Simple alphabet, a good thing ??!!

Tiffany   Tuesday, December 07, 2004, 22:55 GMT
I should just let Erimir make his own arguments. I'm not for or against a spelling reform in any case. I know it's advantages, but it won't happpen. Not until something hugely emotional - like the symbolic separation of America and Britain when we reformed our spelling - happens again.

By the way, I know lock can be a verb also, but when the welsh say "llock" and we say "lock" - we are referring the same word.
Freeman   Wednesday, December 08, 2004, 00:57 GMT
Quote-''I know they flap their 'r's, and are more likely to pronounce IPA 'x' in "loch".''

Erimir, In my Scottish accent (and in the Scouse accent as well) there's a distinction between the ''c'' in ''cabinet'', ''cactus'', ''cat'', ''card'', ''cord'' etc. and the ''ch'' in ''loch'', ''Richter'', ''chord'', ''chrone'', ''technology'', ''chlorine'',
''school'', ''chemical'', ''chemistry'', ''machanic'', ''echo'', ''psycho'' etc. We pronounce the ''ch'' in ''loch'', ''Richter'', ''chord'', ''chrone'', ''technology'', ''chlorine'',
''school'', ''scholar'' , ''chemical'', ''chemistry'', ''machanic'', ''echo'',
''psycho'' etc. with the IPA [x]. This distinction should be shewn in a decent phonemic spelling reform system.

''Could you explain to me how it would hurt Welsh English speakers to have to *continue* to spell "lock" and "llock" the same, and how it for someone reason doesn't hurt you to have to remember bunches of silent letters and archaic spelling rules?''

A spelling reform system that continues to spell ''lock'' (the verb) and ''lock'' (the noun) the same because they're already spelt the same should also continue to spell ''close'' (close the door) and ''close'' (close to the door), ''sewer'' (some one that sews) and ''sewer'' (something that collects sewage), ''bow'' (bow and arrow) and ''bow'' (the president's bow) the same.

I made a mistake when I was typing my other post. There, it's fixed now. There's no such word as ''lock''. A decent spelling reform proposal should shew all phonemic distinctions made in all accents no matter how small the minority of speakers make them. I would no more accept a spelling reform proposal that didn't shew the distinction between ''l'' and the Welsh ''ll'' than I would accept a spelling reform that didn't shew the distinction not made by Cockneys between ''three'' and ''free''. The problem with the olde spelling system is that it's not phonemic. Aren't we trying to make spelling phonemic? If so, then we should include all of the phonemic distinctions made in all dialects. A spelling reform that doesn't include all of the phonemic distinctions made in all dialects is not a phonemic spelling reform.

And I don't like your suggestion of respelling ''wh's'' as ''hw's''. The sound is not ''hw'' but a voiceless ''w''.
a curious student   Wednesday, December 08, 2004, 03:52 GMT
Do any of you know of some good websites that show either the good or the bad sides of a spelling reform? Also, any websites that describe different ideas like Truespel?
Jim   Wednesday, December 08, 2004, 03:59 GMT
Smith   Wednesday, December 08, 2004, 04:02 GMT
Here's truespel
The curious student   Thursday, December 09, 2004, 22:57 GMT
Thank you guys very much. Those links will really help me along with my research. I'll be writing my paper tonight.