''flourish'' and ''nourish''

Here are L. Craig Schoonmaker's ideas about respelling ''flourish'' and ''nourish''

Quote-''Thursday and Friday, July 7 and 8, 2005:
"nerish" and "flerish" for "nourish" and "flourish"

There is no OU-sound in either of these words. Rather, both are parallel in sound to "perish" and "cherish", so should have parallel spellings: "nerish" and "flerish".''

What do you think about these two particular ideas?

Source- http://www.geocities.com/sswordday/arc7-92005.html

I don't see why we should change the spellings of words. There might be no O sound, but we still know how to pronounce them.

Great. But in the U.S. these words would have to be spelled "nurish" and "flurish", so you'd be creating variant spellings where none existed.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
-- William Ockham

''Munday, September 26 thru Wensday, September 29, 2004:
"muther" for "monther"
"bruther" for "brother"
"ont" for "aunt"


(Personal commitments earlier this week delayed these entries.)
"Mother" does not rhyme with "bother". Nor does the first syllable rhyme with "moth" or "troth". The word is pronounced "muther" so should be written "muther". "Brother" doesn't rhyme with "bother" either. Nor does its first syllable sound like either "broth" or the first syllable of "brothel". And "aunt" is often mispronounced as tho spelled "ant", which produces a needless homonym that's rather insulting to your mother or father's sister! So let's rewrite these words sensibly: "muther", "bruther", and "ont".




Thursday, September 30, 2004: "fother" for "father"
This week has been dedicated to the names of family members (so far, muther, bruther, and ont). Let's continue with perhaps the most controversial of my proposed reforms, "fother" (on the pattern of "bother", which has the right vowel, short-O) for "father" (which has the wrong vowel, A, as in "gather").

British spelling reformers object that the broad-A in "father" is not the same sound, in their dialect, as the O in "bother". This page would like to be collegial and propose words that can be reformed the same way across the English-speaking world / "Anglosphere", but at end we can't let Britain hold the United States back.

70% of all native speakers of English reside in just one country, the United States, and our population grows about 10% (or more) every decade. It grew by 33 million from 1990 to 2000, the equivalent of more than half the total population of Britain, in just ten years! By contrast, Britain's population is less than 60 million and static. There's no reason for 300 million Americans (and counting) to have to write stupidly to accommodate Britain.

Noah Webster, the great American lexicographer, was indeed happy to distinguish American spellings from British, to show pride in his Nation. Spellings Webster proposed in 1783 and which were widely adopted here, like "color", have still not been adopted in Britain. So there's no point in waiting for that antique society to catch up before moving on. Britain will likely be backward for a very long time when it comes to spelling. So let the British write "father", and just as we know what they mean when they write preposterous things like "programme" and "gaol", they will know what we mean when we write "fother".''

OMG Who is this guy!

I will first respond to his preposterous spelling suggestions, and then to the inappropriate and presumptuous remarks designated above

"Mother" and "brother": Yes, these do not rhyme with "bother," but why should they? The sound "uh" is very commonly represented by the vowel "o" (shove, hover, shovel, and more). Just because the following letters are "th" doesn't mean it either has to rhyme with other words with "oth" or require spelling reform. The argument is ridiculous.



"Aunt": Both "ant" and "ont" are acceptable pronunciations of the word. (As a matter of fact, "ont" is more British, which he seems to vehemently denounce.) Besides, the "o" sound in ''not'' is very commonly represented by "au" (faucet, audacious, haul, and more) so even if he were to insist on the "o" sound there would be no reason for the reform.



"Father": Aside from the valid argument that this is pronounced differently from "bother" in Britain - once again, this sound is frequently represented by "a" - usually followed by an "r," but the same sound nonetheless (card, hard, bard, and many more).



Above all, however, these spellings should remain intact because they reflect the linguistic history of the English language. "Father" is related to German "Vater" and Dutch "vader" - and indeed, for once it maintains the same pronunciation. "Mother" and "brother" evolved from the same roots as German "Mutter" and "Bruder." In this case, the "o" might indicate the difference in sound from the German "u." I may be speculating to a degree, but the point remains that these spellings reflect the evolution of the English language and are not to be artificially tampered with.

Now, on to the impudent comments:

These spelling do not indicate stupidity. It's not like someone woke up one day and say, "Hey, I'm feeling kind of stupid today. I'm gonna spell 'mother' with an 'o' even though it's pronounced like a 'u.' " What is stupid is to suggest that maintaining these spellings "accommodates" the British and fosters stupidity. The English language originated in Britain, where there may have been differences American English has since then evolved away from. The fact that American English maintained the spellings does not indicate stupidity. I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly, but I am simply so exasperated at his preposterous assertions I don't even know where to begin.

"Backward"? That's where the language originated! I think the British are pretty happy and content with their spelling system - as are, I daresay, most Americans. There are countless linguistic remnants that are perhaps "in opposition" (for lack of a better term) to more recent trends. That does not render them backward. There are many many words in many languages that do not correspond rigidly to pronunciation. If this guy deems all of these phenomena backward and is seeking to reform them all, he has quite an onerous task ahead of him.

You're damn straight gonna let them! It's their language! If it weren't, you wouldn't even be speaking the language in the first place! Who are you to be superciliously condemning the original spelling of the language, shunning it as backward or incorrect because it doesn't correspond to your idealized prescriptive notions of how words are supposed to be spelled?

Finally, I would like to point out the ridiculously patent fact that even the vowels he suggested have multiple pronunciations. Why should the "u" in "muther" be pronounced like the "u" in "bun" and not the "u" in "putrid"? In sum, his arguments are unfounded, recalcitrant, and unacceptable.

I vehemently disapprove.

<<Rather, both are parallel in sound to "perish" and "cherish", so should have parallel spellings: "nerish" and "flerish".'>>

Schoonmaker's ignorance of English pronunciation is astounding. He exhibits a rare speech characteristic, limited to the Philadelphia metro area, in which "flourish/nourish" and "perish/cherish" have the same vowel. Therefore he thinks that everyone should pronounce those words exactly like him.

I pronounce "flourish" and "nourish" as [flVrIS] and [nVrIS]. A reasonable spelling reform might make them "flurrish" and "nurrish". His proposed "flerish" and "nerish" look to me like they should be pronounced [flErIS] and [nErIS].

Bill, I sympathize with you completely, especially because I'm one of the few Americans who distinguish between "father" [fAD@`] and "bother" [bQD@`]. His proposed "fother" and "ont" look to me like they should be pronounced [fQD@`] and [Qnt].

Lazar,

What about these ideas that Schoonmaker has? What do you think about them?

bury - burry (cf. ''furry'' and ''hurry'') (contrast ''fury'')

worry - werry (cf. "berry" and "cherry")

grandaunt, -child, -daughter, -father, -mother ---- grandont, -chiald, -dauter, -fother, -muther

mirror - meerer

miracle - meeracle

pyramid - peeramid [Dogs...]

roar - ror

taco - tocko

tour - ture

tsunami - tsuenommy

two - tue

boardwalk - bordwauk

My opinion about those is that Schoonmaker can fuck off and die, the sooner the better. The first of those that came to my mind was "tsunami", which is a Japanese loan which is spelled phonemically using romaji - to go and anglicize it as "tsuenommy" really doesn't make the least bit of sense considering such.

The second things that I noticed were his wanting to change "bury" to "burry", and "worry" to "werry". Sorry, but at least here, "bury" does *not* rhyme with "hurry", "curry", and like, being /"beri/ -> ["be:.r\i] not /b@`i/ -> [b3`i] here, even though Schoonmaker's thinking that it does rhyme with such words is not surprising considering his somehow thinking that the "Kerry"-"curry" merger present in the Philadelphia and New Jersey areas is somehow normative for the whole of NAE. Same thing with "worry", which here definitely does not rhyme with "merry", "berry", "Kerry", and so on, being /w@`i/ -> [w3`i], not /"weri/ -> ["we:.r\i].

Third thing, "taco", being a Spanish loan word, should emphatically *not* be changed to "tocko", which is just plain wrong for a word from Spanish.

Fourth thing, "mirror" and "miracle" should not be changed to "meerer" and "meeracle", because such implies the use of a tense vowel in the first syllable of both words, but in many NAE dialects, such as my own, a lax vowel, rather than a tense vowel, is used in such positions. Hence, to actually dictate a change of spelling that more explicitly specifies the use of a tense vowel in such cases, unnecessarily, is rather ignorant of other NAE dialects.

Fifth thing, as for "grandaunt" (even though in the dialect here, such a word doesn't exist, and the word "greataunt" is what's used instead), "grandont" is not suitable at all, because in many NAE dialects (such as my own, once again) the word "aunt" is homophonic with the word "ant", in my dialect as /{nt/ -> [{~?], which is a pronunciation specifically different from that which changing the spelling to "grandont" would dictate.

Well, I should qualify my statement above about romaji, as the sort of romaji which the spelling "tsunami" comes from isn't strictly phonemic, actually, as it explicitly specifies palatalization in places, such as in said word, for the sake of making pronunciation easier for people who don't speak Japanese.

<<bury - burry (cf. ''furry'' and ''hurry'')>>

This one is unreasonable. "Bury" is usually pronounced [bEri], not [bVri] or [b3`i]. This problem, like many others, arises from Schoonmaker's rare "ferry-furry" merger. A reasonable reform would be "berry".

<<worry - werry (cf. "berry" and "cherry")>>

Unreasonable. "Worry" is pronounced [wVri] or [w3`i], not [wEri]. A reasonable reform would be "wurry".

<<grandaunt, -child, -daughter, -father, -mother ---- grandont, -chiald, -dauter, -fother, -muther>>

"Grandont" and "grandfother" don't work for anyone who lacks the "father-bother" merger (Britons, Australians, and Eastern New Englanders). "Grandchiald" is reasonable, even though it looks very odd. "Grandmuther" is reasonable.

<<mirror - meerer...miracle - meeracle>>

These ones don't work for anyone who lacks the "mirror-nearer" merger (Britons, Irish, Australians, and northeastern Americans). I pronounce "mirror" and "miracle" as [mIr@`] and [mIr@k@l], but Schoonmaker's reformed spellings look to me like they should be [mir@`] and [mir@k@l]. Reasonable reforms would be "mirrer" and "mirracle".

<<roar - ror>>

This one's fine.

<<taco - tocko>>

Again, it doesn't work for anyone who lacks the "father-bother" merger. I pronounce "taco" as [tAko], but the reformed spelling looks like it should be [tQko]. The spelling of "taco" doesn't need to be reformed.

<<tour - ture>>

This one is unreasonable because to many people (especially in Britain), it would appear that it should be pronounced with an initial [tj], which it isn't. A reasonable reform would be "toor".

<<tsunami - tsuenommy>>

Again, this excludes "father-bother" unmerged people. The spelling of "tsunami" doesn't need to be reformed.

<<two - tue>>

This is unreasonable because to many people, it would appear that it should be pronounced [tju], which it isn't. A reasonable reform would be "too".

<<boardwalk - bordwauk>>

This one's fine.

Here are some of his other ideas:

enclose, enclosure - encloze, encloezher

food - fued (British inclination to insert a Y-glide in places like this would be countered here by the fact that there already is a Y-glide word of this type, spelled "feud".)

hour - ouwer

jalapeno / jalapeño - hollapaenyo

karaoke - kareoky

karate - karotty

our - owwer

pizza / pizzeria - peetsa / peetsaria

sushi - sueshy

wanna/be - wonna/be

Many of them are absurd too.

Most definitely. For example, from his proposals for "karaoke" and "karate", he is certainly ignorant of actual Japanese pronunciation, as the "e" at the end of the romaji representations of such words is /e/, not /i/, and also he is seeming to assuming that the "a"s in "karaoke" and the first "a" in "karate" are /e/, when in reality they are /a/. As for his suggestion for "our", that is simply unacceptable, as the most common pronunciation at least here today, outside of formal speech, is homophonic with "are" rather than "hour", being /Ar/ -> [A:r\] rather than /aUr/ -> [aU@`], which it tends to be in primarily rather formal or emphatic speech here.

<<enclose, enclosure - encloze, encloezher>>

Tolerable.

<<food - fued (British inclination to insert a Y-glide in places like this would be countered here by the fact that there already is a Y-glide word of this type, spelled "feud".)>>

His explanation for this one is ridiculous. And once again his profound ignorance of the English language makes itself apparent: A Y-glide (yod) in this context would be no more British than American, because American English doesn't have yod-dropping after F. The spelling of "food" doesn't need to be reformed.

<<jalapeno / jalapeño - hollapaenyo>>

It excludes father-bother-unmerged people, and the "ae" in this context just looks weird.

<<hour - ouwer>>

This one looks weird as well, since "uw" doesn't normally (or ever) occur in English spelling. It actually looks kinda Dutch. "Hour" is fine - if anything, just drop the H.

<<pizza / pizzeria - peetsa / peetsaria>>

Fine.

<<sushi - sueshy>>

The "ue" in this context looks strange. "Sushi" shouldn't be reformed.

<<wanna/be - wonna/be>>

Excludes father-bother-unmerged people. "Wanna" and "wannabe" definitely shouldn't be changed.

Quote-''This problem, like many others, arises from Schoonmaker's rare "ferry-furry" merger. A reasonable reform would be "berry".''

Lazar,

What do you think would happen if Schoonmaker travelled all across the country and started asking random people if the words ''ferry'' and ''furry'' were pronounced the same way? Would Schoonmaker still think that most people have this ''merry-Murray'' merger?

Forgot some:

<<karaoke - kareoky>>

Tolerable, but as Travis said, it misrepresents the original Japanese pronunciation. I don't think unassimilated foreign words like "karaoke" and "jalapeno" should be reformed.

<<karate - karotty>>

Same as "karaoke", plus it excludes father-bother-unmerged people.

<<our - owwer>>

Huh? "Our" doesn't need to be reformed.