Spelling Reform Thread

No, Jim's system doesn't include those distinctions. But, I'd say that perhaps these would be good diagraphs for them in a spelling reform if someone were to add them to their system. Some of these suggestions I've seen on this thread. The Diagraphs are listed after the sounds.


''The''Wh'' in ''which'' and ''whew''. -''wh''

ch in Loch -''kh''


ll in Welsh - ''voiceless ''l'' -''ll''

o in cot -''o''

au in caught -''au''

a in , daze, pane, mane, ate= ''A monophthong used by some Northern Irish people that distinguish these words from ''maid'', ''days'', ''pain'', ''main'' and ''eight''. [A]. -''ei''

o in toe, sole, nose, groan=A ''A monophthong used by people from Liverpool people that distinguish these words from ''tow'', ''soul'', ''knows'' and ''grown''. [O]. -''oe''

e in tenner ''used by some Northern Irish people that distinguish this word from ''tenor'' by using a longer vowel.'' [E]. -''eo''

nd-in ''grand prix''. -''nn''

ny-in ''canyon'' and ''gn'' in ''lasagna'' pronounced by some people with a palatal nasal sound, [J] in Sampa instead of [nj]. Pronounced by them with a sound different to the ''ni'' [nj], in ''opinion'', ''companion'', ''onion'' etc.
-''nh''

ea-in ''meat'', ''sea'', ''leak'' and ''real'-pronounced with [i..] in some part of the British Isles to distinguish them from ''meet'', ''see'', ''leak'' and ''reel''.
-''ea'', and then [e..] could be written ''ae''

a-in ‘’bad’’, ‘’sad’’, ‘’jam’’ meaning ‘fruit conserve’, ‘’can’’ ‘’tin’’ or the verb ‘’can’’, and ‘’halve’’ for some people from Southern England which they pronounce with a longer vowel sound than the ‘’a’’ sound in ‘’cat’’. [@:]. For them, ‘’bad’’ and ‘’lad’’ don’t rhyme. Also, they have minimal pairs between ‘’can’’ meaning ‘’able to’’ and ‘’can’’ – ‘’a metal container’’ or ‘’ to put into a can’’ and ‘’jam’’ ‘’fruit conserve’’ and ‘’jam’’ meaning ‘’crush’’ and also ‘’have’’ vs. ‘’halve’’. -''ao''

Eu-in rude, rheum, threw, brewed, chews, chute, lute, luce, suit, and flew used by some Welsh people. Where we have ‘’yod dropping’’ they use a different vowel sound in to distinguish them from other words so, for them rude and rood, rheum - room, threw - through, brewed - brood, chews - choose, chute - shoot, lute - loot, luce - loose, suit – soot, flew – flu, and the vowels of glue - gloom, blue – bloom and the vowel in June are distinguished by them. -''ue''

i-in libel ‘’ For some Scots, ‘’libel’’ and ‘’bible’’ don’t rhyme. The vowel in ‘’bible’’ is like the [ai] in other words and the vowel in ‘’libel’’ is different, the diphthong changes in ‘’libel’’ for them.’’ -''ia''

''bible'', ''libel'' and ''liable'' would become ''biebyl'', ''liabyl'' and ''liybyl''

d-in tied, kneed, allowed, stayed etc. ''For some Scots there's a distinction between ''tied and tide'', ''staid and stayed''. The diphthong changes in the past tenses. My spelling reform proposal system uses ''dd'' for past tenses for words that end in a vowel sound, but someone could add the letter that looks like a lowercase ''t'' and a lowercase ''d'' put together for those past tenses, like is shown in my extended alphabet ''which is different to eth.''
-''dd''

[C]-in ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'', ''humongus'' etc. ''A voiceless ''y'' used by some people in words like ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'', ''humongus'' etc. instead of ''hy'' [hj]. I'm using [C] from Sampa. Those words start with a different phoneme for them. -''yh''

Unstressed [i]-in lenin, cabin, possible, bizarre, visit, wanted, needed, carpet, manage, private, amplifier, horrible. Some people make a distinction between ''lennon'' and ''lenin'' and also ''bazaar'' and ''bizarre''.'' -''ii''

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

What do you think about these choices?


I think what they show is that the this alphabet really doesn't have enough letters in it for all the sounds in it. English has more than 40 phonemes but only 26 letters. Perhaps, we should add some more letters to the alphabet. We could make a new alphabet song.

Jim, Is what Gore's saying about your system right?

Joe,

I'll get back to you on that when I've read it.

in ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'', ''humongus'' etc. ''A voiceless ''y'' used by some people in words like ''human'', ''huge'', ''humor'', ''humongus'' etc. instead of ''hy'' [hj]. I'm using [C] from Sampa. Those words start with a different phoneme for them.

I pronounce the above words with an unvoiced "y", but I don't see why we need to distinguish the unvoiced Y sound. There are no minimal pairs, so it can be considered as 1 phoneme. It is not like "w" and the voiceless "wh" where there are some minimal pairs.


Regards, Paul V.

P.S. the Shavian Alphabet gets around this anomoly, by having a single additional letter "yew". It covers the voiced yu, the unvoiced "yu" described above, and the Dipthong "eu".

yu (voiced) Union, User, You, Ukelele
yu (unvoiced) human, huge, humor, humongus, cute
eu (Dipthong) Euchre, Beautiful, few, newt, mew, phew

Paul wrote-''I pronounce the above words with an unvoiced "y", but I don't see why we need to distinguish the unvoiced Y sound. There are no minimal pairs, so it can be considered as 1 phoneme. It is not like "w" and the voiceless "wh" where there are some minimal pairs.''

Paul, I pronounce the above words with an ''h'' followed by a ''y''. [hju:m..n], [hju:dZ], [hju:m..r]. You say that there are no minimal pairs between the [C] or [hj] and [j]. Well, there are some minimal pairs. ''Hugh'' and ''hew'' vs. ''you'', ''yew'' and ''ewe''. For me, those are distinguish by an initial [h] sound in ''hew'' and ''hugh'' and for you they're distinguished by a voiceless ''y'' in those words. I'd say you're idea of merging [C], [hj] and [j] is a bad idea. Why merge them when those words do not start with a [j] sound? For most of us they start with a [h] sound and for you they start with a [C] sound.

Oh, and does a sound really have to have minimal pairs for it to be a phoneme? Would you call [dZ] and [Z] the same phoneme because there are no minimal pairs for those two sounds? I don't think so.

I think that Paul was writing that there were no minimal pairs between [C] and [hj]. I don't think that he was denying the minimal pairs that exist between /hj/ (be it [C] or [hj]) and /j/.

Perhaps talking "minimal pairs" isn't the best way of putting things. Loch rightly points out that [dZ] and [Z] have no minimal pairs but aren't the same phoneme.

It seems that the better way of expressing what Paul means is to say that the difference between [C] and [hj] is not phonemic because there exists nobody who uses both. Either you're a [C] sayer or you're a [hj] sayer.

For the [C] sayers all /hj/s are pronounced [C]. For the [hj] sayers all of the /hj/s are pronounced [hj]. If you're a [C] sayer, whenever you see the spelling indicate /hj/ you say [C] never [hj]. If you're a [hj] sayer, whenever you see the spelling indicate /hj/ you say [hj] never [C].

Therefore spelling needn't be adjusted to account of the phonetic distinction between [C] and [hj]. Both [C]s and [hj]s can be written as /hj/s and everyone will know how they should be pronounced.

It's also interesting to note that, as far as I can tell, all /hj/s are followed by /u:/s. So, we're really talking [Cu:] verses [hju:] still they can be considered allophones of /hju:/ and written as such. My system follows Shavian with respect to this. I spell /hju:/ as "hew" or "heu", some examples are below.

human ==>> heumyn
huge ==>> heuj
humour ==>> heumer
humongous ==>> heumunggys
hew ==>> hew
hewing ==>> hewing
hewn ==>> heun
hugh ==>> hew

Note: In this post phones are in square brackets, [], & phonemes are in slashes, //, as per convention.

What Gore says about my system is true in part. Some of the distinctions I've included all along, some of the distinctions I've added, some I'm working on and other I don't see the need to include.

The ''wh'' in ''which'' and ''whew'' I've included all along.

The "ch" in "loch" I've included all along.

The Welsh "ll" I've added.

The "o" in "cot" I've included all along (of course).

The "au" in "caught" I've included all along (of course, again).

The "a" in "daze", "pane", "mane", "ate", etc. as opposed to the "ai" or "ei" in ''maid'', ''days'', ''pain'', ''main'', ''eight'', etc. I've added.

The vowel in "toe", "sole", "nose", "groan", etc. as opposed to the ''tow'', ''soul'', ''knows'', ''grown'', etc. I've added.

The "e" in "tenner" as opposed to "tenor" I'm working on.

The nasal vowel in "grand prix" I've added.

The "ny" in "canyon" and the "gn" in "lasagna" as opposed to the "ni" in ''opinion'', ''companion'', ''onion'' etc. I'm working on.

The "ea" in ''meat'', ''sea'', ''leak'', ''real'' as opposed to the "ee" in ''meet'', ''see'', ''leek'' and ''reel'' I'm working on.

The "a" in "bad", "sad", "mad", etc. as opposed to the "a" in "cat", "lad", "back", etc. I'm working on.

The vowel in "rheum", "threw", "chews", "lute", etc. as opposed to the vowel in "room", "through", "choose", "loot", etc. is easy to deal with in my system. I use "eu" and "ew" for /ju:/. These words could be spelt with an "eu" or "ew" and we yod-droppers could feel free to drop the /j/.

The "i" in "libel" as opposed to the "i" in "Bible" I'm working on.

The distinction between "tied" and "tide", "allowed" and "aloud", "stayed" and "staid", etc. I've added.

The [C] as opposed to the [hj] in ''human'', ''huge'', ''humour'', ''humongous'', etc. other I don't see the need to include as I've explained above.

The "i" in "lenin", "cabin", "possible", "bizarre", etc. is a bit like the "bath" words. Some say /ba:th/ others say /b@th/. I haven't included a spelling to indicate this in my system it's just "aa" or "a": take your pick. Similarly this "i" is either /i/ or /../ and has to be spelt according to you accent. This isn't so great but there are many other sounds like these, include one and perhaps you should included them all. Include them all and your system is going to be very complicated.

''The "i" in "lenin", "cabin", "possible", "bizarre", etc. is a bit like the "bath" words. Some say /ba:th/ others say /b@th/. I haven't included a spelling to indicate this in my system it's just "aa" or "a": take your pick. Similarly this "i" is either /i/ or /../ and has to be spelt according to you accent. This isn't so great but there are many other sounds like these, include one and perhaps you should included them all. Include them all and your system is going to be very complicated.''

Of course, there are some that really would be weird to include a spelling for, such as [o] vs. [^]. For some people ''Me include'', ''what'', ''was'', ''want'', ''of'' and ''from'' have [^[ and not [a:]. For Britons they have [o]. There are so few words like this that it would be very odd to have a spelling for [o] vs. [^].

However, there are many words with [i] vs. [..] as acceptable pronunciations. The commonly misspelled word ''definitely'' as ''definately'' is one of them.

Of course, they're are also the ''bath'' words and the ''cloth'' words.

Suppose we extended the alphabet and added some letters and two of them we named ''bath'' and ''cloth'' and used them for the ''bath'' words and the ''cloth'' words.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';

''stuupid'' vs. ''steupid'' vs. ''stuupyd'' vs. ''stuupyd''. ''For spelingz uv dha saim wurd if I hav yor sistym riet wen I'm rieting dhis sentyns?''

''stuupid'' vs. ''steupid'' vs. ''schuupid'' vs. ''stuupyd'' vs. ''steupyd'' vs. ''schuupyd''

''stuupid'' vs. ''steupid'' vs. ''schuupid'' vs. ''stuupyd'' vs. ''steupyd'' vs. ''schuupyd''

That brings us to another question. Should we include spellings for non careful pronunciations such as ''schuupid'' and ''ken'' for ''can'' said by some people when they're talking fast or just not being careful or something?

A sentence. Jim, how does this sentence come out it your system right now that your working on changing a bit. It includes most of the distinctions listed above.

''Which cat was that that was being so bad yesterday afternoon that was meowing because it wanted some meat and licked it's feet during four o'clock yesterday and also who were those people that had tenors and tenners and tried to find out where the restrooms were locating because they needed to urinate and also who was that on the baseball game that threw the ball through the fence.''

Another sentence

''Was that lasagna good and were those onions rings good.''

''They saw that that person libeled and those people had some more time to read they're bibles.''

Well, Aren't [hw] and [W] the same? I've seen people say that they were the same on different parts of the web. Another question is, Do the Scots that distinction ''wh'' and ''w'' say [W] or [hw]? I've seen some say that they say [W] and others say that they say [hw]. For example, this quote that I got off the web that shows the pronunciation of some Scottish Dialects says the say [hw]. Here's the quote,

Quote-''/x/ in night, daughter
/kn-/ in knock, knee
/vr-/ in write, wrought (Northern Scots)

Quote-the convergence of // and /t/ to /t/ and of // and /d/ to /d/ Island Scots
// in house, out, now
/u/ in moon, good, stool
/e:/ in home, go, bone
/hw-/ in what, when, etc.;


In urban Scots many of the features listed are recessive, for example:

/x/, /kn-/ or /vr-/.

However, /hw/ is generally retained.''

They say that Scots say [hw] and other people say they say [W] and some people say that [hw] and [W] are the same. They say that [hw] is just another way to write [W] and [W] is just another way to write [hw].

''Which cat woz dhat dhat woz beeing so bad yesterday aafternuun dhat woz meowing bycaus it wontyd sum meet and lict its feet at foar o'clok yesterday and aulso hu wear dhoez peepyl dhat had tenerz and tenerz and tried tu fiend out wheir dha toilyts wear loecaityd bycaus dhay needyd tu euryneit and aulso hu woz dhat in dha beisbaul geim dhat threw dha baul thru tdha fens.''

and here's an idea of how to make the distinctions

''Which cat woz dhat dhat woz beeing so baad yesterday ahfternuun dhat woz meowing bycaus it wontyd sum meat and lict its feet at foar o'clok yesterday and aulso hu wear dhoez peepyl dhat had tenerz and tehnerz and tried tu fiend out wheir dha toilyts wear loecaityd bycaus dhay needyd tu euryneit and aulso hu woz dhat in dha beisbaul geim dhat threw dha baul thru tdha fens.''

Jim, In your system,

Grown - becomes ''groan'' or ''groen'', which one?
those - becomes ''dhoez'' or ''dhoaz'', which one?

Isn't ''where'' spelled ''whair'' in your system?

''tehnerz''. Wouldn't ''teoner'' be better because ''tehner'' would mess up your ''karate'' spelling. I think what this is showing is that there are hardly enough letters in the alphabet. There are more than 40 phonemes in English but only 26 letters. Perhaps we should add some more letters to the alphabet. Then we wouldn't have so much mess either. ''goer'' for example could be respelled ''gœør'' if the letters ''œ'' and ''ø'' were added for [O(u)] and [..]. We'd have to make a new alphabet song.

The alphabet just doesn't have enough letters for us to include all dialects in a phonemic spelling reform without a bit of mess.

Perhaps before we extend the alphabet we should get rid of the letters that don't have any sound of there own ''c'', ''q'', and ''x'' and put ''ç'', ''þ'', and ''ð'' in their place for the [tS], [th] and [TH] sounds. ''Chee'', ''eth'' and ''thorn'' would take the place of ''cee'', ''que'' and ''ex''. What do you think about that name ''chee'' I made up for the letter ''ç''. ''church'' would become ''çurç''.

So, the alphabet would begin like this,

a
b
ç
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
þ
r
s
t
u
v
w
ð
y
z

Can the alphabet song still be sung with this alphabet? Where ''chee'', ''thorn'' and ''eth'' replace ''c'', ''q'' and ''x''.
All other added letters, ''ash'' for example, would come after ''z''.
''çee'' ''þorn'' and ''eð'' would replace ''see'', ''kue'' and ''eks''.