Radical spelling reform or partial modification?

Jim   Wed May 09, 2007 4:49 am GMT
Yeah, it does depend on dialect. Using "o" for the PALM vowel will work if but only if you've got the FATHER-BOTHER merger. So Schoony can keep his "sogga" if it works for him ... it doesn't work for me. Equally I might suggest "sarger", now this does work for me ... I'd like to read what Schoony would think of this.
Jim   Wed May 09, 2007 5:20 am GMT
Two of Schoonmaker's "Simpler Spelling Words of the Day" for this week are:

"omnippotent" for "omnipotent"
"omnivvorus" for "omnivorous"

Good work Schoonmaker for making these words "simpler".

"The present spelling leads the reader to think òm.nee.póe.tant." he argues. Surely most of those who don't know how the word is pronounced probably don't know what it means either ... enter the dictionary in which one not only finds definitions but pronunciations as well.

Doubling the "p" & "v" makes the word harder to spell - we'd have to puzzle about stress patterns. I don't believe this is offset by any making of the word easier to read.

Also he's changed the "~ous" to "~us" calling the "o" "superfluous" ... okay iff you're getting rid of the "o" in all occurances of this suffix but what then would become of a word like "superfluous" would it become "superfluus"?

http://www.geocities.com/sswordday/
Guest   Wed May 09, 2007 5:25 pm GMT
<<Also he's changed the "~ous" to "~us" calling the "o" "superfluous" ... okay iff you're getting rid of the "o" in all occurances of this suffix but what then would become of a word like "superfluous" would it become "superfluus"?>>

That wouldn't be too bad. After all, we have "continuum".
eito(jpn)   Thu May 10, 2007 8:13 pm GMT
ambiguus, conspicuus, continuus, fatuus, promiscuus, ...

It must be better to retain the "-ous" suffix.
eito(jpn)   Thu May 10, 2007 8:49 pm GMT
>>Doubling the "p" & "v" makes the word harder to spell - we'd have to puzzle about stress patterns. I don't believe this is offset by any making of the word easier to read. <<

You must be right, Jim.

========

http://asia.geocities.com/novospel/2nd.html

[2-a] Use a/e/i/o/u to sho stressed short-A/E/I/O/U.
Retain "o" with short-U sound. Retain "a" as in "wa-", "wha-", and "qua-".

[2-b] No dubbled consonants except after stressed short vowels, but retain "cc"/ks/", unvoiced "ss" and "ll" as in "all" and "full".
Use new dubbled consonants where needed only in exchange of silent letters or in modifying vowels*, but no new dubblings of "v" and voiced "s".

--- e.g. garanty, frend, heffer, hevy, reddy, pritty, bisy, burocracy, yot, bluddy, dubble, suttle.

* exception --- bury > bery, not berry
Jim   Thu May 10, 2007 11:39 pm GMT
"superfluous", "ambiguus, conspicuus, continuus, fatuus, promiscuus, ..." yeah, these seem to work.

"It must be better to retain the '-ous' suffix." depending on how far we want to take spelling reform.

The problem I mean to point out is this word by word approach. Don't reform a word with a suffix when in doing so you end up reforming the suffix as it appears in that word without reforming the suffix as it appears in all words (bar reasonable exceptions).
eito(jpn)   Mon May 28, 2007 10:40 pm GMT
http://www.geocities.com/sswordday/arc07-2Q.html


Friday, May 25, 2007: "delishus" for "delicious"

This Food Friday, let's revise the spelling of a word for how something might taste.

-CIOUS is a cumbersome and unphonetic way to spell this ending. We could simplify it a tad, by changing it to -TIOUS, which more closely accords with the familiar ending -TION, and which is the way this same sound is spelled in various other words (ambitious, rambunctious, pretentious). But "delicious" does not relate to the -TION ending, since there is no word "delition". Thus there is no reason to accommodate the -TION pattern. No, the sound is -SHUS (where the U represents a schwa), so let's just spell it that way.

We might also change the E to I ("dilishus"), but that would be prescriptivist, telling people who now say dee.lísh.as that they are saying it wrong and need to say di.lísh.as instead. Let them say what they want. People who now see DEL- and pronounce it dil- will continue to do so with the new spelling: "delishus".
____________________
Guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:37 pm GMT
<<We might also change the E to I ("dilishus"), but that would be prescriptivist, telling people who now say dee.lísh.as that they are saying it wrong and need to say di.lísh.as instead. Let them say what they want. People who now see DEL- and pronounce it dil- will continue to do so with the new spelling: "delishus".>>

As though you haven't been with any other of your respellings.
guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:55 pm GMT
I prefer dhe convention ov uusing a less phonetic method ov spelling dhat seems to remoov radical inconsistencies whiil still maintaining the loek and feel ov dhe oridginal...

liik for instancz:

naam for 'name'
play for 'play'
tiim < 'time'
bridgh < 'bridge'
money < 'money'
constituution < 'constitution'
informaation
aggravaation
exploraation
Guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:22 pm GMT
Inglish definitly nids a speling reform, it's ridikiulos tu think dat pipol hav a hard taim speling big en smol words, if it wasen't for word's speling chek I wuden't der tu wrait a hol dokiument bai mai self.
guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:33 pm GMT
<<Inglish definitly nids a speling reform, it's ridikiulos tu think dat pipol hav a hard taim speling big en smol words, if it wasen't for word's speling chek I wuden't der tu wrait a hol dokiument bai mai self. >>

you mean:

Eenglish definitley needs [a] spelling reform, it's ridicuuloss too think dhat peepel hav a hard tiim spelling big and small woerds, iff it wern't (not "wasen't"! c'mon, Eenglish subjunctiv mood, duud!) for Woerd's spelling check I woedn't daar too wriit a hoal docuument byy myyself.

you have to admit...this "looks" and "feels" more like English...yes/no?
except for "dh" for fricative 'th'...but we can get used to it easily yeah?
Guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:37 pm GMT
<<bridgh < 'bridge'>>

"bridgh" for "bridge" just looks terrible. If you're respelling the word, use "brij".
Visitor   Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:25 pm GMT
to me, "Bridgh" looks better than "brij"

I wouldn't know whether to pronounce "brij" as 'bridge' or 'bry'

maybe take the 'h' off to make it "bridg"
Guest   Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:58 pm GMT
<<maybe take the 'h' off to make it "bridg">>

Either leave it as "bridge" or respell it "brij". "bridgh" and "bridg" are just ridiculous.
Visitor   Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:26 pm GMT
<<Either leave it as "bridge" or respell it "brij". "bridgh" and "bridg" are just ridiculous. >>

Then we will leave it "bridge". Nothing is more off-colour than "brij".

Do you know of any English words today that resemble "brij" in spelling? (and I do not mean foreign words)

At least "bridg" and "bridgh" are RECOGNIZABLE as "bridge"

'brij' dosn't ieven com cloass.

Iff I am mistaaken plees tell mie.