What do you think about truespel?
Is truespel a good spelling reform proposal?
Of course, Traditional orthography is the best but I was just wondering what you think about Truespel.
Something that I don't like about truespel is that they use ''thh'' for [th]. ''thh'' seems a bit long.
Which is better.
''I have three things and thought about what to do next Thursday.
I hav thhree thhingz and thhot uhbout wut too doo nekst Thurzdae
I hav three thingz and thot uhbout wut too doo nekst Thurzdae.
The second one is definitely better. It's much shorter. The first one is so long, who would want to write it?
Of course, that sample sentence comes out differently in truespel.
Of course that sente
As you all know, I'm against any kind of spelling reform.
Spelling reform is a waste of time. I'm surprised at how frequently people make this mistake.
If you want consistency, you should force pronunciation to match spelling, not the other way around. The written language is more stable than the spoken language. Trying to change spelling to match pronunciation is chasing after a constantly moving target, and additionally it makes all historical written material unreadable. Trying to change pronunciation to match spelling makes more sense, since the written language changes very slowly, and you don't risk making older written materials obsolete.
Overall, though, the difficulty of English spelling is enormously exaggerated. People who have trouble with it often have trouble with literacy generally.
I agree that the difficulty of English spelling is very exaggerated, but the fact is that English speakers tend to complain about it more than speakers of other languages do, and they seem to have more trouble with spelling than speakers of other languages in general. Is it just because they are not exposed to foreign languages or is it something else?
I've heard just as much complaint from speakers of other languages, such as French and German. It's just that more people speak English, so you hear more complaints about it.
Leave the English language alone......Leave the English language alone......Leave the English language alone!!!!
Why should our language be changed in any way at all just for the convenience of those who are unable to come to terms with it's inconsistencies? They are not really as terrifying as all that are they? English is an easy language to learn with regard to its grammar....I agree the difficulty lies with its spelling and variable pronunciations, but they soon fall into place with practice and familiarity, surely! When I look at any proposed reforms they look so odd and alien and downright ugly.
<<I hav three thingz and thot uhbout wut too doo nekst Thurzdae>>
See what I mean? ;-(
I am going to the gym and sauna next Thurzdae.... soz...Thursday.
That word lwks so strainj and I hait it... reeform wil never cach on in Britun. If the Amerikuns or enywon else wants, it they can hav it with plezhur. Just leev us owt ov it pleez.
How about some of those other languages undergoing some reformation then, such as German, with all those case endings and such like? How the *bleep* do they remember the gender of any particular noun and which article to use with it? By practice, that's how....that's common sense......is it not? So just practice our linguistic eccentricities...we had to! Why should you be different? ;-)
Damian, What about these respellings? Do they look strange too.
DAYS OF THE WEEK.
MONTHS OF THE YEAR
I'm with Damian and Mxsmanic on this one. I think that spelling reform is a terrible idea (yes, including ... no, especially Webster's). I agree that we'd be better fitting our pronunciation to spelling.
"Trying to change spelling to match pronunciation is chasing after a constantly moving target," wrote Mxsmanic ... worse: changing spelling will make that target move even faster (and not necessarily in the direction that you might like or could even predict).
To a large extent people base their pronunciation on spelling: it's never always entirely the other way around. Overlooking this is another mistake spelling reformers often make. Why do you think that "humble" is pronounced /h^mb.l/? Why do you think that "-logy" is pronounced with a /dZ/ rather than a /g/? Why do you think that English speakers almost always mispronounce the final "e" in "karate", "karaoke" and "sake"?
Change spelling in the futile hope of matching it to pronunciation and what'll happen? People will change their pronunciation to match the new spelling. And do you suppose that the new pronunciation will follow the rules you'd set out? Not likely. Do you think the new spelling will match the new pronunciation? In you dreams. You'll then only have to change the spelling again ... and again ... and again.
Do I think Truespel is a good spelling reform proposal? The only good spelling reform proposal is: "Let it be." But you might have noticed that I am somewhat interested in phonemic spelling reform proposals any way. Why this interest? I think of is as more or less a project to show traditional orthography not to be as unphonemic as the reformists make out. More over it's a project to also show that a phonemic system is not necessarily optimal any way.
So amongst phonemic spelling reform proposals, which Truespel is claimed to be, is it a good one? Truespel is based only on the author's American accent. Truespel has no way of spelling /o/ ... though it does seem to leave room for it's addition. However, the merger of certain other phonemes is inbuilt into Truespel.
It is not possible to represent my Australian accent in Truespel; nor can you represent the RP accent ... as for Scots ... forget it. Indeed there are many accents that Truespel ignores. For example, in Truespel, "merry" and "marry" are spelt as if they were both homophones of "Mary" for me they are not. I pronounce "merry" and "marry" as /meri(:)/ and /m@ri(:)/. There is no way of spelling either of these in Truespel. It is not simply that Truespel does not represent my accent: it cannot.
I don't like spelling reform. Truespel is one of my least favourites amongst the proposals. Those names of the months and days of the week: do they look strange? Damn right they do.
Since my accent is American, Truespel can deal with it but it won't work for non-North American accents.
But, Something that I don't like about truespel is that they use ''thh'' for [th].
Jim, what do you think about their use of ''thh'' for [th]. I think that it's a bit long and unwanting. Using ''thh'' perhaps would make spelling worse than it is now instead of better.
I'm not so keen on their "thh" either.
''I think that spelling reform is a terrible idea (yes, including ... no, especially Webster's).''
Why? most (but not all) of American spelling is much more logical than commonwealth spelling.
American spelling is less complex and fits pronunciation better too.
Why is the spelling ''centre'' for example, better than ''center''? Okay, So, the commonwealth speakers really pronounce the word as ''sen-tray''? I don't think so.
The word is pronounced ''sen-ter'' not ''sen-tray'' and so ''center'' is a more logical spelling.
Commonwealth spelling has a redundant ''u'' in ''color'', ''favor'', ''favorite'', ''labor'', ''flavor'', ''sabor'', ''humor'',
''But you might have noticed that I am somewhat interested in phonemic spelling reform proposals any way. Why this interest? I think of is as more or less a project to show traditional orthography not to be as unphonemic as the reformists make out. More over it's a project to also show that a phonemic system is not necessarily optimal any way.''
Jim, I have done some searching through the archives and it seems like you enjoy making phonemic spelling systems. One of them you made looked very crazy to me. It looked like it was using ''q'' and ''x'' for vowels.
Yeah, it's kind of fun but I don't expect any of them will ever be adopted. The best thing I've got out of all this is an appreciation of traditional orthography. Thus a better understanding of how it works and therefore, of course, a better ability to spell. I highly recomend the invention of phonemic spelling systems: it only becomes a waste of time when you imagine that your system should actually replace traditional orthography.
... or in my crazy spelling system ...
Yee, it's kaend ov fan bat Ae dxun't ekspekt eni ov ddem wil evxr bii xdoptxd. Ddx best ttinn Ae'v got qot ov ool ddis iz an xpriicqicxn ov trxdicxnxl orttogrxfi. Ddus x betxr undxrstqndinn ov hqo it wxxrks qnd tteerfor, ov cors, x betxr xbilxti tuu spel. Ae haeli rekxmend ddx invencxn ov fxnemik spelinn sistxmz: it xunli bxkamz x wqist ov taem wwen yuu imqdjxn ddat yor sistxm cud qktcxli rxplqis trxdicxnxl orttogrxfi.
Why make a stupid language even stupider? English is a wolly mass of undulating flab to me.
Yeah, whatever........you're entitled to your opinion, and you're free to use the comparative "stupider" if it makes you feel better, even though it's grammatically incorrect. As your opinion of the English language is pretty low, I won't bother to put you right.
I know I've described my language as "silly" but I say that from an effectionate angle...I love all it's stupid eccentricities and sometimes it looks like it can't get any "stupider" but it should be protected from the reforming brigade who have some sort of agenda of their own....mostly Americans from what I can see who seem to crave ease and instant convenience at every turn.
Mass of undulating flab? I've never heard it described that way before.....cool!.....reminds me of SOME of the guyz I will see at the gym next Thurzdae......