It's complicated if you don't speak Spanish. This is the best reform of English for Spaniards.
name -- neim
day -- dey
seat -- sit
need -- nid
piece -- pis
peace -- pis
bite -- bait
fight -- fait
lie -- lay
by -- bay
buy -- bay
boat -- bout
note -- nout
so -- sou; sow
low -- lou; low
new -- niú
cute -- kiút; quiút
law -- lo; la; loa
caught -- cot; cat
thought -- zot; zat
boot -- but
hook -- huok; huoc
cow -- cao; cau; caw
round -- raond; raund
boy -- boe
soil -- soel
Respelling ''lie'' as ''lay'' is a pretty silly idea.
boat -- bot
note -- not
so -- so
low -- lo
law -- la
caught -- cat
thought -- (España) zat
new -- nu
Those are better where I live. I like the rest, or find the Spanish too hard.
boat -- bot
note -- not
so -- so
low -- lo
law -- la
caught -- cat
thought -- (España) zat
new -- nu
In those spellings only ''so'', ''lo'' and ''nu'' are okay. ''bot'' and ''not'' for ''boat'' and ''note'' look like [ba:t] and [na:t] and ''cat'' and ''zat'' for ''caught'' and ''thought'' look like [k@t] and [z@t] not [ka:t] and [tha:t].
How about,
boat-boat
note-note
so-so
low-loe
law-law
caught-caut
thought-thaut
new-nu, British-nyu
This is how these words come out in my system.
boat-boet
note-noet
so-soe
low-loe
law-lau
caught-kaut
thought-thaut
new-noo, British-nue
These don't fit Spanish pronunciation at all. I'll list how one would say them in english.
boat -- bow-ought
note -- no-tay
loe -- low-eh
law -- w isn't used in Spanish
caut -- caw-oot
thaut -- thaw-oot
Sorry, that should be English.
There are several good reasons against a spelling reform for English.
First, all proposals for spelling reform are based on a particular pronunciation. The problems then become: which pronunciation to adopt and how much slack is acceptable? For example, the word "missile" is pronounced quite differently in the UK than in the U.S., so which pronunciation would be used in the reformed spelling? Additionally, some syllables in many English words are not enunciated clearly among various English dialects, should the spelling simply omit the muted sounds? If so, then the spelling will be understandable for speakers of some dialects but not the others.
Secondly, English spelling reflects ancient speech and etymology. This latter aspect allows us to recognize variations on a root word and infer meaning. Also, sometimes the pronunciation of a word changes slightly due to preceding or following words or to changes in grammatical function -- should the spelling also change to reflect this change in pronunciation? If so, that creates multiple spellings for the same word.
Lastly, reformed spelling makes the language difficult to read for native speakers, of which there are hundreds of millions. Do we really want to see something like "tu bi oer nat tu bi" amongst our classics?
In my experience, poor spellers among native English speakers are usually those who do not read very much. The best way to improve one's spelling of English is to read.
I wish I could make a little smiley do a pompom routine and cheer.
If the purpose of spelling reform is to make spelling easier, then I suppose you might have a point (although a lazy one).
However, if the purpose is to make READING easier, well that just doesn't make any psychological sense. People read characters, not individual phonetics. Thus, when we see the word "window," we're actually reading the symbol that we associate with that word, rather than a series of sounds.
The biggest problem with your Spanish spelling reform, though, is that there is no Spanish sound for our flat "a," i.e. the sound heard in "cat," "bat," or "band."
