|
|
I mean ''pronouncing'' not ''pronounce''.
|
|
|
Also, truespel, spells it yeah as ''ye''
|
|
All those reforms are very ugly.
All you need is to regularize the current ortography.
|
|
Still, I have a complaint or two to level at Truespel too. For example, while they
manage to distinguish the "a" in "father" from the "au" in "author" there is no mention
of the "o" in "copper". According to them "Truespel is a simple pronunciation guide
spelling for American English." it therefore neglects the rest of us.
For some the "eah" in "yeah" is [e..] it rhymes with the non-rhotic pronunciation
of "bear". In the Aussie accent it can come out as more of a long vowel than a diphthtong,
like the "e" in "yet" but long as opposed to short. The spelling "ye" won't do for
us.
This is one of the problems with phonemic spelling: everyone speaks differently.
Perhaps it's the greatest problem.
|
|
|
Like I said before, adopt a different language for the written standard, and then
have English as a spoken langage ONLY.
|
|
Clark,
Always the one with the fascinating and radical ideas but are you serious? Speak
one language and write another ... would anyone actually do that? And if you're
caught writing English before the 500 years are up, you'll be hanged.
|
|
Well, Arabic-speakers do this. Chinese-speakers sort of do this. The people of England
when the Normans were in power did this (mind you, most people were illiterate, in
any language, at that time).
As for me being serious; well, not really. But I do think that this would totally
solve the problem of spelling reform. I mean, English-speaking governments could
set a mandate that any writing, ANY WRITING, be in the Esperanto language. And the
mandate to go along with the other would state that the English language must be
used only as an oral language. Anyone wishing to write the English language can do
so if they please, but it will not be recognised in the schools, government, private
and public business, etc...
Would this ever happen? Probably not. But think about it; will a spelling reform
ever take place for the English language in the next 500 years? I doubt it; unless
there is a significant change in the usage of the language. For example, if South
Africans start to soud all of their "ch's" (as in church) like the "sh" in "ship,"
then the South African government or what-have-you, might officially change South
African spelling to go along with the spoken South African vernacular.
"I went to shursh to crunsh some ships with my model ship." = "I went to church to
crunch some chips with my model ship."
|
|
|
That last sentence sounds really crazy.
|
|
|
I just looked up ''yeah'' in my dictionary, and it listed the pronunciation ''ye''.
|
|
at the beginning of their spelling reform it said,
Welcome to a new way of writing English, a way where no one will have a hard time
knowing how any of the words are pronounced.
In reformed spelling it said
Welkum too u noo wae uv rieting Inglish. u wae wer noewun wil hav u hard tiem noeing
hou enee uv thu wurdz ar prunounst.
Yep, they spell finger ''fingur'' and singer ''singur'', they don't add the extra
''g'' in finger. they don't spell it ''finggur''.
|
|
|
This spelling reform spelled ''once'' ''wuns''. Truespel spelled it ''wunts''.
|
|
|
If they reformed English spelling, they could make two spelling reforms, one for
American English and one for British English, for example, Aluminum and Either. American-uloominum
syllables, u-loom-i-num and eethur. British- alumineeum syllables, al-u-min-ee-um
and iethur.
|
|
|
could we not just teach americans to speak properly?
|
|
|
I speak just fine, bluemonkey. I certainly don't need your help.
|
|
i dont mean totally change their accents, but the way in which they say words like
tuesday, tune, either...
to me these sound rather retarded.
|
