The person going by my name on pages 11 and 12 was not me.
Why do you bother? I never write that I think I make very good reforms. I never write that I don't need anyone telling me that my ideas are shitty. If they are shitty everyone should tell me so.
In my system [TH] is not "th" nor is [th] "thh" ... you're thinking of Truespel. Nor do I suggest "n'" for [n:]. And I just love it how you've given me an American accent ... and American spelling.
I say the digraphs "ei" and "ey" usually represent [ei] in traditional orthography. And you reply like this.
"I think you want to change the spelling as you pronounce a Romance.
"This is English. Remember that the English has nothing to deal with Spanish, Italian, Latin, etc...
"English is a unique language almost at all things you talk about it."
I invite you to remember that the English has a lot to "deal" with the Romance languages. However this is not my concern. Perhaps you misunderstand me. By "traditional orthography" I mean "traditional English orthography". Actually I have no desire to change spelling at all. Though if spelling were to change I certainly have no desire to base English spelling on Latin.
Not only do the words "prey" and "pray" rhyme but they sound identicle. However there are good reasons to keep the distinction in spelling. You want to save children from going crazy. I think children have a greater capacity to accept the complexity of English spelling than you give them credit for. In fact they could well go less crazy if such distinctions are kept. Also remember that spelling isn't only for children. Adults spell too.
You write "British pronounce 'colour' as ( 'kul-@ ). They swallow the r. What's gone one with this Queen's English. Didn't Normans or any other tribes teach them English?"
You generalise. Not all British accents are non-rhotic ("'r' swallowing", if you like). Also not all non-rhotic accents are British. I have a non-rhotic accent. I say it's fine to "swallow the 'r'". There's nothing wrong with non-rhotic accents. I think you'll find that what the Normans taught the Britons is French not English.
Do you really say [fwo:t] and [bwo:k]? If so you are a rare specimen indeed. I still don't think that the words should be respelt to fit your unique pronuncitation. You've seen the word "twenty" that has a "w" ... that's because it's normally pronounced with a [w] unlike "foot" and "book". Perhaps Englishmen won't accept "uu" for [u] or [u:] but they certainly wouldn't get bewildered by it as we all would with "fwaut" and "bwauk".
"Americans pronounce 'been' as [bin] regardless of whether or not they are speaking fast or saying the word in isolation." you write and I say [bi:n]. This is just another reason that a phonemic reform is bound to failure. There are so many words which vary so greatly between accents.
I agree with your complaints about Joe's respelling of "where". I think "here", "there" and "where" are best left as they are. The next best option would be "here", "thare" and "whare". With "heer", "thair" and "whair" or "here", "dhare" and "whare" coming equal third and fifth place going to "heer", "dhair" and "whair". I don't know where I'd place "hirr", "therr" and "wherr" but it wouldn't be a favourite.
There is such a word as "multiverse".
Your "-ooey" words.
Here's how I pronounce them.
bouy = [boi]
dewy = [dZu:i(:)]
gooey = [gu:i(:)]
rouillé ... well I've never actually said the word.
So of your list only "gooey" will do but that's the one which you've not respelt anyway.
Yes, I do use "whilst" quite often. Whilst it might seem archaic to you it doesn't seem so to me. Though I do acknowledge that it is going out of fashion.
You suggest ''siberspase'' and ''hiperspase'' instead of Joe's "siberspaiss" and "hiperspaiss". Why not? Well, they could be mistaken for [saib..(r)speiz] and [haip..(r)speiz]. Think about the word "laser". Why is it pronounced [leiz..(r)] not [leis..(r)]?
Certainly "'til" is a clipped form of "until" but you're wrong about "till". First there was "till" which got lenghtened to "until" and subesquently shortened (mistakenly) to "'til". If you have evidence otherwise don't write to me about it write the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary from whence I got this info.
The fact that "till" is not short for "until" has absolutely nothing to do with ''phone'', ''bus'', ''plane'', ''piano'', ''cello'', ''maths'' and ''cab''. Yes, these still are the clipped forms of ''telephone'', ''aeroplane'', ''pianoforte'', ''violoncello'', ''mathematics'' and ''taxicab''. If you're smart enough to type then you surely could have figured this one out.
"So, 'jail' is fine just throw out 'gaol'." ... but I did so like "gaol" ...
But there already is such a word. How about "roal"?
ukelele = in my phonemic system =>> eukylaily
This is the first I've seen of a double "x". It looks like it might become [ksks]. The more usual option would be "cc", "xc", "cs" or something. Also I'd say [t@ksik@b] not [t@ksi:k@b].
This is another accent thing. I say [@nti] not [@ntai].
has only [disg^stiN]
I say keep the "w"/"wh" distinction.
I think "vew" would be better. The digraphs "ew" and "eu" are very common in English. I don't see the need to change them all to "ue".
Why the "k"? You could get by with "dicshunerry", "fracshun" and "fricshun".
I think there is a problem with "-erry": it reinforces the American pronunciation over the Commonwealth one. I say [dikS..nri(:)] not [dikS..neri(:)]. So "dicshunry" would be better for me.
Are you going to get rid of all the "-tion-"s, the "-sion-"s, the "-xion-"s, the "-gion-"s, the "-ssion-"s, etc.? You'll have a task on your hands. I don't think they're all that bad. In fact I like the idea of making more use of "-xion-". How about "dixionry", "frixion" and "fraxion"?
It's "museum" not "museam" and the voicing of "s" is quite common when there's an "e" to follow.
My mistake: no, I don't say [fungi] I say [f^Ngi]. I don't know how you're getting [ai] out of "uy" anyway. I know "guy" is pronounced [gai] but the "u" is there to stop the "g" going [dZ] and I've noticed that you've suggested "gide" instead of "guide", I assume you'll go for "gittar" too. Anyway we're now left with a "y" at the end of a word. But "y"s at ends of words aren't always pronounced [ai] infact you'll notice that where there is a stressed vowel somewhere else in the word the "y" at the end will usually become [i(:)]. So why should "funguy" spell [f^Ngai] instead of [f^Ngi(:)]?
Ms.-Abbreviation for Miss
"Mrs." isn't the abbreviation for ''Misses'' nor is "Ms." the abbreviation for "Miss".
Mightn't they be misread [hju:rei] and [hju:ra:]?
Why is "ul" better than "ol", "el", "al" and "le"? How about "-juse" or "juce" instead of "-joose"?
Proxima Centauri-Proxima Sentoree
I don't say [proksim..sento:ri:] but [proksim..sentSu:ri].
This is a brand name. You'd better ask the company whether they mind your changing the spelling.
This looks like [n@tS..(r)]. How about "naicher"?
I say [k@r..bu:] not [ker..bu:].
What's wrong with the "a"? Using "a" for [..] at the begining of a word is the norm in English.
I say [ba:b..kju:]. How is "a" any better than "e"?
"Karate-kuhrahtee [who cares about the correct way to say it?]"
What a stupid argument. If you're going to make spelling match pronunciation, you might as well have it match correct pronunciation.