Too, to, two. Getting rid of the words ''two'' and ''too''. - page 2
|
|
|
Gay- ''gae'' (a male homosexual), ''gay'' (homosexual), ''ghay'' (happy), ''ghey''
(dorky or stupid).
football- ''footbaul'' (the sport), ''footbawl'' (the ball used in the sport). |
|
|
|
''Should we write the auxiliary verb "have" as "hav" and the verb meaning "to possess"
as "have" and the verb meaning "to be obliged" as "havv"? Should we write "right"
as in "human rights" as "right" and "right" as in "correct" as "ryte" and "right"
as in "right-hand" as "riet"? How about "stick" as in "twig" as "stik" and "stick"
meaning "to pierce" as "stick" and "stick" as in "to put" as "stikk"?''
Think of how many different spellings for ''set'' we'd need if we did that. There's nothing wrong with spelling all homonyms the same way. Should we write, pen - ''pen'' (writing instrument) and ''penn'' (enclosure) drink - ''drink'' (drink something), ''drinc'' (a beverage), ''drinck'' (drink alchohol), ''drinkk'' (a alcoholic drink). date - ''date'' (on the calendar), ''dait'' (go on a date), ''deit'' (the food). fish - ''fish'' (the animal), ''fysh'' (the plural of ''fish''), ''phish'' (to catch fish), ''physh'' (the meat from a fish). vacuum - ''vacume'' (a vacuum cleaner), ''vaccume'' (space), ''vakume'' (to clean with a vacuum cleaner). one - ''wun'' (the number), ''wunn'' as in (something one will find there). Gay- ''gae'' (a male homosexual), ''gay'' (homosexual), ''ghay'' (happy), ''ghey'' (dorky or stupid). football- ''footbaul'' (the sport), ''footbawl'' (the ball used in the sport). '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Do we need all those distinct spellings? I don't think so. Nor do we need to spell ''two'', ''to'' and ''too'' differently |
|
|
|
I know we don't.
I was showing how absurd that thinking is. We don't need separate spellings for those anymore than we need separate spellings for "two", "to" and "too". But thanks for providing more examples. |
|
|
|
I say it again, keep spelling the way it is. KEEP SPELLING THE WAY IT IS!!!!!!! We
don't need any phonemic spelling system. Traditional orthography is fine. We don't
need any spelling reform. Spelling reform is flawed. There are so many different
accents out there.
Here are some of the big problems with spelling reform, 1.It would look really strange. 2.Related words like ''nation/national'', ''photograph/photography'', ''please/pleasure'' would look totally different from each other in a strictly phonemic spelling system. 3.We don't all pronounce the language the same way. Some phonemes or phonemic distinctions exist in some accents but not others, A good example is ''Mary/marry/merry''. In my American accent they're all pronounced the same way but in other accents they're distinguished. Here's some other examples of such phonemic distinctions made by some Native speakers but not by others, cot, caught wine, whine Barry, berry fairy, ferry caught, court harm, arm pull, pool do, dew don, dawn hairy, Harry pour, poor serious, Sirius shore, sure father, farther horse, hoarse toe, tow royal, roil can (able to), can (the metal container) tide, tied an, Ann hire, higher flour, flower tire, tier soul, sole groan, grown thrown, throne dough, doe no, know chord, cord corps, core war, wore whether, weather staid, stayed allowed, aloud main, mane sail, sale suit, soot put, putt eight, ate buck, book meat, meet vein, vain leak, leek beach, beech vain, vane cook, kook pull, pool vein, vane rude, rood steel, steal hat, at coup, coo road, rode to, too site, sight isle, aisle lute, loot luce, loose pause, paws faun, fawn lennon, lenin yak, yack bread, bred lead (the metal), led read (past tense of read), red knight, night mite, might knot, not dew, due mews, muse blew, blue miner, minor tore, tour write, rite wreck, reck harm, arm altar, alter thine, vine son, sun gnome, nome metal, mettle coal, cole gram, graham bleu (cheese), blew whole, hole medal, meddle paw, pa bowl, bull doo, dew Rhode, rode taught, tot hall, hull peace, piece bus, buss balm, bomb meter, metre wrote, rote phat, fat hole, hull taut, taught herd, hurd Jim, gym peer, pier plum, plumb ant, aunt bite, byte doo, due break, brake steak, stake phase, faze fir, fur scent, sent aye, eye guard, god hertz, hurts shoe, shoo wood, would do, doo cola, kola bang, bhang Jo, Joe find, fond rays, raise cent, sent law, la chair, cheer oh, owe time, Tom carat, karat metal, medal threw, through rode, road lock, loch missed, mist scent, cent dole, dhole stare, stir psalm, Sam qat, kat Patric, Patrick check, cheque pen, pin gee, jee band, banned heel, hill rein, reign sail, sell ought, aught tire, tower, tar fisher, fissure rough, ruff hem, him sign, sine tenor, tenner betta, better boil, ball oil, awl bell, belle mind, mined lune, loon It doesn't end there. For some people ''singer'' and ''finger'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''hurry'' and ''furry'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''owl'' and ''towel'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''dial'' and ''tile'' rhyme, for some they don't. Other examples of words that rhyme for some but not for others, dinner, winner hi, tie antennae, cacti liter, meter foot, boot fool, wool squirrel, girl steeple, people yaks, tax parallel, bell where, fare thought, caught gnu, zoo diaper, wiper lose, choose very, merry this, miss move, groove soup, loop gunner, scunner simmer, dimmer if, stiff fruit, brute libel, Bible condemn, stem people, steeple For some the ''qu'' sound in ''quick'', and the ''kw'' sound in ''Kwanzaa'' are the same, for some they're different. For some the ''q'' sound in ''Qatar'', and the ''c'' sound in ''cat'' are the same, for some they're different. For some, the ''ai'' sound in ''aisle'' and the ''ei'' sound in ''einstein'' are the same, for others they're different. For some the ''e'' sound in ''re'', and the ''a'' sound in ''name'' are the same, for some they're different. Other examples, the ''ou'' in ''thou'' and the ''au'' in ''Krakatau''. The ''ae'' in ''Gaelic'' and the ''a'' in ''name''. the ''x'' in ''example'' and the ''gs'' in ''dogs''. The ''x'' in ''xylophone'' and the ''z'' in ''zoo''. the ''ae'' in ''faeces'' and the ''e'' in ''meter''. The ''oe'' in ''foetus'' vs. the ''ae'' in ''faeces'' vs. the ''e'' in ''meter''. The ''th'' in ''Thompson'' vs. the ''t'' in ''time''. The ''ps'' in ''psycho'' vs. the ''s'' in ''sun''. The ''ll'' in ''Llwyd'' vs. the ''l'' in ''light''. The ''oo'' in ''book'' vs. the ''oo'' in ''good''. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' There are problems with individual words too. ''often'' can be pronounced with the ''t'' or without. ''route'' can rhyme with ''boot'' or ''spout''. ''herb'' can be pronounced with the ''h'' or without. I pronounce ''want'' to rhyme with ''hunt'' but some others say ''wahnt'', ''wawnt'' or ''wont''. They're are over 18 different pronunciations of ''caramel''. '''''''''''''''''''''' I hate spelling reform. It's very unnecessary. |
|
|
| I agree with this person above. There is a reason why the words are spelt the way they are, and there is a reason why "to", "too" and "two" are spelt differently, they mean completely different things and they should be distinguished. Besides, why is that such a problem, if you can distinguish them in speech then you should be able to do it in writing as well. |
|
|
|
Sanja, I think spelling reform is a bad idea. We don't need any new spelling. Hoo
wuud wunt too see u straenj luuking orthogrufee?
There over 18 different pronunciations for this one word ''caramel'' which is one of the many reasons why spelling reform is a bad idea. Here they are, [ka:rm..l], [ka:rm.l], [ker..mel], [ker..m..l], [ker..m.l], [ke..r..mel] [ke..r..m..l], [ke..r..m.l], [k@r..mel], [k@r..m..l], [k@r..m.l], [k@r..mOu], [k@r..mul], [k@r..muw], [k@r..mow], [k@r..mow],[k@r..mo:l], [k@r..mo:], [c@r..m..l], [c@r..mel]. How do you pronounce ''caramel''? I pronounce it [ka:rm..l]. How strange would it be if we had over 18 different spellings of the word ''caramel''. If we were going to have spelling reform match all accents phonemically correct we'd have to have over 18 different spellings for this one word ''caramel''. |
|
|
|
I pronounce ''caramel'' as [ka:rm..l], but that's one of over 18 different ways that
it's pronounced by Native speakers.
Different accents have different phonemic distinctions. In my accent ''Mary'', ''marry'' and ''merry'' are all pronounced the same but for some people there's a difference. For them ''Mary'', ''marry'' and ''merry'' have the vowel sounds in ''gate'', ''cat'' and ''met'' respectively. Also these pairs of words are pronounce the same in some accents but differently in others, awe, ah sore, saw awl, all where, wear farm, form balk, baulk steal, still heat, eat hall, haul In some accents ''bother'' and ''father'' rhyme and in some accents they don't. We've already had a spelling reform, Websters. And only Americans accepted it. |
|
|
| Well, I'm not a native English speaker, so I pronounce it "karamel"... LOL :) But I agree that there is no need for spelling reform, it would only make things more complicated. |
|
|
|
''There is a reason why the words are spelt the way they are, and there is a reason
why "to", "too" and "two" are spelt differently, they mean completely different things
and they should be distinguished. Besides, why is that such a problem, if you can
distinguish them in speech then you should be able to do it in writing as well.''
Sanja, Are you telling me that you pronounce ''two'', ''to'' and ''too'' differently? They're pronounce the same and so they are not distinguishable in speech and they need no distinction in writing. The definition of a homophone is a word that's pronounce the same as another word. |
|
|
|
''There is a reason why the words are spelt the way they are''
Yeah, there is. ''nation'' and ''national'' are related words. In a strictly phonemic spelling system they'd look different from each other and the relationship between them would be less obvious. |
|
|
|
So, in other words, all of you completely ignored everything I said about accommodating
different dialects.
Do any of you have any objections that I didn't already address? Or if you think I didn't adequately address the objection, talk about what I SAID instead of just repeating the same exact argument. Also, I'm pretty sure everyone would be able to realize that: néyshen & náshenel fowtegráf & fetagrefí plíz & plézher are related words. Expecially when you realize that similar vowel changes occur in many words beside nation/al and photograph/y, therefore one would be familiar with such patterns. So it's slightly obscured. But other words would become more similar: bayt and baytiŋ are more similar than bite and biting tay and tayiŋ are more similar than tie and tying Also, the things you're complaining about never caused anyone any trouble with the roots not being the same in the words "ordain" and "ordin-ation", "abound" and "abund-ant", "fool" and "folly", "receive" and "reception", etc. Did you ever get confused because you couldn't tell that "deceive" and "deception" were related? Probably not. Just as I imagine you would be rather unfazed by "neyshen"/"nashenel". |
|
|
| Change that to "bayt" and "bayting", "tay" and "taying" |
|
|
|
''So, in other words, all of you completely ignored everything I said about accommodating
different dialects.''
Erimir, How can you accommodate different dialects when there's so much variation out there? Here are some of the problems with accommodating different dialects, 1.There are over 18 different pronunciations of ''caramel'' made by Native speakers therefore to represent each dialect phonemically accurately we'd have to have over 18 different spellings for that word. 2.We don't all pronounce certain words the same way. 3.Not all accents make the same phonemic distinctions or have the same phonemes. There are some phonemic distinctions that exist in some accents but not others. For instance, in the accent of East Anglia (northeast of London), pairs such as moan/mown, sole/soul, nose/knows, doe/dough, no/know, throne/thrown, throe/throw and toe/tow are not pronounced as homophones, as they are in other accents. Instead, they constitute minimal pairs, the contrast being that the first member of each pair is pronounced with a [O] vowel, while the second has [Ou] (Wells 1982 : 337). East Anglian English thus has one more phoneme than RP, etc, in this respect. Do you show a distinction between those two phonemes in your spelling system? Another example is word pairs like Mary/marry/merry, fairy/ferry, hairy/Harry, carry/Kerry, Barry/berry etc. In my American accent there's no distinction between those words and they're homonyms but in some accents there's a distinction and for them Mary/marry/merry are all distinct. Here's some other examples of such phonemic distinctions made by some Native speakers but not by others, cot, caught wine, whine Barry, berry fairy, ferry caught, court harm, arm pull, pool do, dew don, dawn hairy, Harry pour, poor serious, Sirius shore, sure father, farther horse, hoarse toe, tow royal, roil can (able to), can (the metal container) tide, tied an, Ann hire, higher flour, flower tire, tier soul, sole groan, grown thrown, throne dough, doe no, know chord, cord corps, core war, wore whether, weather staid, stayed allowed, aloud main, mane sail, sale suit, soot put, putt eight, ate buck, book meat, meet vein, vain leak, leek beach, beech vain, vane cook, kook pull, pool vein, vane rude, rood steel, steal hat, at coup, coo road, rode to, too site, sight isle, aisle lute, loot luce, loose pause, paws faun, fawn lennon, lenin yak, yack bread, bred lead (the metal), led read (past tense of read), red knight, night mite, might knot, not dew, due mews, muse blew, blue miner, minor tore, tour write, rite wreck, reck harm, arm altar, alter cord, card thine, vine son, sun gnome, nome metal, mettle coal, cole gram, graham bleu (cheese), blew whole, hole medal, meddle paw, pa bowl, bull doo, dew Rhode, rode taught, tot hall, hull peace, piece bus, buss balm, bomb meter, metre wrote, rote phat, fat hole, hull taut, taught herd, hurd Jim, gym peer, pier plum, plumb ant, aunt bite, byte doo, due break, brake steak, stake phase, faze fir, fur scent, sent aye, eye guard, god hertz, hurts shoe, shoo wood, would do, doo cola, kola bang, bhang Jo, Joe find, fond rays, raise cent, sent law, la chair, cheer oh, owe time, Tom carat, karat metal, medal threw, through rode, road lock, loch missed, mist scent, cent dole, dhole stare, stir psalm, Sam qat, kat Patric, Patrick check, cheque pen, pin gee, jee band, banned heel, hill rein, reign sail, sell ought, aught tire, tower, tar fisher, fissure rough, ruff hem, him sign, sine tenor, tenner betta, better boil, ball oil, awl bell, belle mind, mined lune, loon awe, ah sore, saw awl, all where, wear me, mi sell, sail farm, form meal, mill balk, baulk quartz, quarts steal, still heat, eat hall, haul It doesn't end there. For some people ''singer'' and ''finger'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''hurry'' and ''furry'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''owl'' and ''towel'' rhyme, for some they don't. For some people ''dial'' and ''tile'' rhyme, for some they don't. Other examples of words that rhyme for some but not for others, dinner, winner hi, tie antennae, cacti liter, meter foot, boot fool, wool squirrel, girl steeple, people yaks, tax parallel, bell where, fare thought, caught gnu, zoo diaper, wiper lose, choose very, merry this, miss move, groove soup, loop gunner, scunner simmer, dimmer if, stiff fruit, brute libel, Bible condemn, stem people, steeple For some the ''qu'' sound in ''quick'', and the ''kw'' sound in ''Kwanzaa'' are the same, for some they're different. For some the ''q'' sound in ''Qatar'', and the ''c'' sound in ''cat'' are the same, for some they're different. For some, the ''ai'' sound in ''aisle'' and the ''ei'' sound in ''einstein'' are the same, for others they're different. For some the ''e'' sound in ''re'', and the ''a'' sound in ''name'' are the same, for some they're different. Other examples, the ''ou'' in ''thou'' and the ''au'' in ''Krakatau''. The ''ae'' in ''Gaelic'' and the ''a'' in ''name''. The ''gh'' in ''laugh'' and the ''f'' in ''if''. the ''x'' in ''example'' and the ''gs'' in ''dogs''. The ''x'' in ''xylophone'' and the ''z'' in ''zoo''. the ''ae'' in ''faeces'' and the ''e'' in ''meter''. The ''oe'' in ''foetus'' vs. the ''ae'' in ''faeces'' vs. the ''e'' in ''meter''. The ''ch'' in ''chef'' vs. the ''sh'' in ''shine''. The ''sch'' in ''schmuck'' vs. the ''ch'' in ''chef'' vs. the ''sh'' in ''shine''. The ''th'' in ''Thompson'' vs. the ''t'' in ''time''. The ''ps'' in ''psycho'' vs. the ''s'' in ''sun''. The ''ll'' in ''Llwyd'' vs. the ''l'' in ''light''. The ''oo'' in ''book'' vs. the ''oo'' in ''good''. The ''m'' in ''prism'' vs. the ''om'' in ''blossom''. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' There are problems with individual words too. ''often'' can be pronounced with the ''t'' or without. ''route'' can rhyme with ''boot'' or ''spout''. ''herb'' can be pronounced with the ''h'' or without. ''because'' can rhyme with either ''buzz'' or ''pause''. ''literature'' can be pronounce many different ways. ''clothes'' can be pronounced with the ''th'' or without. I pronounce ''want'' to rhyme with ''hunt'' but some others say ''wahnt'', ''wawnt'' or ''wont''. They're are over 18 different pronunciations of ''caramel''. '''''''''''''''''''''' I hate spelling reform. It's very unnecessary. Why do we need spelling reform. Traditional orthography best represents all dialects of English. Also, if we had a spelling reform all of the old books would have to be rewritten. Also, hoo wuud wunt u straenj luuking orthogrufee eneewae? Ie shur wuudunt wunt too see such u straenj thing. Wie wuud ue wunt too see sumthing straenj such az xis. In wee reeformd xu Ingglish langgwij it wuud luuk reelee straenj indeed. Ol uv xu oeld buuks wuud haftoo bee reeritun. Spelling reform is nonsense. |
|
|
| I say it again, keep spelling the way it is. KEEP SPELLING THE WAY IT IS!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
See what I said in the other thread.
And why do you keep repeating the exact same thing as if you had Alzheimer's? You posted the exact same, HUGE thing in FOUR places. Address what I said instead of repeating yourself. Or admit that you don't have any rational argument. You say "keep spelling the way it is, KEEP SPELLING THE WAY IT IS" like you're a little child who's never been told he's wrong before, and now you're whining "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT!" even though you can't show that you are. Would you care to replace repetition and childish arguments with rational thought? Rather than simply giving me yet more examples of pronunciation difference... show me WHY 1. the current spelling system is best suited to English, even better than moderate reforms like removing "gh" "kn" and "gn", the c/g softening rules, and extraneous letters like the 'b' of 'subtle', 'debt' and 'doubt' (which were never pronounced, but which were inserted by grammarians) 2. that we NEED to represent all pronunciation differences, or if it is acceptable that Cockney's not have their dialect fully represented, especially considering that things like pronouncing "three" as "free" is already not represented in the current spellings. How is keeping them spelled differently going to disadvantage them? It wouldn't make it any worse. 3. that all such pronunciation differences necessitate different spellings. Not all differences are phonemic See my example about "writing" and "riding" in the other thread. Here's a link for you too, http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j27/arguments.html |