spelling reform

English could be spelled using Swedish orthography. Here is a text often used by spelling reformers written in this way:

Får skår änd sevvön jers ögåo aoör fadörs bråt fårt ånn diss kåntinönt ö njo neishön, könsivd inn libbörti änd deddikeitid to dö pråppösishön dätt ål menn ar krieitid ikvöl.

Nao vi ar ingeidjd inn ö greit sivil vår, testing veddör dätt neishön år änni neishön såo könsivd änd såo deddikeitid känn lång endjor. Vi ar mett ånn ö greit bätlfild åvv dätt vår. Vi hävv kamm to deddikeit ö pårshön åvv dätt fild äss ö fainöl resting-pleis får dåos ho hir geiv derr laivs dätt dätt neishön mait livv. Itt iss åltögeddör fitting änd pråppör dätt vi shodd do diss.

Batt, inn ö lardjör sens, vi kännått deddikeit, vi kännått kånsikreit, vi kännått hällåo diss graond. Dö breiv menn, living änd dedd ho stragld hir hävv kånsikreitid itt far öbavv aoör pår paoör to ädd år diträkt. Dö vörld vill litl nåot når lång rimembör vått vi sei hir, batt itt känn nevvör förgett vått dei didd hir. Itt iss får ass dö living radör to bi deddikeitid hir to dö anfinnisht vörk vitsh dei ho fåt hir hävv dass far såo nåobli ödvanst. Itt iss radör får ass to bi hir deddikeitid to dö greit task rimeining bifår ass -- dätt fråmm dis ånnörd dedd vi teik inkrist divåoshön to dätt kås får vitsh dei geiv dö last foll meshör åvv divåoshön -- dätt vi hir haili risålv dätt dis dedd shall nått hävv daid inn vein, dätt diss neishön andör Gådd shall hävv ö njo bört åvv fridöm, änd dätt gavvörnmönt åvv dö pipl, bai dö pipl, får dö pipl shall nått perrish fråmm dö ört.

letter-sound correspondence:

a - a ɑ ɐ ʌ
e - e ɛ
i - i ɪ ɨ
o - ʊ u
å - o ɔ ɒ
ä - æ
ö - ɜ ə

d - d ð
t - t θ
s - s z
v - v w
sh - ʃ ʒ
dj - dʒ dj

But why, oh why, would English be spelled using the Swedish orthography?

I can't read this.

<<But why, oh why, would English be spelled using the Swedish orthography? >>
Because the traditional English spelling is inconsistent.

We don't need a spelling reform that is that drastic. Just get rid of some of the obvious archaisms I say.

It looks almost unrecognizable.

What's the point in the "Swenglish" spelling? To make one complicated system 20 per cent easier bringing about 200% more fresh obstacles?

US English has done away with still-born words like "through", officially helping them mutate into "thru".

I wunder wot they'll do to "th" in the end? Make it "Ф"?

“I wunder wot they'll do to "th" in the end? Make it "Ф"?”

There is no problem with the th.
What indeed is confusing in the English orthography are words like indict, which is pronounced like /ɪn'daɪt/ instead of /ɪn'dɪkt/.

"There is no problem with the th."

Oh yes there is. Being a digraph, it drastically changes the pronunciation quality of the English, a non-phonetic language.

Thus we say "bath" with a voiceless final and "baths" with both voiced - at least, by the book. Or at least it has been so for centuries.

I can easily agree, though, - this is a relatively minor problem. Compared with the "daughter-laughter" opposition and what you mention.

Just what's the use of keeping an antediluvian digraph in a modern language?

English spelling really doesn't need to be reformed as much as many think it does. The big things that need fixing are mainly BS etymological spellings of borrowing from French, Latin, and Greek and distinguishing /α/ from /æ/ . Us native English speakers have developed out own sense of phonetic spelling that is different then standard continental values because of the Great Vowel Shift, thus:

/æ/ = "a"
/E/ = "e"
/ei/ = "ay"/"aCe"
/I/ = "i"
/i/ = "ee"
/α/ = "ah"
/O/ = "o"
/ou/ = "ow"
/U/ = "u"
/u/ = "oo"
/3~@/ = "uh"
/ai/ = "iCe"/"igh"
/au/ = "ou"
/Oi/ = "oy"

How come the Germans have no qualms about adopting new spelling to reflect the changing language yet English must remain static forever? I guess that's the problem with English not having had an official academy.

<<d - d ð
t - t θ
s - s z
v - v w >>

These are a problem for me.

Why not use the English ð, θ [=NO] => þ [=YES!--we're English; not GREEKS], z, & w?

In this spelling reform, aren't words like "fort" and "forth", "veil" and "wail" now spelled the same? How much better is this than what we already have?

I doubt there'd much trouble with the s/z merger in this reform, though.

How do you suggest changing Latin Greek and French words to meet English?

I þink ðat ðere is no problems wiþ ðe th whatsoever. In fact, ðe th is no more complex ðan digraphes in oðer languages, French for example. Ðe th is regular, unlike many oðer features in ðis language. Ðat's what I þink. (Why are “what” and “why” spelled wiþ a silent h?)