Here's Joe's dictionary entry for "Herr".
"Used as a courtesy title in a German-speaking area, prefixed to the surname or professional title of a man."
It's a German word using German orthography. Why use German orthography to refrom English spelling? We've got our own orthography. Using someone else's would not be to simplify the language but to make it unduly more complex.
Also if you've got "wae" and "wate" for "weigh" and "weight", then what becomes of "weighing" ... "waeing"? It's easy if you're using my versions: "wey", "weit" & "weying".
Quote-''I pronounce these words as the traditional spelling indicates. I pronounce both of the "c"s (as [k]) in "Antartica", why drop one? I pronounce the "th" in "clothes" as [TH], why omit it? I pronounce the [w] indicated by the "qu" in "quarter", "quorter" would be okay but not "korter" nor even "corter" (which would be better than "korter" for the same reson that "scool" is better than "skool"). However, "quorter" would not be necessary. After "qu", "w" and "wh" the "ar" digraph is normally pronounced as [o:(r)] so "quarter" is fine as it is.''
I'm omitted the consonants because I don't pronounce them and I don't pronounce the ''h'' in ''herb'' either.
Also, I spelled ''quart'' as ''kort'' because I would respell ''court'' as ''cort'' and spelling ''quart'' as ''cort'' would make a homograph with ''court''.
ARE YOU SHAW
I say [So:] not [Se:(r)]
Well, I say [Se:r]. What about ''shure'', that fits both pronunciations doesn't it.
I think "cubord" is better. Why use "ur" when it's not [e:(r)]? You don't need a double "b": you don't have a double "z" in wizard.
I'm not quite sure what a [kju:bo:rd] is. ''Cubberd'' would probably work better. Both ''cubberd'' and ''cubbord'' work but ''cubord'' looks like [kju:bo:rd].
again - agen
That looks like it should be pronounced [eij..n]. ''aggen'' works better.
"E"S NOT NEEDED
Both of these work fine but why not just "o" and "i"?
It looks odd to spell a ''noun'' or a ''verb'' as just one simple letter. And plus, I'd respell ''oh'' as ''o'' so spelling ''owe'' that way would make a homograph for it. ''eye'' spelled as just ''i'' would make a homograph for the pronoun ''I''.
Also you say why not just ''o'' and ''i'', but you don't like the idea of spelling ''you'' as ''u''. Is spelling ''owe'' and ''eye'' as ''o'' and ''i'' any different.
"Ma'am" is short for "madam". Do we want that fact lost?
Doesn't everyone know that anyway.?Who doesn't know that ''height'' is related to high because of the silly fact that ''height'' has an ''e'' and ''high'' doesn't?
Everyone knows that ''mam'' is short for ''madam''. It should be written as ''mam'' to go with ''sir''.
I certainly don't pronounce it [ketS].
I pronounce ''catch'' as [ketS]. That's common in many areas of the United
I went to the thread where Smith was talking about Neytoe Inglish. http://b16.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=37.topic
and on that thread he's comparing ''Neytoe Inglish'' to some other proposal reform that Smith showed on there. That proposal does things like spell ''court'' as ''koert''. Why not just ''kort''? And spells ''what'' as ''whut''. Why not just ''wut''?
Anyway, how does this spelling reform idea compare to that system that Smith is comparing to ''Neytoe Inglish''. Is their system better than this one. Well,here's their proposal.
This is how there system spells this sentence.
"What my father told the court he had wanted was not to be caught with a quart of water in the cot of his daughter all hidden away in the cart of his brother."
''Wutmie fothur toeld thu kort hee had wontid wuz not too bee kaut with u kwort uv wauter in thu kot uv hiz dauter aul hidun uwae in thu kart uv hiz bruthur''.
This is how that other system spells it.
''Whut mie faadhur toeld dhu koert hee had wontid wuz not too bee kaut with u kwort uv wautur in dhu kot uv hiz dautur aul hidun uwae in dhu kart uv hiz brudhur.
Which one works better and is easier to read?
I think that this reform's sentence that I'm talking about is easier to read than the reform's sentence that Smith was comparing to Neytoe Inglish. ''kort'' is much easier to read than ''koert''. Why put an ''e'' in the middle of the word. Also, I think ''th'' is easier to read than ''dh''. Why use ''dh''? So, I think this reform's sentence is easier to read than the other reform's sentence.
Oops I made a mistake,
''Wutmie fothur toeld thu kort hee had wontid wuz not too bee kaut with u kwort uv wauter in thu kot uv hiz dauter aul hidun uwae in thu kart uv hiz bruthur''., Should be,
''Wut mie fothur toeld thu kort hee had wontid wuz not too bee kaut with u kwort uv wautur in thu kot uv hiz dautur aul hidun uwae
in thu kart uv hiz bruthur''.
I think this spelling reform system is more legible than that other one. This one uses normal ''kort'' and normal ''th'' and theirs uses odd ''koert'' and odd ''dh''.
MAKING A MESS OF YOUR PJ's
Weren't we trying to simplify spelling?
Yeah, I think there's a mess on ''puhjahmuhs''. How about some more mess? How about these.
This is just a joke.
Now here's how I'd really respell them.
I forgot ''zh''. That was on their list of consonant digrams.
Well, anyway which one of these two systems is better and why? Is one better because it's easier to read or something else?
Quote-Just look at these suggestions. They're all over the place: two very different digraphs and a magic "e". Besides in the word "sundae" I can't think of any instance where "ae" is pronounced as [ei]:'' What about ''Gaelic'' and ''Gael''. I used ''e'' after ''a'' for the magic ''e'' in ''wae'' for ''weigh''.
John, what are you talking about. Have you come up with a proposal of your own. Well anyway yes ''Gaelic'' and ''Gael'' have ''ae'' pronounced as [ei]. And, yes, like John says I was thinking about the magic ''e''.
I say "Antarctica" you say "Antartica".
I say "clothes" you say "cloes".
I say "quarter" you say "korter".
I say "shor" you say "shur".
I say "woz" you say "wuz".
I say "cach" you say "kech".
"That proposal does things like spell 'court' as 'koert'. Why not just ''kort''? And spells 'what' as 'whut'. Why not just 'wut'?" Why not? For the benifit of those who make the distinctions between [o:r] & [Our] and between "w" & "wh": that's why not.
''Gaelic'' and ''Gael''; those are good. Yes, there are more than one instance of "ae" pronounced as [ei]; great. However, I believe you'll still find that "ei" and "ey" are both much much more common. What's wrong with my suggestion?
eight ==>> eit
weight ==>> weit
weigh ==>> wey
weighing ==>> weying
Do you think your suggestion is better? Do you think mine makes less sense or is further from traditional orthography? Do you think "waeing" is worth considering?
You say one thing I say the other ... let's call the whole reform off.