Fonetic spelling of Inglish

Guest   Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:57 pm GMT
No won wud hav beleevd in the last years of the nineteenth century that this werld wos beeing wochd keenly and closly by intelligences grater than man's and yet as mortal as his one; that as men biseed themselvs about thair varius concerns they wer scrutinised and studeed, perhaps almost as narroly as a man with a microscope mite scrutinise the transeeent creetures that sworm and multiply in a drop of worter. With infinit complacency men went too and fro over this globe about thair littel affairs, sereen in thair assurance of thair empire over matter. It is possibel that the infusoria under the microscope doo the same. No one gave a thort to the older werlds of space as sorces of human danger, or thort of them onely to dismiss the ideear of life upon them as impossibel or improbabel. It is curius to recorl sum of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fanceed thair mite bee uther men upon Mars, perhaps infeerior to themselvs and reddy to welcum a misshonary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that ar to our minds as ours ar to those of the beests that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsimpathetic, regarded this erth with envius ys, and sloly and shorly droo thair plans agaynst us. And erly in the twentieth century came the grate disilluzionment.
Guest   Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:20 pm GMT
The planet Mars, I scaircely need remind the reeder, revolvs about the sun at a meen distance of 140,000,000 miles, and the lite and heet it receevs from the sun is bairly harf of that receeved by this werld. It must bee, if the nebular hypothesis has eny trooth, older than our werld; and long befor this erth ceesed to bee molten, life upon its serface must hav begun its corce. The fact that it is scaircely one seventh of the volume of the erth must have accelerated its cooling to the temperature at wich life cud begin. It has air and worter and orl that is necessary for the support of animated existence.

Yet so vane is man, and so blinded by his vanitee, that no riter, up to the very end of the nineteenth centuree, expressed eny ideear that intelligent life mite have developd thair far, or indeed at orl, beyond its erthly level. Nor wos it generally understud that since Mars is older than our erth, with scaircely a quorter of the superfishal aireear and remoter from the sun, it necessarily follos that it is not onely mor distant from time's beginning but neerer its end.
Gabriel   Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:28 pm GMT
Your phonetic spelling works only for non-rhotic varieties of English. For an American or a Scotsman, it would be unnatural to spell WATER or ALL as "worter" and "orl", because that would suggest the pronunciations */"wO:rt@r/ and */O:rl/. Similarly, "harf" as a re-spelling of HALF would be appropriate mainly in the South East of England, both for the non-rhoticity as well as for the choice of vowel, but not in the North, or in Ireland, or in the US.
George   Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:25 pm GMT
That's why phonetic spelling is a terrible idea. It necessarily discriminates against everyone outside some arbitrarily chosen standard. People may complain about its irregularity of spelling and pronunciation and say that makes it harder to learn, either as a child or a non-native learner, but that irregularity actually makes it more inclusive.
beneficii   Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:51 am GMT
There's also little basis for it. For example,

"wochd"

It took me a second to figure out that was "watched" and I'm a native speaker.

I think that any official reforms must be based on a changing common use. I believe that's what happened with Japanese. Like, for example, a change from 'night' to 'nite' would not be so inappropriate perhaps a few decades from now, though I think that for now in any sort of semi-serious writing, it should still be spelled 'night'.
Guest   Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:14 am GMT
Shouldn't it be "watched" anyway?
Tony   Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:12 pm GMT
Nou wan wud hæv biliivd in ðe laast jerz ov ðe naintiinþ sentjuri ðæt ðis werld woz biiŋ wocht kiinli ænd klousli bai intelidjensiz greiter ðæn mæn'z ænd jet æs mortal æs hiz oun; ðæt æs men biziid ðemselvz ebaut ðer væries konsernz ðei wer skruutinaist ænd stadid, perhæps olmoust æs nærouli æs e mæn wið e maikroskop mait skruutinais ðe trænsient kriicherz ðæt sworm ænd maltiplai in e drop ov woter.
Gest   Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:12 pm GMT
Noa oàn wuôd hav belíevd in the last yeers ov the niinteenth centuurie that thiss wuorld was beeing watchd keenlie and clooslie byy intéllidgences greater than mans and yet as mortal as his own; that as men bisiyd themselvs abóut their vaariòs concérns they wer scruutiniizd and studied, perháps almoast as narrowlie as a man with a miicroscoop miiht scruutiniiz the transiènt creetuurs that swoarm and multiplyy in a drop ov water...
Wintereis   Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:29 pm GMT
I have never put an r sound in "water". But I am not a linguist or and expert on phonetics. And I also had a difficult time trying to understand parts of the "phonetic" spelling. Guest's, the one that immediately precedes my own, is the clearest to me.
Xie   Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:13 am GMT
Who cares. When English finally breaks down to different Englishes, it'll be the good time for reform... or, no, it won't actually be a reform but, rather, a new language.
Caspian   Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:13 am GMT
It would probably be easier to leave English as it is. How would Chinese people like to use PinYin all the time?
George   Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:50 am GMT
English has never been left 'as it is'. In fact, the only languages which are left alone are dead ones. While I think significant and artificial reforms are unnecessary and divisive, a natural progression of the language is inevitable and should to a large extent be embarrassed. This should not take away from the importance of a good understanding of spelling and grammar in standard English. But spoken English has always been more diverse than written English and in certain situations a more oral or colloquial tone is useful.
Caspian   Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:53 am GMT
George - I agree, but I can't see how completely rebuilding the spelling system of English and replacing it with a new set of rules is a natural progression of the language.
MythBuster   Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:00 am GMT
What about 'gonna'? Now that is natural progression of the language.
Caspian   Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:03 am GMT
No it isn't, it is a sign of stupidity and mispronunciation. Besides, one should discuss that on the other thread.