bi boþ natiff speekerz and þoze neu too þe langwej. Like et or nott, Inglish iz a Jermannic langwej, and such, when spelt foneticali et looks like wun. I am compleetli shur þatt þoze reeding þis can still understand what I am saeing, regardless of þe neu sistem.

Done with some my proposed changes. If I made any mistakes or inconsistencies please correct me.

[Rephesus]

I reconize þatt Inglish duz not haff a veri good sistem of spelling. þus, it iz nessesseri for þe langwej þatt iz becoming þe global 'linguwa franka' too haff a spelling sistem þatt iz standardized and can be understood bi boþ natiff speekerz and þoze neu too þe langwej. Like et or nott, Inglish iz a Jermannic langwej, and such, when spelt foneticali et looks like wun. I am compleetli shur þatt þoze reeding þis can still understand what I am saeing, regardless of þe neu sistem.

Done with some my proposed changes. If I made any mistakes or inconsistencies please correct me.

I have to say it took me a second to get that the 'þ' was 'th', but I like it

[Immoren]

It most certainly does not. You simply can't sing any choral music with an american accent, it becomes nasal and you end up sounding like a cowboy from Texas. All proper music must be sung with an English accent, c.f. King's Cambridge. (Besides most Americans can't pronounce 't' differently from 'd').

And most Brits can't pronounce 'er'

Anyway, if 'Texas Cowboy' is your measure for a Standard North American accent, then I guess Shakespeare is mine for England

Obviously Texan is closer to Shakespeare than modern Londoner.

[Allentyr]

Bad idea and you should feel bad.
And that's Dutch, damnit.

[Vyvland]

If we have to bring some consistency, let's just keep the general principles of English orthography as-is and iron out the inconsistencies. With just a couple more rules to remember (e.g. voiced fricatives between vowel letters, long vowel in open syllable), none of which are really new, this can easily be pronounced and most words end up looking the same as now. The only problem I'm having is distinguishing word-initial /ð/ from /θ/, which is only really a problem if you still use the word 'thy'.

I recognize that Inglish dus not hav a verry good sistem ov spelling. Thus, it is neceserry for the langwidge that is becumming the global 'lingua franca' tu hav a spelling sistem that is standardized and can be understood by bowth nativ speakers and those new tu the langwidge. Like it or not, Inglish is a Jermannik langwidge, and such, when spelt phoneticli it looks like won. I am completely shore (or shure) that those reading this can still understand what I am saying, regardless ov the new sistem.

[Forsher]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

You were saying?

The rules part are understandable, but it was meant to make a point.

And it fails to make that point. In future, please read your own links.

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s," and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c," "y" and "x"--bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez--tu riplais "ch," "sh," and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Please meet ch.

Yeah, English needs a spelling reform. It's present day existence is an ugly conglomeration of basically every germanic and frankish tribe that ever entered the islands, tortured by time, and quite frankly even though it's my most fluent language it's the one that confuses me the most. Plus nearly half of the dictionary is loan words...

Are these problems? No...

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?

You'd just use something like -ike but that has the problem of being pronounced like -ike in like.

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

Unique/unicue
Critique/criticue
Physique/physicue

See what I mean?

Nope. Looks fine to me.

Except you look at it and think "u ni cue".

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

But that's inferior solution.

No, it's not. Having letter combinations means fewer letters are required, which is a big help when it comes to typing on computers.

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)

Good for them.

Reform inherently complicates matters and that is undesirable.

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?

I think that's what he meant to use instead of synonyms. I think most homonyms are spelt differently. Stationary and Stationery are often homonyms. I and Eye. To, Two and Too. The list goes on. He's got a very good point in that phonetic spelling (which isn't the point of written language anyway) loses these and sometimes that's going to be confusing. Don't ask me for an example because I can't think of one.

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?

"We're going to the sea". That can only ever be sea as the other doesn't make sense. "I see what you mean." Again, same process resolves the apparent confusion. When you create sentences or paragraphs the room for confusion is greatly reduced because of context. I'm sure that there are examples where confusion reigns but they don't spring to mind easily.

Reigned and Rained might be a good example if you're being a bit metaphorical. "Her blood rained over all of England" makes sense in some senses, as does "Her blood reigned over all of England".

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?

Except that last t in context is frequently pronounced. For instance, "There's a little thing called context." Actually, maybe I'm leaning towards its always being pronounced.

[Forsher]

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).

It's pronounced zed.

I rather like the standardized North American accent, its the most simple way of speaking english (plus when you sing in english regardless of your accent it sounds closer to this than any other Accent). That said, Accents are a major determining factor in a person's cultural identity and I wouldn't want a single accent to be impressed upon all anglophones (because y'know, forcing people to speak like you hasn't gone over well in the past, look at the British Commonwealth )

The reason for that is the saturation of cultural forms like music with American derived material.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Òv ccórç Ìnglix spèliñ xàlt bí bêzd in the Portjuguíz end Ccaetelen nórms. *nòds*

[Zaldakki]

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).

It's pronounced zed.

Depends on your dialect.

[Forsher]

It's pronounced zed.

Depends on your dialect.

Yes, which illustrates the exact issue with phonetic reforms (as the majority are) doesn't it?

[Sebastianbourg]

And most Brits can't pronounce 'er'

Anyway, if 'Texas Cowboy' is your measure for a Standard North American accent, then I guess Shakespeare is mine for England

Obviously Texan is closer to Shakespeare than modern Londoner.

Modern Londoner? I don't speak like a chav.

[Immoren]

No, it's not. Having letter combinations means fewer letters are required, which is a big help when it comes to typing on computers.

You can always add them under button combo, like some Nordic letters in Nordic alphabet keyboards.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Yes, which illustrates the exact issue with phonetic reforms (as the majority are) doesn't it?

Portuguese and Spanish both have about just as much dialectal variation as English and we do it fine in our far more phonemic orthographies.

[Anglo-California]

Get your paws off of my language, you damn, dirty apes!

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You can always add them under button combo, like some Nordic letters in Nordic alphabet keyboards.

I think he doesn't know how people who speak languages that have accent marks or huge alphabets use the PC.

[Immoren]

Obviously Texan is closer to Shakespeare than modern Londoner.

Modern Londoner? I don't speak like a chav.

So?
English in the new world is closer to Shakespeares English, because for long it was on periphery of English speaking world.

[Anglo-California]

You can always add them under button combo, like some Nordic letters in Nordic alphabet keyboards.

I think he doesn't know how people who speak languages that have accent marks or huge alphabets use the PC.

Non-English keyboards are generally different.

[Immoren]

Get your paws off of my language, you damn, dirty apes!

No one's touching your language.

[Anglo-California]

Modern Londoner? I don't speak like a chav.

So?
English in the new world is closer to Shakespeares English, because for long it was on periphery of English speaking world.

We still use the word "faucet".

Therefore, American English is the truer English.

I'm gonna say that in front of Westminister while wearing an "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" t-shirt and see what happens to me.

[Sebastianbourg]

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).

It's pronounced zed.

Rule Britannia!

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Get your paws off of my language, you damn, dirty apes!

Nô. Portjuguíz doominêxen wàrld-waid! Yú wil ijventjuòlie bí annècxt tju às, rejzistaens is fütil.

[Anglo-California]

The only official reform of the English language I'd half-heartedly support would be the purging of all words of Latin and French origin and using just words of Celtic or Germanic origin.

Emphasis on the "half-heartedly".