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"
Radical spelling reform or partial modification?
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.
>>
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.
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
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"
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"
<<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.
>>
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.
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
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.
Why change it anyway?
Because it's impossible for anyone who is not a native speaker to know how a new word is pronounced just by looking at it- that's a good start I think...
where am I from? lol, take a wild guess... : )
Because it's impossible for anyone who is not a native speaker to know how a new word is pronounced just by looking at it- that's a good start I think...
where am I from? lol, take a wild guess... : )
Non-native speakers?
As a non-native speaker of Spanish, should I get a say in how spelling is done? Had I any say, I would certainly like to see some things changed around. Perhaps we can take 'es' and spell it 'ace'; after all, as a non-native speaker that is what I would find most easy.
I like that a lot, actually! We should let the non-native speakers determine how other peoples' languages are written. You strike me as one smart guy/gal, with one revolutionary idea that could really change the world for the better!
Just kidding, of course. Your reason is bunk. You'll have to pick a new one from the deck if you want to support your conclusion ;-)
Jon
As a non-native speaker of Spanish, should I get a say in how spelling is done? Had I any say, I would certainly like to see some things changed around. Perhaps we can take 'es' and spell it 'ace'; after all, as a non-native speaker that is what I would find most easy.
I like that a lot, actually! We should let the non-native speakers determine how other peoples' languages are written. You strike me as one smart guy/gal, with one revolutionary idea that could really change the world for the better!
Just kidding, of course. Your reason is bunk. You'll have to pick a new one from the deck if you want to support your conclusion ;-)
Jon
Sorry but Spanish has become too phonetic, and the native speakers will not allow further spelling reforms. Spanish speakers arrived to this conclusion in the XIX century. Then Spanish was already too simple to make it easier. I think that 100% phonetic languages are too trivial, they lack charm in some way. In the case of Spanish, to be more phonetic implies to destroy many ties with the Latin ortography, and the Spanish speakers are too proud because their language resembles Latin to make a systematic reform only because lazy people want a simple and predictable language.