I disagree with the decision to NOT have word-final 'z' if it is pronounced in the spoken form, because it is there, and because if we simply write it as 's', then we'll create unnecessary homographs, and continue the process of confusing learners of English into pronouncing 'eyes' as 'ice', simply because you like the way it looks. I mean, if we're worried about aesthetics over usability, then why change the system at all? If we're worried about aesthetics, why on earth would you include what the Germans are often ridiculed for, by introducing no-spaced compound words like 'fonimikkoorthaagraffi'? Why is this system following the orthographies of other Germanic languages? The first priority should be to make the system simple, easy to read and write for speakers of all MAJOR dialects (note the word major, because if a dialect with 100,000 people, for example, makes a distinction between certain sounds, while all the rest don't, we should not make special letters or letter combinations to accomodate a tiny group, while complicating it for the vast majority of speakers), and only then to make it look 'good' or to conform to some other languages' orthography. Finally, why, if an 'ee' sound is made at the beginning, the middle, and the end of a given word, is it spelled three different ways? Doesn't that make the system three times more complicated?
Spelling reform idea.
<<if a dialect with 100,000 people, for example, makes a distinction between certain sounds, while all the rest don't, we should not make special letters or letter combinations to accomodate a tiny group, while complicating it for the vast majority of speakers>>
We should include a special letter or letter combination to accommodate a phonemic distinction even if it's made by a small minority of people, but only that small minority of people should actually use the special letter or letter combination while the majority of the English speakers would not use it.
We should include a special letter or letter combination to accommodate a phonemic distinction even if it's made by a small minority of people, but only that small minority of people should actually use the special letter or letter combination while the majority of the English speakers would not use it.
For starters, as for the word-final "z" issue, with how I'm handling such, such does *not* create homophones, because /z/ and /s/ are still differentiated through a number of means, which result in many cases /z/ being "s" and /s/ being "ss", except in places where /z/ is simply not possible under normal conditions, where "s" just represents /s/, or where /s/ is strongly preferred over /z/, where "s" represents /s/ and "z" represents /z/. The basic rules, applied in order, are:
1. Word-initially, /s/ is always "s" and /z/ is always "z", no matter what are adjacent to them
2. Adjacent to an unvoiced consonant, /s/ and /z/ are both "s", as /z/ will be devoiced in practice
3. Intervocalically, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
4. Word-finally, if following a vowel or a voiced consonant, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
5. Otherwise, when adjacent to a voiced consonant, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
Such may seem rather complex, but should not be that counterintuitive for people used to the existing English orthography. Consider that word-finally, "s" in this usually is the same as its counterpart in the existing orthography, and "ss" in this is usually is the same as "ss", "se", or "ce" in the existing orthography.
As for why the hell I decided to write compounds the German (and Dutch, and Scandinavian) way, there are a number of reasons. The first, yes, is consistency with the aforementioned language's orthographies, considering that significant aspects of this orthography are directly taken from the aforementioned orthographies. The second has to do with how stress is generally handled in compound words versus sequences of independent words; compound words generally have a single primary stress, whereas sequences of independent words generally have multiple independent primary stresses. Contrast "White House" as in where the US President lives (generally has one primary stress, on the first syllable) with "white house" as in a house that happens to be white (generally has two primary stresses, and if one is stronger, it is generally the second one); the two generally have different stress patterns, with the former being a single compound word and the latter being two separate words; writing compound words as single words only makes this more explicit rather than having it be implicit for the reader. For example, in this case, the "White House" would be <Hwaithaus> or <Waithaus>, whereas a "white house" would be <hwait haus> or <wait haus>.
As for why the same vowels are often written different ways, the reason for this is that a Dutch-style double vowel rule is used for determining vowel orthographic "length"; the reason for this is to help get rid of any need for diacritics for vowels and reduce the need for non-doubling digraphs for vowels. However, this makes it so that orthographically "long" vowels have both undoubled and doubled versions, based on context, and that consonants that aren't inherently "doubled" (that is, single character ones besides "w" and "v") may "shorten" preceding vowels that would otherwise be "long" by being doubled. Hence, the values of vowels at the orthographic level are very contextually dependent, at the gain of basically eliminating the need for vowel diacritics and of reducing the need for digraphs. Of course, part of the reason why I used such a scheme is that practically all the Germanic language orthographies today, besides those of most likely Icelandic and Faroese, use some variation upon such a scheme, in one fashion or another. Of course, the orthography which takes such to its final conclusion is that of Dutch, with that of German being next closest, if one treats "h"s following vowels in it as being effectively the same as doubling them.
So why am I following preexisting precedents in other Germanic languages' orthographies so much here? This is because I want a clean break from the current English orthography, but yet I still want written English to *look* like a Germanic language, rather than a random mess of diacritics and "special" characters. Therefore, rather than simply trying to create a new orthography a priori, I instead used preexisting models in other Germanic languages' orthographies, especially those of Dutch and to some degree German, and fitted those to fit the needs of English, modifying them along the way when I had specific needs which there were not preexisting models for in other Germanic languages which could be easily translated to English. Another reason is that English dialects in general have far more vowel phonemes than there are characters available for them in Roman script, and yet I did not want to use diacritics at all, for practical reasons, or excessive quantities of digraphs and trigraphs, for aesthetic reasons, and Dutch orthography seemed to have solved this problem quite well, despite some minor weirdnesses in its overall design ("oe" in it comes to mind). Hence, Dutch orthography was one of the main models which I ended up basing things off of, for practical rather than ideological reasons.
1. Word-initially, /s/ is always "s" and /z/ is always "z", no matter what are adjacent to them
2. Adjacent to an unvoiced consonant, /s/ and /z/ are both "s", as /z/ will be devoiced in practice
3. Intervocalically, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
4. Word-finally, if following a vowel or a voiced consonant, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
5. Otherwise, when adjacent to a voiced consonant, /z/ is "s" and /s/ is "ss"
Such may seem rather complex, but should not be that counterintuitive for people used to the existing English orthography. Consider that word-finally, "s" in this usually is the same as its counterpart in the existing orthography, and "ss" in this is usually is the same as "ss", "se", or "ce" in the existing orthography.
As for why the hell I decided to write compounds the German (and Dutch, and Scandinavian) way, there are a number of reasons. The first, yes, is consistency with the aforementioned language's orthographies, considering that significant aspects of this orthography are directly taken from the aforementioned orthographies. The second has to do with how stress is generally handled in compound words versus sequences of independent words; compound words generally have a single primary stress, whereas sequences of independent words generally have multiple independent primary stresses. Contrast "White House" as in where the US President lives (generally has one primary stress, on the first syllable) with "white house" as in a house that happens to be white (generally has two primary stresses, and if one is stronger, it is generally the second one); the two generally have different stress patterns, with the former being a single compound word and the latter being two separate words; writing compound words as single words only makes this more explicit rather than having it be implicit for the reader. For example, in this case, the "White House" would be <Hwaithaus> or <Waithaus>, whereas a "white house" would be <hwait haus> or <wait haus>.
As for why the same vowels are often written different ways, the reason for this is that a Dutch-style double vowel rule is used for determining vowel orthographic "length"; the reason for this is to help get rid of any need for diacritics for vowels and reduce the need for non-doubling digraphs for vowels. However, this makes it so that orthographically "long" vowels have both undoubled and doubled versions, based on context, and that consonants that aren't inherently "doubled" (that is, single character ones besides "w" and "v") may "shorten" preceding vowels that would otherwise be "long" by being doubled. Hence, the values of vowels at the orthographic level are very contextually dependent, at the gain of basically eliminating the need for vowel diacritics and of reducing the need for digraphs. Of course, part of the reason why I used such a scheme is that practically all the Germanic language orthographies today, besides those of most likely Icelandic and Faroese, use some variation upon such a scheme, in one fashion or another. Of course, the orthography which takes such to its final conclusion is that of Dutch, with that of German being next closest, if one treats "h"s following vowels in it as being effectively the same as doubling them.
So why am I following preexisting precedents in other Germanic languages' orthographies so much here? This is because I want a clean break from the current English orthography, but yet I still want written English to *look* like a Germanic language, rather than a random mess of diacritics and "special" characters. Therefore, rather than simply trying to create a new orthography a priori, I instead used preexisting models in other Germanic languages' orthographies, especially those of Dutch and to some degree German, and fitted those to fit the needs of English, modifying them along the way when I had specific needs which there were not preexisting models for in other Germanic languages which could be easily translated to English. Another reason is that English dialects in general have far more vowel phonemes than there are characters available for them in Roman script, and yet I did not want to use diacritics at all, for practical reasons, or excessive quantities of digraphs and trigraphs, for aesthetic reasons, and Dutch orthography seemed to have solved this problem quite well, despite some minor weirdnesses in its overall design ("oe" in it comes to mind). Hence, Dutch orthography was one of the main models which I ended up basing things off of, for practical rather than ideological reasons.
Minor edit: "White House" should be <Hwait'haus> or <Wait'haus>; just forgot to break up what would otherwise be a digraph.
Thank you, Travis, for answering my many questions. I still disagree with some of the details of your system, but now I know where you are coming from on a lot of it.
Ack, another change: forgot that those should really be:
"White House" : <Hwait'hauss> or <Wait'hauss>
"white house" : <hwait hauss> or <wait hauss>
(For some reason I was thinking too much about German "Haus" here.)
"White House" : <Hwait'hauss> or <Wait'hauss>
"white house" : <hwait hauss> or <wait hauss>
(For some reason I was thinking too much about German "Haus" here.)
Another question, though...why not just use z's instead of making a somewhat complicated system of s's?
Well, I did originally use such, but people often found it icky aesthetically, even though it is logically simpler most definitely. However, this system works alright in practice, even though it does complicate things a bit (for example "s", "ss", and "z" are all treated as being "doubled" no matter what, resulting in things like "leeser" (current orthography "laser")).
One thing I did find rather icky myself, though, was instances of "zz" which showed up time to time in the old way of doing such things, in words like "lizzerd" ("lizard", now changed to "liserd"). Of course, one way to solve this would be to make "z" always "doubled", even thought this would be rather arbitrary, all things considered.
<<I would think that writing those would not be a bad idea, considering how they effectively act as independent pronouns.
And yes, they would be written as
"you guys" : <jugais> (the silly <s> rather than <z> for /z/ thing here)
"you all" : <juoal>
The main thing is that many people don't like word-final <z>, which does not show up in any of the other Germanic languages' orthographies save that of German, where it represents /ts/, not /z/. And yes, using word-final <z> is more logically consistent and clean, but logic and aesthetics do not necessarily coincide in all places.
As for numbers, I would probably also follow the precedent in the other Germanic languages, and go with:
"twenty one" : <twantiewan> (<twentiewun> for you)
Remember that in practice, most large numbers would be written down as digits anyways. As for why I used <iew> rather than <iw> here, this is because <w> (as well as <v>) is always treated as if it were doubled, even though it is visually a single grapheme, since <w> and <v> are *never* doubled, partly because <ww> and <vv> look ugly, and partly because Dutch orthography already has this particular feature.>>
So, I guess also you'd spell ''one hundred'' in your accent as <wanhandrid> (in my accent it would become <wunhundrid>).
What about X-ray? Would it be spelled ''eksre''?
What about commonly used acronyms like ''DVD'', ''TV'', ''VCR'', ''CD'', ''CD-ROM'', ''U.S.'', and ''ATM''. Would those be written as ''dividi'', ''tivi'', ''visiaar'', ''sidi'', ''sidirom'', ''jues'' and ''eetiem''? Surely ones like ''U.S.'' and ''ATM'' would have to be written as such, because the letters starting what they stand for would be different in the new spelling.
And yes, they would be written as
"you guys" : <jugais> (the silly <s> rather than <z> for /z/ thing here)
"you all" : <juoal>
The main thing is that many people don't like word-final <z>, which does not show up in any of the other Germanic languages' orthographies save that of German, where it represents /ts/, not /z/. And yes, using word-final <z> is more logically consistent and clean, but logic and aesthetics do not necessarily coincide in all places.
As for numbers, I would probably also follow the precedent in the other Germanic languages, and go with:
"twenty one" : <twantiewan> (<twentiewun> for you)
Remember that in practice, most large numbers would be written down as digits anyways. As for why I used <iew> rather than <iw> here, this is because <w> (as well as <v>) is always treated as if it were doubled, even though it is visually a single grapheme, since <w> and <v> are *never* doubled, partly because <ww> and <vv> look ugly, and partly because Dutch orthography already has this particular feature.>>
So, I guess also you'd spell ''one hundred'' in your accent as <wanhandrid> (in my accent it would become <wunhundrid>).
What about X-ray? Would it be spelled ''eksre''?
What about commonly used acronyms like ''DVD'', ''TV'', ''VCR'', ''CD'', ''CD-ROM'', ''U.S.'', and ''ATM''. Would those be written as ''dividi'', ''tivi'', ''visiaar'', ''sidi'', ''sidirom'', ''jues'' and ''eetiem''? Surely ones like ''U.S.'' and ''ATM'' would have to be written as such, because the letters starting what they stand for would be different in the new spelling.
Yes, I would spell "one hundred" as <wanhandrid>, which for you would be, yes, <wunhundrid>. As for abbreviations and such, though, I would keep them as abbreviations, rather than write them out as their actual pronunciation, even though they might have to be changed due to what they stand for changing in spelling. For example, "DVD", "TV", and "ATM" would stay as is, but "US" would become <JS>, "CD" would become <KD>, "CD-ROM" would become <KD-ROM>, and "VCR" would become <VKR>.
Quote-''For example, "DVD", "TV", and "ATM" would stay as is, but "US" would become <JS>, "CD" would become <KD>, "CD-ROM" would become <KD-ROM>, and "VCR" would become <VKR>.''
Changing the abbreviations is problematic if the abbreviations are actual pronounced differently from what they are abbreviated from. Since, ''CD'', ''VCR'' and ''US'' are such common acronyms, people would resist changing they're pronunciation. Neytoe Inglish gets rid of this problem by writing out ''CD'' and ''VCR'' as ''seydey'' and ''veyseyar''.
Changing the abbreviations is problematic if the abbreviations are actual pronounced differently from what they are abbreviated from. Since, ''CD'', ''VCR'' and ''US'' are such common acronyms, people would resist changing they're pronunciation. Neytoe Inglish gets rid of this problem by writing out ''CD'' and ''VCR'' as ''seydey'' and ''veyseyar''.
One might just continue using the old abbreviations, or, yes, one could spell out the pronunciation. In that case, yes, the aforementioned abbreviations could be written:
"DVD" : <dievidi> (note that <ie> is used as <v> is always "doubled")
"TV" : <tievi> (same thing with "DVD")
"VCR" : <viessiaar>
"CD" : <sidi>
"CD-ROM" : <sidiraam> or <sidirom>
"US" : <juess>
"ATM" : <etiëm> (note the diaeresis, which is the only diacritic used in this orthography)
Note that you basically got how the system would work here, except for some little technical complications in places, with /v/, /s/, and so on, as well as the use of diaeresises for disambiguating vowels.
"DVD" : <dievidi> (note that <ie> is used as <v> is always "doubled")
"TV" : <tievi> (same thing with "DVD")
"VCR" : <viessiaar>
"CD" : <sidi>
"CD-ROM" : <sidiraam> or <sidirom>
"US" : <juess>
"ATM" : <etiëm> (note the diaeresis, which is the only diacritic used in this orthography)
Note that you basically got how the system would work here, except for some little technical complications in places, with /v/, /s/, and so on, as well as the use of diaeresises for disambiguating vowels.
Travis : deine /z/-/s/ Auffassung is phonemisch. Deshalb habe ich Schwierigkeiten, um sie mit Phonemen zu verbinden. Irgendwie bist du mit den folgenden Aussagen einverstanden ? (Natürlich sind sie überhaupt nicht auf Umfangheit abgezielt)
Einige phonetische Realisierungen des Graphems <s> :
1/ Trennbares Präfix <dis> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<disagree> [dIs@gr\i:] – <disobey> [dIs@beI] – disown [dIs@Un] – usw.
Ausnhamen : <disease> [dIzi:z] – <disaster> [dIzA:st@] – <disastrous> [dIzA:str\@s] – <dismal> [dIzm@l] – <dissolve> [dIzQlv] – <dissolvent> [dIzQlv@nt].
In diesen folgenden Wörter kann das Graphem <s> entweder [s] oder [z] realisiert worden : <disable>, <disarm>, <discern>, <disdain>, <disgrace>, <disguise>, <disgust>, <dismay>, <disorder> und <disorganise>.
2/ (Un)trennabres Präfix <dys> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<dysentery> [dIs@ntr\I] – usw.
3/ Trennbares Präfix <mis> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<misuse> [mIsju:z] – <misinterpret> [mIsInt3:pr\It] – usw.
4/ Mischsuffix <ism>, der mit dem silbischen Konsonant [m=] endet : <s> = [z].
<atheism> [eITIIzm=] – <communism> [kQmjUnIzm=] – usw.
5/ Wörter, die mit <asm> enden : <s> = [z].
<chasm> [k{zm=] – <spasm> [sp{zm=] – usw.
Einige phonetische Realisierungen des Graphems <z> :
1/ <z> = [z] : <lazy> [leIzI] – <zeal> [zi:l] – usw.
2/ <z> = [ts] : <Nazi> [nA:tsI].
3/ <z> = [z] : <azure> [{Z@] / [eIZ@] – <seizure> [si:Z@].
Einige phonetische Realisierungen des Graphems <s> :
1/ Trennbares Präfix <dis> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<disagree> [dIs@gr\i:] – <disobey> [dIs@beI] – disown [dIs@Un] – usw.
Ausnhamen : <disease> [dIzi:z] – <disaster> [dIzA:st@] – <disastrous> [dIzA:str\@s] – <dismal> [dIzm@l] – <dissolve> [dIzQlv] – <dissolvent> [dIzQlv@nt].
In diesen folgenden Wörter kann das Graphem <s> entweder [s] oder [z] realisiert worden : <disable>, <disarm>, <discern>, <disdain>, <disgrace>, <disguise>, <disgust>, <dismay>, <disorder> und <disorganise>.
2/ (Un)trennabres Präfix <dys> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<dysentery> [dIs@ntr\I] – usw.
3/ Trennbares Präfix <mis> : <s> = [s]. Selbst wenn der erste Laute des Grundwortes ein Vokal ist. Das heißt, daß <s> intervokalisch ist.
<misuse> [mIsju:z] – <misinterpret> [mIsInt3:pr\It] – usw.
4/ Mischsuffix <ism>, der mit dem silbischen Konsonant [m=] endet : <s> = [z].
<atheism> [eITIIzm=] – <communism> [kQmjUnIzm=] – usw.
5/ Wörter, die mit <asm> enden : <s> = [z].
<chasm> [k{zm=] – <spasm> [sp{zm=] – usw.
Einige phonetische Realisierungen des Graphems <z> :
1/ <z> = [z] : <lazy> [leIzI] – <zeal> [zi:l] – usw.
2/ <z> = [ts] : <Nazi> [nA:tsI].
3/ <z> = [z] : <azure> [{Z@] / [eIZ@] – <seizure> [si:Z@].