Spanish Spelling Reform of English

Guille   Monday, May 03, 2004, 02:23 GMT
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
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH   Monday, May 03, 2004, 02:47 GMT
Respelling ''lie'' as ''lay'' is a pretty silly idea.
Someone   Monday, May 03, 2004, 03:07 GMT
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.
Smith   Monday, May 03, 2004, 03:14 GMT
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,

new-nu, British-nyu
Smith   Monday, May 03, 2004, 03:19 GMT
This is how these words come out in my system.

new-noo, British-nue
Someone   Monday, May 03, 2004, 03:25 GMT
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
Someone   Monday, May 03, 2004, 03:26 GMT
Sorry, that should be English.
Dulcinea del Toboso   Monday, May 03, 2004, 04:47 GMT
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.
mjd   Monday, May 03, 2004, 05:04 GMT
Well said.
Chilli   Monday, May 03, 2004, 16:25 GMT
I wish I could make a little smiley do a pompom routine and cheer.
Ben   Monday, May 03, 2004, 21:28 GMT
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."