>>"But 'b' as in 'doubt' is needless, I suppose."
Not at all. Without it, "doubt" would be incorrectly spelled.
Ha ha!<<
/me blinks.
Not at all. Without it, "doubt" would be incorrectly spelled.
Ha ha!<<
/me blinks.
spelling reform
"Dout" without a "b" is another word. The "b" in "doubt" is also important because correct spelling is what makes for clear legibility.
<<What is the "b" for?>>
"Doubt" came into English from French "douter," which didn't have /b/ in it either. However, the French word came from Latin "dubitare" so English scribes eventually added in an etymological "b" to the spelling in the 14th century to make it look more like Latin. This is also the case for "debt" and "receipt," which came into English from French and never had /b/ or /p/ in English, tho they were added into spelling later.
"Doubt" came into English from French "douter," which didn't have /b/ in it either. However, the French word came from Latin "dubitare" so English scribes eventually added in an etymological "b" to the spelling in the 14th century to make it look more like Latin. This is also the case for "debt" and "receipt," which came into English from French and never had /b/ or /p/ in English, tho they were added into spelling later.
Ai hæv mai oun plaen f’ e spæl’n refoom. It’s not very yeusful iksept f’ mae oun dailekt/æksent, bat it hæz wan feitja ai raaða laik: Ool (regyela) infleksjen’s, klityk’s, ænd meny ‘sjoot woed’s’ (praimeryly ðouz ðæt hæv moltepel prenansyæisjen’s) a set of from ð’ reut woed wið æn epostrefy, ænd a oowæi’s spælt ð’ sæim. Ðis giv’s it e soeten emæont ov moofowfounelodjyk kensistensy.
I have my own plan for a spelling reform. It's not very useful except for my own dialect/accent, but it has one feature I rather like: All (regular) inflexions, clitics, and many ‘short words’ (primarily those that have multiple pronunciations) are set off from the root word with an apostrophe, and are always spelt the same. This gives it a certain amount of morphophonologic consistency.
It also wouldn't create the same problems with apostrophes that we currently have, because possesion and plurality and third-person-singularity would all have the apstrophe alike.
(The most opaque rule in my reform, to help work out the stress which is otherwise unmarked, is that the sounds spelt in stressed syllables as "aa, i, ei, ai, eu, ou" are spelt in unstressed syllables as "a, y, y, ay, ew, ow" (the doubling of i/ei > y is okay because you can always tell from context which one is intended; in unstressed syllables, they're in complementary distribution. The doubling of y=/j/ as well as the other meanings is actually desirable because whenever they're ambiguous in spelling, both options are available in pronunciation). There's also the use of e/a for a schwa, but other than that and the use of an apostrophe, you can translate it automatically into the IPA.)
(I also have a variant that uses "ue" instead of "eu", which is more consistent with "ae" for a fronted "aa", "oe" for a centralised/fronted "oo", therefore "ue" for a centralised/fronted "uu". But then, I have "ei" vs "eu" too for another similar pair so I call them equivalent. Not like it matters—no-one's ever going to adopt it but me! :)
I have my own plan for a spelling reform. It's not very useful except for my own dialect/accent, but it has one feature I rather like: All (regular) inflexions, clitics, and many ‘short words’ (primarily those that have multiple pronunciations) are set off from the root word with an apostrophe, and are always spelt the same. This gives it a certain amount of morphophonologic consistency.
It also wouldn't create the same problems with apostrophes that we currently have, because possesion and plurality and third-person-singularity would all have the apstrophe alike.
(The most opaque rule in my reform, to help work out the stress which is otherwise unmarked, is that the sounds spelt in stressed syllables as "aa, i, ei, ai, eu, ou" are spelt in unstressed syllables as "a, y, y, ay, ew, ow" (the doubling of i/ei > y is okay because you can always tell from context which one is intended; in unstressed syllables, they're in complementary distribution. The doubling of y=/j/ as well as the other meanings is actually desirable because whenever they're ambiguous in spelling, both options are available in pronunciation). There's also the use of e/a for a schwa, but other than that and the use of an apostrophe, you can translate it automatically into the IPA.)
(I also have a variant that uses "ue" instead of "eu", which is more consistent with "ae" for a fronted "aa", "oe" for a centralised/fronted "oo", therefore "ue" for a centralised/fronted "uu". But then, I have "ei" vs "eu" too for another similar pair so I call them equivalent. Not like it matters—no-one's ever going to adopt it but me! :)
Reform must be to given soon. Hurray! Hurray! Hurray! Blah, Blah, Blah...
Ask about it to America and Great Britain, dude. English is the key to everything in those two countries, as well in others. Try to learn, not
to change. Respect the languages.
Ask about it to America and Great Britain, dude. English is the key to everything in those two countries, as well in others. Try to learn, not
to change. Respect the languages.
Changing spelling transforms the language, becoming other one. But if we
agree to change it in common, it's a smart idea to have a great orthography without searching words in a spelling dictionary.
dou(b)t
recei(p)t
dum(b)
colum(n)
pa(l)m
(k)now
li(gh)t /lite/
agree to change it in common, it's a smart idea to have a great orthography without searching words in a spelling dictionary.
dou(b)t
recei(p)t
dum(b)
colum(n)
pa(l)m
(k)now
li(gh)t /lite/
dout
risseet
dum
collum
paam
no
leit
No more silent e at the end of any word.
risseet
dum
collum
paam
no
leit
No more silent e at the end of any word.
Roland(o/us), you must realize that spelling reform is not nearly so simple, as the phoneme inventories of various English dialects do differ significantly, and consequently one must try to preserve as many distinctions as possible if one is to not end up with words which are spelled the same but which are actually pronounced differently by some.
This is not even taking into account cases in which different dialects just use separate phonemes which are not just a matter of some dialects having more phoneme distinctions than others to begin with. The problem in these cases is that one will have to decide against phoneme(s) used by some dialects for those used by others, and deciding such cases is not nearly as straightforward or objective as cases in which one simply has to decide between dialects with less phoneme distinctions and those with more.
All things considered, English spelling reform is not nearly as simple of a task as you might think. In many ways the current orthography is okay in that it is dialect-neutral in practice, and consequently does not raise the issue of favoring some dialects over others in various cases. This is unlike trying to create a single new unified orthography for English, where one will end up having to favor some dialects over others. Also, one will create a new orthography that will likely be taken by many as prescribing pronunciation rather than simply providing a standard as to how words are to be written.
This is not even taking into account cases in which different dialects just use separate phonemes which are not just a matter of some dialects having more phoneme distinctions than others to begin with. The problem in these cases is that one will have to decide against phoneme(s) used by some dialects for those used by others, and deciding such cases is not nearly as straightforward or objective as cases in which one simply has to decide between dialects with less phoneme distinctions and those with more.
All things considered, English spelling reform is not nearly as simple of a task as you might think. In many ways the current orthography is okay in that it is dialect-neutral in practice, and consequently does not raise the issue of favoring some dialects over others in various cases. This is unlike trying to create a single new unified orthography for English, where one will end up having to favor some dialects over others. Also, one will create a new orthography that will likely be taken by many as prescribing pronunciation rather than simply providing a standard as to how words are to be written.
10 ideas for spelling reform.
Languages seem to go through great bouts of change every several hundred years, eventually entering periods of stability like in the modern Spanish & Italian languages. English seems to be going through a change as we speak. Therefore, a total spelling reform is unnecessary at the current time. But, maybe tweaking could do us a world of good. My suggestions are:
1) Get rid of the A's in words like: dearth, earth, early, & pearl. Does anybody pronounce them differently from <er> spellings??
2) Get rid of <ei, ey> for /eI/. It can be replaced by <aiCe & aye>, preventing homophones like rain/rein, & vain/vein.
3) replace <o> in words that have /V/ with appropriate <u>, unless there is amiguity in pronunciation. In that case, maybe we could use <ou> that is like in double & trouble?
4) <Ch> in words of Greek origin can be respelled <kh>. Khemistry, tekhnology.
5) Replace <ui> spellings with <uCe> or <eu>. We do not need this spelling, that's why we have a separate orthography for Scots.
6) Except in recent French loan words, get rid of <ou> for <oo> & replace it with <ooCe & ooe>. Throoghe and yooe.
7) Solve the <ou & ow> anomaly. <ou & owe> for /oU/, & <ow> for /aU/.
Owl, rownd, & how. Knowe, sowl, & towe.
8) One should be respelled wone! Not perfect, but at least we know there's a w there!
9) Make use of soft G universal! Replacing soft G with J will look ugly & very un-English! Plus words like budge & edge *are* English words!!! Please keep soft G! Words like get & give can become guet & guive like guess, guy, & guide.
10) Do *something* with freak words like bury, busy, plait etc.
Well, maybe that's more than tweaking! Is there anybody who this would *not* work for?
Languages seem to go through great bouts of change every several hundred years, eventually entering periods of stability like in the modern Spanish & Italian languages. English seems to be going through a change as we speak. Therefore, a total spelling reform is unnecessary at the current time. But, maybe tweaking could do us a world of good. My suggestions are:
1) Get rid of the A's in words like: dearth, earth, early, & pearl. Does anybody pronounce them differently from <er> spellings??
2) Get rid of <ei, ey> for /eI/. It can be replaced by <aiCe & aye>, preventing homophones like rain/rein, & vain/vein.
3) replace <o> in words that have /V/ with appropriate <u>, unless there is amiguity in pronunciation. In that case, maybe we could use <ou> that is like in double & trouble?
4) <Ch> in words of Greek origin can be respelled <kh>. Khemistry, tekhnology.
5) Replace <ui> spellings with <uCe> or <eu>. We do not need this spelling, that's why we have a separate orthography for Scots.
6) Except in recent French loan words, get rid of <ou> for <oo> & replace it with <ooCe & ooe>. Throoghe and yooe.
7) Solve the <ou & ow> anomaly. <ou & owe> for /oU/, & <ow> for /aU/.
Owl, rownd, & how. Knowe, sowl, & towe.
8) One should be respelled wone! Not perfect, but at least we know there's a w there!
9) Make use of soft G universal! Replacing soft G with J will look ugly & very un-English! Plus words like budge & edge *are* English words!!! Please keep soft G! Words like get & give can become guet & guive like guess, guy, & guide.
10) Do *something* with freak words like bury, busy, plait etc.
Well, maybe that's more than tweaking! Is there anybody who this would *not* work for?
I don't know why so much time is consumed over spelling reform, a "non-issue" if ever there were one. For all the complaining about English spelling, most people seem to get along with it.
Those who don't are more than likely to be bad spellers in any language.
Frankly, I think spelling reform would be much more trouble than it's worth.
Those who don't are more than likely to be bad spellers in any language.
Frankly, I think spelling reform would be much more trouble than it's worth.