English spelling reform for non-native speakers

English spelling reform will only happen once English is clearly no longer a single language. Seriously.

That said, the fundamental problem with English spelling reform is that English spelling is basically dialect-neutral in practice, with English orthography not being clearly linkable to any single extant English variety, standard or not. Furthermore, English orthography clearly represents features that have been lost from all standard varieties of English but which are still present in some English dialects (such as clear contrast between /eː/ and /eɪ̯/ and between /oː/ and /oʊ̯/). Hence English spellings are really more visual names for words which provide some hints at pronunciation but which do not strongly prescribe pronunciation. Reforming English orthography, in practice, would destroy this state of affairs by clearly linking English orthography to a given standard or a small set of standards, and would prescribe other dialects outside of such as having incorrect pronunciation whereas the current English orthography does not.

But even after English unambiguously breaks into a number of related but separate languages in speech, it would still be useful to retain English as a unified literary English, so we can still communicate in writing even when we cannot communicate in speech. For individuals speaking less-standard English dialects such as myself, this already somewhat applies to a degree, individuals who may have problems understanding our speech can still understand our writing, and if we are sufficiently literate, have no idea about how we speak from our writing alone.

The problem with English spelling is that it does not follow its own rules. Very is spelled one way and berry, merry, ferry another. I know very few people who say "veery". Ditto comic with common, community etc - I know no one who says "coemic". There are variations in dialect and spellings should be left as is to accommodate them. I do not pronounce the l in salmon or the u in build but some do however I don't think that anyone pronounces the b in dumb - many silent letters reflect no pronunciation and have no purpose in distinguishing homophones either.

"Butchering the language": we are talking about he spelling system, not the spoken language; these are two different things. Some languages do not have a written form - they are pre-literate and some have more that one. English has two major writing systems English spelling & US spelling (you could add Braille & txtese etc) - but it is essentially the same language.

With 7 million Brits and 40 million Americans functionally illiterate making the spelling system more regular is a pressing necessity and we should reconsider our ideas abut the "charm" of English.

British and US spelling are not "two major writing systems".

I'm a non-native English ''speaker'' and, you know what, I like English orthography just like it is. Actually, I'm more a non-native ''wirter'' of English, because speaking it doesn't happen that often. Learning an orthography is only a minor problem. The hardest part is to listen and to understand what's been said. When it comes to conversation, you need to render your thoughts in a language which is not your mother tongue. Does orthography, regardless which one, help you, then?

If you start learning something, you should be modest and learn it just the way it is (otherwise, you are going to learn something else) and not complain about it and trying to violate the subject.

Correction: Actually, I'm more a non-native ''writer'' of English, ...

Kasa, if you are seriously interested in your topic, search the forum first. You will find many threads dealing with the pros and cons of orthography reforms. Otherwise, you're just a troll spamming the forum with just another pointless thread.

<< That said, the fundamental problem with English spelling reform is that English spelling is basically dialect-neutral in practice, with English orthography not being clearly linkable to any single extant English variety, standard or not. >>
Dialects? To us non-natives most native English speakers sound the same. I think it is difficult to determine if a native is American or British.

Ah yes, WHat you say is due to a lack of familiarity with internal variation within English more than anything else.

See the Golden compass movie. Yorek speaks very clear and understandable English, Lee, coming form Texas, is very hard to understand.

<<Ah yes, WHat you say is due to a lack of familiarity with internal variation within English more than anything else. >>


That's the whole point. Non natives don't care about dialectal variations and hence will have no qualms in eliminating them.

>><<Ah yes, WHat you say is due to a lack of familiarity with internal variation within English more than anything else. >>


That's the whole point. Non natives don't care about dialectal variations and hence will have no qualms in eliminating them.<<

So? They do not speak English natively, so they are still learning *our* language - no matter what nonsense they spit out such as us somehow "not owning" English anymore. (And the so-called "Globish" is just some horribly dumbed down semi-pidgin for those not willing to actually learn English, with all of its phrasal verbs, turns of phrase, and so on.)

Oh, and by the way, I think most people at least here would bitterly oppose being told how to speak by just about anyone. (Of course, then, most people here think they speak standardly in the first place, but that is another story).

<<To us non-natives most native English speakers sound the same. I think it is difficult to determine if a native is American or British. >>

oh, thanks, I'm not the only one! I always surprise when I heard about "american accent" or "british accent", for me they sound alike. I can't heard the difference. They just speak english for me.

Travis

Don't despise "globish", because it's the language many, or maybe a big majority of no-native-english-speaker learn and speak.

>>Don't despise "globish", because it's the language many, or maybe a big majority of no-native-english-speaker learn and speak.<<

But actually trying to learn "Globish" is like, say, in the case of German rather than English, aiming to learn neither any standard variety of German not any actual High German dialect (I knew someone in school who actually picked up Swabian from living in Swabia as a student) but rather deliberately trying to learn Denglish or like. "Globlish" is not really English at all as spoken by any native speaker, whether standard or not, but rather is to English what the likes of Denglish are to German.