We'll begin with box; the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox is oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
But the plural of mouse in not ever meese.
You may find a lone mouse, or a whole nest of mice,
But the plural of house is still never hice.
If the plural of man is always men
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be pen?
If I speak of a foot and you show me two feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
If a singular this is a plural these
Should the plural of kiss ever be keese?
We speak of a brother and also call brethren,
And though we say mother we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis and shim.
When the English tongue we speak,
Why is "break" not rhymed with "freak"?
And the maker of a verse
Cannot cap his "horse" with "worse"?
"Beard" sounds not the same as "heard."
"Cord" is different from "word".
"Cow" is cow, but "low is low.
"Shoe" is never rhymed with "foe."
Think of "hose" and "dose" and "lose",
And of "goose" and yet of "choose."
Think of "comb" and "tomb" and "bomb",
"Doll" and"roll" and "home " and "some."
And since "pay" is rhymed with "say,"
Why not "paid" and "said," I pray?
We have "blood" and "food" and "good."
"Mould" is not pronounced like "could."
Wherefore "done," but "gone" and "one"?
Is there any reason known?
And, in short, it seems to me,
Sounds and letters disagree
What about "cough" and "through" and "tougher"
Which don't sound anything like each other.
"Thorough" can be made to rhyme with "dough,:
But "bough" sounds like "cow" and not like "though".
"Draught" is spelled a lot like " taught",
But only one of them sounds like "bought."
We haven't mentioned "laughter" or "daughter,"
Neither of which is spelled like it oughter.
Everyone says that " might" makes "right."
So how come "eight" doesn't rhyme with "sleight"?
"Trough" can rhyme with "off" or "moth",
And on that note, I'll end this froth.
restaurant-resturaant
''I say [restront] why not "restront"?''
I say ''restaurant'' with three syllables. [rest..ra:nt].
Jim,
they should be pronounced like "bay", "bait" and "late", i.e. [bei], [beit] and [leit]. The digraphs "ei" and "ey" usually represent [ei] in traditional orhtography.
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.
That's why most of us are visiting this page. I don't complain about good ideas. I wish I saw people think about resolution. Not just foreigners, native
speakers, too.
The words prey and pray rhyme. So, think about the same spelling that
children won't get crazy about which is exact.
I also speak Spanish. I understand that the spelling I made is confusing for
Romance Languages
Everything explained is good to understand. That's why you speak English.
Since you were a child your parents and your teachers were teaching you
the English Phonics. There's a lot of English program that people are bored
to visit them. They have no stupid spelling resolution.
If in my new spelling reform I spell "beauty" as "beuty," then all the other
words from Latin languages in English, should change the spelling.
No reform has two words spelt totally different.
If you say "interesting and different" as "intresting and diffrent," you will
know why Noah Webster made his simple American English spelling as in
"color" instead of "colour". 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?
Jim, Americans pronounce ''been'' as [bin] regardless of whether or not they are speaking fast or saying the word in isolation.
Willy reforms ''book'' as ''bwauk'' and ''foot'' as ''fwaut''. I don't say [fwa:t] and [bwa:k]. I think ''foot'' and ''book'' are better left as they are. I guess Willy wants to respell all [u]s as ''wau's''. How then would we spell ''water''?
In this system
http://b16.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=40.topic ''foot'' and ''book'' become ''fuut'' and ''buuk''. [u] is written ''uu'' and this is how this sentence comes out.
''They wanted to go get a boot to put on their foot and have some good food.''
''Dhae wuntid too goe get u boot too puut on dhair fuut and hav sum guud food.''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Joe reforms ''where'' as ''werr'' because of ''err'' and ''herr''. So, would Joe also reform ''there'' as ''therr''. What about ''bear'' would Joe reform that as ''berr''. What about ''here''? Would Joe reform that as ''hirr'' because of the Scottish word ''yirr'' [yir] meaning ''to ''bark or growl, as a dog does.''? I can't find the word ''yirr'' in any computer dictionary but it's in my home book dictionary.
Here, there, where would be hirr, therr, and werr. Wouldn't ''here,'' ''there'' and ''where'' or even here, thare, and whare be better.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Some more of Joe's respellings
bicycle-biesikkul
tricycle-triesikkul
motorcycle-motersikul
unicycle-unisikul
waffle-waafel
Joe's respelling ''le'' as ''ul'' in some words and ''el'' in others. Why doesn't he reform ''bicycle'' as ''biesikkel'' or ''waffle'' as ''waaful'' if he's replacing ''le''.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
''In truth [n:] is not a phoneme, I think that Smith recognises this fact although he did call it a "is a very rare phoneme". It's not a phoneme but it does represent a distinction made by some speakers.''
Yeah, [n:] is not a phoneme. But it shows that a vowel that's before it is nasalized. Many speakers pronounce [n:] as [n]. Should the distinction be ignored? In that system I'm talking about up there ''contretemps'' becomes ''kontrutaann''. Also, ''rouille'' can become ''rooy''.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
You-u
yu-yu
It would not be a good idea to respell ''you'' as ''u'' because ''youth'' as ''uth'' wouldn't work. But if you spelled it ''yu'' it still wouldn't work ''yuth''. Of course, you could say you were going to use the magic ''e''. ''yuthe''. But that would look like the ''th'' should be voiced. I think ''yoo'' is a better choice because then ''youth'' is easy ''yooth''.
Steve,
I neither say (fwa:t) nor (bwa:k), but I do say (fwo:t) and (bwo:k) for
"foot" and ''book." You have your American accent that changes "au" and
"aw" for (a:), not as in British Accent (o:). The Americans just want to
change the English Pronunciation. They seem that they don't want to
recognise that one time Indians were colonised. Now white Americans seem
to be who invented the English language. I don't think British like this.
Steve,
The spelling of "water" that you asked me is "wauter, not "woTTer, woDDer,
or FREYD65RD4E56."
English is better than American Accent because they invented it. I see no
reason why Americans wish to change the spelling. British are the only
people to change their language.
For example American Spanish can't change Spanish.
Willy, ''foot'' and ''book'' are pronounce [fut] and [buk]. If you pronounced them [fwo:t] and [bwo:k] I wouldn't be able to understand you.
Yeah, this system
http://b16.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=40.topic spells ''oo'' as ''uu'' like Steve says. I agree with Steve though that ''bwauk'' and ''fwaut'' are crazy spellings. ''fuut'' and ''buuk'' are much better but this is only in my phonemic system. I'd say leave them as ''foot'' and ''book''. I don't know what a [fwa:t] is but I know what a [fut] is.
How about this sentence.
''I don't want to go get some boot that hurts my foot.
This is how it comes out in my phonemic system.
''Ie doen't wunt too goe get sum boot that hurts mie fuut.''
''I neither say (fwa:t) nor (bwa:k), but I do say (fwo:t) and (bwo:k) for
"foot" and ''book." You have your American accent that changes "au" and
"aw" for (a:), not as in British Accent (o:). The Americans just want to
change the English Pronunciation. They seem that they don't want to
recognise that one time Indians were colonised. Now white Americans seem
to be who invented the English language. I don't think British like this.'''
I don't think so. I could equally say that the Britons just want to change English pronunciation because they pronounce ''cart'' as [ka:t] instead of [ka:rt]. I pronounce ''aw'' and ''au'' as [a:]. I'm not trying to change the English pronunciation.
I neither say [fa:] nor [ba:], but I do say [fa:r] and [ba:r] for ''far'' and ''bar''. The British accent changes ''ar'' to [a:], not as in British Accent [a:r]. The Britons just want to change the English pronunciation.
The British accent changes ''ar'' to [a:], not as in British Accent [a:r]. The Britons just want to change the English pronunciation.
I meant
The British accent changes ''ar'' to [a:], not as in American Accent [a:r]. The Britons just want to change the English pronunciation.