Re-Romanization of English
Tu bi, oo not tu bi, dat iz da kueschan: / To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Hueda ’tiz noubla in da maynd tu safa / Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
Da slingz and arouz av autreydzhas foochan / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Oo tu teyk aamz ageynst a siy av trabalz,/Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And bay apouzing, end dam. Tu day, tu sliyp – /And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep –
"Traditional English orthography is an obvious case of outdated spelling, which according to some research impedes literacy and efficient reading"
I fully agree, what about you ?
I think that spelling is an important part of English. It makes the language unique.
Personally, I enjoyed learning English. The spelling was really quite tricky at first, but eventually I began to see some patterns.
If you look at Japanese (my second lanuguage after Korean), you will find that you do not spell. You simply write the phonetic character which corresponds to the sound. Each character is always read the exact same way (with the exception of "ha", depending on context pronounced "wa", and "he", pronounced "e"). The tricky part in Japanese, though is learning and remembering the kanji. Japanese kanji usually has two or three (and up to about four or five) different ways of being pronounced. Chinese almost always has one way.
Also, yoo spel wiurd.
>>I fully agree, what about you ?<<
I agree that the current English orthography could definitely be replaced with something better, but I also think that actually doing such in practice is very difficult even at just a theoretical level, and also that most attempts at "spelling reform" really do not truly create new orthographies for all of *English* as a whole, but rather only create orthographies for relatively limited sets of dialects or particular standards or compromises between standards. However, what I am for is actually creating a new orthography for English as a whole which is crossdialectal in nature, not simply elevating certain dialects to the level of standards or codifying existing standards in orthography but rather being applicable in some fashion to practically all existing dialects, changes in individual dialects since the American-British split and Scots aside. I myself have been toying around with a design for such an orthography as of late, and your quote in such would look like (but not necessarily be with a finalized phonology):
Tu by, oar not tu by, dhat iz dhe kwestjen:
Hwedher tiz noobler in dhe maind tu suffer
Dhe slingz and erooz ov autréedjes foartjen
Oar tu teek aarmz egéinst e sie ov trubbelz
And bai epózing, end dhem. Tu dai, tu slyp -
Notice that such does not really fit any given extant dialect, but instead fits a very conservative phonology that covers a wide range of dialects. For example, the vowel system represented effectively covers the most conservative English English forms, including distinctions that do not exist in Received Pronunciation or General American such as that between /e(I)/ and /EI/ and that between /i:/ and /I@/, except for new vowels created by non-rhotic-ness. At the same time, it is thoroughly rhotic (which is more conservative than being non-rhotic) and preserves the distinction between /w/ and /W/ (which does not exist in most English English dialects today and which has been lost in a good portion of North American English dialects as well) in the phonology it represents.
(Note that what I write as /EI/ and /I@/ may be other things in dialects that still preserve the same distinctions.)
Brennus : ce sujet anglo-anglais est-il placé dans la section d'Antimoon qui convient ?
Brennus : accepte mes excuse pour le message précédent —> je me croyais, à tort, dans la section « Langages » — récemment inondée de sujets anglo-anglais.
i found it intersting to read such english,because it forced you to read!