|
|
according to your second post, J sounds as G when followed by A, O, U, UE and UI, but then would Javier and Gavier sound the same? I don't think so.
|
|
@Jon:
OK, I misunderstood what you were saying; it seems like we were actually saying the same thing. I agree with you generally that most of the complaints about English spelling are exaggerated, and that the possible benefits of reform are outweighed by the huge costs.
|
|
|
No, I said that in Spanish when G is followed by A,O,U, UE, UI, it sounds like G in Gold. Otherwise, it represents the same sound as J. Hence Javier and Gavier sound different.
|
|
|
Yes, and that's exactly what I said but simplier, "they sound different, except when their followed by an E/I, then they have the same sound"
|
|
|
Yes, you are right, but I wanted to cite the cases where G sounds like G in Gold, so he has all the information.
|
|
<<1) To those advocating spelling reform, how would you decide which dialect to go by?
>>
I am an advocate for spelling reform, and I advocate using a reform that fits all if not most English dialects today, similar to the way current spelling fits all.
For instance, currently, short 'a' has different sounds in different dialects. Therefore, this type of flexibility would remain in my idea of spelling reform. So 'bath' (with 'a' either pronounced as 'a' in "that" or "a" in British English) would be spelt "bath" and the 'a' sound would fit both bills as it does today. There would be no differentiation in spelling for various dialects--that is NOT spelling reform in my opinion. That is phonetics.
The only place where I would see a divergence or alternate form would be for a word like 'been' where it would be spelt "ben", "bin" or "been" (because a reformed spelling to fit all pronunciations of this word would require an exception), but each dialect would be able to easily recognize the word and what it denotes in the other dialects, similar to the way we distinguish 'labor' from 'labour' and 'color' from 'colour' today...
To me, if it doesn't easily work for all or at least 99.9% of all, it doesn't work.
|
|
...cont.
just to clarify on the above change for 'been', we couldn't leave it alone as 'been' (as it is today) because 'ee' would only represent one sound--that of long 'e'. To my knowledge, 'been' is the only case where written 'ee' can be either long or short. If this situation for 'ee' were common to several other words it might be a candidate for being left alone, however, in this case it isn't.
|
|
«similar to the way we distinguish 'labor' from 'labour' and 'color' from 'colour' today... »
Sure. One thing: how many other English words are spelled 'labour'? And if you make an exception for 'been', might as well (or, 'montsul', as some dialects go) let 'get' stay as 'git'. When we make 'try', will it be 'chrii'? Or will it be 'trii'? Will folks be able to distinguish between 'principle' and 'principal' without extensive context?
Also, 'bin' is already another word, with its own meaning. :-S
«I am an advocate for spelling reform, and I advocate using a reform that fits all if not most English dialects today, similar to the way current spelling fits all. »
Wait a tick. You want a spelling reform to 'fit all if not most' English dialects, yet you admit that the current spelling system fits 'all'? Sounds like you want to reduce a system that is universally applicable and restrict it to being applicable only in certain cases.
Of course, you only answered one of my questions, and poorly at that. Am I to assume that you have no methods in place for dealing with the other *immense* difficulties that would result from spelling reform?
Enjoy,
Jon
|
|
'get' would stay "get" and if a dialect pronounces it as 'git', the spelling would remain "get" (similar to 'bath' [baeth] and 'bath' [bauth])
the spelling of 'try' would be "trii" for both and all rponunciations (remember, this is not phonetic spelling)
No one will confuse 'I hav bin/ben/been thear befoor' (I have been there before) for the noun "bin" as in trash-bin.
'principle' would be "principel";
'principal' would be "principal"
|
|
|
'for both and all *pronunciations
|
|
<<Of course, you only answered one of my questions, and poorly at that. Am I to assume that you have no methods in place for dealing with the other *immense* difficulties that would result from spelling reform?
>>
I know I said spelling reform, but in all actuality, it's more along the lines of a spelling clean-up.
I'm just trying to remove gross inconsistencies, and bring English spelling nearer to a sensible standard.
|
|
|
too bad people will never accept a spelling reform and things are gonna be just as difficult as they are today.
|
|
<<too bad people will never accept a spelling reform and things are gonna be just as difficult as they are today. >>
This is why in order to make it work, it has to be done slowly, and in stages.
For example, the first step might be something like changing all "-le"s on words to "-el"s, like 'middle' > 'middel'...you know, start off easy. German has done this sort of step-adjustment in its spelling in recent years and it has gone just fine.
|
|
«remember, this is not phonetic spelling»
Then why change it in the first place? :-S
So that little kids won't have anything to learn, i.e., read, when they're growing up until new translations are made? Sounds brilliant! ;-)
By the way; where are you from?
Jon
|
|
|
Spanish have a 98% phonetic spelling and still kids have to learn to read/write, so that's not an excuse.
|
