Radical spelling reform or partial modification?
Both "New Spelling" and "World English Spelling" are clearly flawed. Consistent vowel representations such as "ae,ee,ie,oe,ue" will create a serious problem when two vowels are next to each other. And both of the two systems deny Magic-"e" and consonant dubbling, so we would have to respell lots of words that are easy to read. Why "maek" insted of "make"? Why "beter" insted of "better"?
>>Furthermore, it would be easier to replace the highly flawed current orthography with a good orthography than a flawed *new* orthography which has already been put in place. <<
You must be thinking you don't need any new systems. What do you mean by "good orthography" for English, then? To me, it would be a result of some refinement, retaining distinctions of homophones.
>>Furthermore, it would be easier to replace the highly flawed current orthography with a good orthography than a flawed *new* orthography which has already been put in place. <<
You must be thinking you don't need any new systems. What do you mean by "good orthography" for English, then? To me, it would be a result of some refinement, retaining distinctions of homophones.
To Travis:
I misunderstood you, but now I understand. Your own proposed English orthography scheme is not for replacing the current spelling system.
I misunderstood you, but now I understand. Your own proposed English orthography scheme is not for replacing the current spelling system.
>>I misunderstood you, but now I understand. Your own proposed English orthography scheme is not for replacing the current spelling system.<<
Hence why I refer to it as being provisional; it is purely experimental, and is not designed to cover the entirety of English to start with.
Hence why I refer to it as being provisional; it is purely experimental, and is not designed to cover the entirety of English to start with.
To Travis:
In relation to the current spelling system, what do you think "good orthography" is, then?
In relation to the current spelling system, what do you think "good orthography" is, then?
Someone Sunday, April 17, 2005, 00:11 GMT
I know that simply being phonemic wouldn't be enough. However, the writing system would include all the phonemes necessary to represent the various varieties of English, even when many of them would be redundant in specific dialects.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/posts/6977-5.htm
I agree with this opinion.
I know that simply being phonemic wouldn't be enough. However, the writing system would include all the phonemes necessary to represent the various varieties of English, even when many of them would be redundant in specific dialects.
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/posts/6977-5.htm
I agree with this opinion.
Travis Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:16 pm GMT
>>eito, well, one thing you have to consider about radical reform is that it does not necessarily have to be purely phonemic for any specific dialect; such would be problematic if one were to try to enact orthographic reform for much of English as a whole, as it would be too arbitrary, and would likely not represent many distinctions that some but not all dialects may have. Rather, it can try to represent as many distinctions as possible, within the range of dialects under consideration, and it can use the most recent common historical form for any given set of versions of the same word in modern dialects for deciding between forms in different modern dialects. Of course, it can be designed so as if it *would* be purely phonemic if what it represented corresponded to an actual dialect.
The logic behind this is that it is better for individuals to have to actually learn different spellings for different meanings for what are homophones for themselves than for individuals to have multiple pronunciations corresponding to multiple meanings which are written the same in the orthography in question, and that, when it comes to tie-breaking, conservative forms are preferable to progressive forms. In this way, one can have a cleanly and consistently designed orthography that can actually serve *all* of English, and not just a limited section of it, without simply being a rehash or revision of the preexisting orthography.<<
Is this what you call "good orthography"?
You used the term "radical reform", which has been confusing to me. Probably you must have meant "a complete reform that is just the opposit of leaving something half done". However, to me, the term has sounded like something telling peeple to always use the same letter for the same sound and drop every silent letter.
>>eito, well, one thing you have to consider about radical reform is that it does not necessarily have to be purely phonemic for any specific dialect; such would be problematic if one were to try to enact orthographic reform for much of English as a whole, as it would be too arbitrary, and would likely not represent many distinctions that some but not all dialects may have. Rather, it can try to represent as many distinctions as possible, within the range of dialects under consideration, and it can use the most recent common historical form for any given set of versions of the same word in modern dialects for deciding between forms in different modern dialects. Of course, it can be designed so as if it *would* be purely phonemic if what it represented corresponded to an actual dialect.
The logic behind this is that it is better for individuals to have to actually learn different spellings for different meanings for what are homophones for themselves than for individuals to have multiple pronunciations corresponding to multiple meanings which are written the same in the orthography in question, and that, when it comes to tie-breaking, conservative forms are preferable to progressive forms. In this way, one can have a cleanly and consistently designed orthography that can actually serve *all* of English, and not just a limited section of it, without simply being a rehash or revision of the preexisting orthography.<<
Is this what you call "good orthography"?
You used the term "radical reform", which has been confusing to me. Probably you must have meant "a complete reform that is just the opposit of leaving something half done". However, to me, the term has sounded like something telling peeple to always use the same letter for the same sound and drop every silent letter.
>>To Travis:
In relation to the current spelling system, what do you think "good orthography" is, then?<<
Depends on what one's goals are. Is one is just trying to accurately represent a single dialect or small group or dialects or if one is trying to create a literary orthography for an entire language with a wide range of different dialects, and which even has multiple different coexisting "standard" forms? In the former case trying to do just a pure phonemic orthography would probably best.
However, in the latter case, one is not targetting a single dialect, so pragmatic concerns have to be taken into account, such as forcing people to learn extra distinctions versus forcing people to write words they pronounce differently the same, and drawing a line between familiar distinctions not native to a given dialect with less known distinctions not native to a given dialect. But anyways, in the latter case, what one wants is something that will serve a significant majority of the speakers of a given language relatively well, which favors including extra distinctions over leaving them out, which favors conservatism over progressiveness, which represents what is being represented in a purely phonemic manner, and like.
In relation to the current spelling system, what do you think "good orthography" is, then?<<
Depends on what one's goals are. Is one is just trying to accurately represent a single dialect or small group or dialects or if one is trying to create a literary orthography for an entire language with a wide range of different dialects, and which even has multiple different coexisting "standard" forms? In the former case trying to do just a pure phonemic orthography would probably best.
However, in the latter case, one is not targetting a single dialect, so pragmatic concerns have to be taken into account, such as forcing people to learn extra distinctions versus forcing people to write words they pronounce differently the same, and drawing a line between familiar distinctions not native to a given dialect with less known distinctions not native to a given dialect. But anyways, in the latter case, what one wants is something that will serve a significant majority of the speakers of a given language relatively well, which favors including extra distinctions over leaving them out, which favors conservatism over progressiveness, which represents what is being represented in a purely phonemic manner, and like.
There's a comical poem about pronouncing 'ough' here
http://www.pjf.org.uk/pps/lp/hiccup.htm it doesn't rhyme (maybe due to 'ough')!
http://www.pjf.org.uk/pps/lp/hiccup.htm it doesn't rhyme (maybe due to 'ough')!