Cmhiv's Revision of English Spelling

I'm back and it came as no surprise to find all this war nonsense still on the forum so I've desided to revive a topic I found in the archive. On the thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2003/1102.htm cmhiv proposes a new system of spelling. Have a look at it and see what you think. If you only want to write psudopolitical war rubbish, please find a psudopolitical war rubbish thread, there are plenty of them around these days.

Cmhiv,

Well, here are my long-awaited complaints about your ideas ... no, comments not really complaints but I hope they've been awaited.

Firstly, I've got to say that I get the feeling that you've over simplified the issue of dailect. You write "... different between tow countries' Englishes." I assume "tow" was a typo and should be "two". Which two countries ... Canada and New Zealand?

There are many more than two dialects of English. Neither you nor I make the distinction between the pronunciation of "w" and "wh" but there are those who do. I suggest retaining "wh". I'm against the suggestion I sometimes see that it should be replaced by "hw". "hw" is clearly biased towards the pronunciation /hw/ whereas for most of as "wh" represents the single consonant /w/ and then there are those for whom it represents a completely different consonant like an unvoiced /w/. Using a digraph ending in an "h" is a standard way of representing consonants in English.

You use the apostrophe as a letter. I really don't like the idea of using punctuation marks as letters. It's very confusing but, maybe more importantly, I believe that punctuation marks are punctuation marks and letters are letters and ever the twain should meet.

However, let's say we add a new letter, e.g. "@", to do this job, I'd still not be satisfied. An "anything-goes" letter isn't much of an indicator of pronunciation. There would also be trouble figuring out when to use this letter. Close examination of the various dialects of English might see this letter cropping up all over the place. Remeber how J pronounces "one". You say "theenk" I say "think".

You've introduced a new symbol to deal with one word. It seems like a whole bunch of trouble. I think you'll find there are many words like "schedule" that differ in pronunciation in different dialects. What about "lieutenant" will we spell it "l'ftenant" with a little thingy under the "f" to idicate that it's silent in American English?

I don't think we need the letter eth "ð" in words like "water" and "latter". American English makes a distinction between "latter" and "ladder" (as far as I know). Although it may get a bit voiced the "t" is still phonemically a /t/ and distinct from a /d/. When an American sees a "t" in these words (s)he knows it's a "flap t". Let those who flap their "t"s flap them and those whose don't let them not but let us all write them as "t", they are "t"s after all.

If you're in the bussiness of adding letters why not go all out and replace these digraphs with new letters?

Now to the vowels ... maybe, this is going to sound familiar. At first glance it looks like you've only included four short vowels.

ae = "a" in "cat"
e = "e" in "bed"
i = "i" in "sit"
u = "u" in "shut"

But I read on and find that the letter "u" is serving as the central vowel too. You know me, I never did like a letter's having two jobs. Then what about the "oo" in "book"? I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and assume this was an oversight and this "oo" will be just as it is in "book" (and this word will be spelt "booc" and "put" spelt "poot", etc.) but if you come back and tell me that this is another job of the poor letter "u" I'm gonna start singing "Poof the Magic Dragon" at you.

My big problem, when it comes to short vowels, is /o/. Again you're completely igoring this vowel. There may be no such vowel in North American English but it exists in other dialects. In spite of your love of England your suggestions are very much American baised. This is not an accusation, it's a natural thing for you to miss. You pronounce "cot" and "caught" how I pronounce "cart" i.e. /ka:t/.

This brings me to the long vowels. The "au" in "caught" and the "a" in "father" are two very different vowels to me but you've made not distinction using "a" for both of them. The other missing long vowel is the one in "turn", "learn", "firm", "work", etc. Are we sticking to "ur"? The other three long vowels you've taken care of.

a = ah
ee = "ee" in "feed"
uu = "oo" in "food"

Now for the diphthongs, you list three to start

aa = "a" in "cake"
ow = "ow" in "cow"
ii = "I" sound

but read on and, sure enough, there's the one you've missed

o = "o" in "go"

and surely you've just forgotten to mention

oi = "oi" in "moist"

I'm guessing "boy" will be spelt "boi" like before. Then what about those diphthongs which don't exist in American English but are found in other dialects? Well, you spell "year" as "yir" but what about "tour" and "air" ... "tuur" and "er" like before?

So let's look at your sample sentences

"In dhu laeðð'r part uv dhu yir, dhu wað'r reeseedz frum dhu baanks uv dhu riv'r Niil."

"Mii dir, duu yuu rilee expect tuu falo dhaet ºejul?"

"Wel, wat duu yuu theenk?"

and let me put an apostrophe everywhere I pronounce a vowel differently to how you've suggested by spelling (igonring the "r" I don't pronounce and the double job of the letter "u").

"In dhu laeðð'r part 'v dhu yir, dhu w'ð'r reeseedz fr'm dhu b'nks 'v dhu riv'r Niil."

"Mii dir, duu yuu rilee expect tuu f'lo dhaet ºejul?"

"Wel, w't duu yuu th'nk?"

Not too bad but what's a "b'nk" and how do you "th'nk"?

Well, these comments may not have been long-awaited but they were long-winded. Hope there's some food for thought here.

Well, one comment first off. You wrote, "I don't think we need the letter eth "ð" in words like "water" and "latter". American English makes a distinction between "latter" and "ladder" (as far as I know). Although it may get a bit voiced the "t" is still phonemically a /t/ and distinct from a /d/. When an American sees a "t" in these words (s)he knows it's a "flap t". Let those who flap their "t"s flap them and those whose don't let them not but let us all write them as "t", they are "t"s after all." You should go and read my explination of what happened when I tried to use a certain letter, that was NOT the eth, but it looks like a lower case "t" and "d" put together.

No, I am not biased towards American English, it is just the language that I am used to hearing. So naturally, I am going to leave out stuff on accident. I do not claim to be an expert on the English language.

I think that the revision of English spelling should be done by a group of people from round the English-speaking world; and not just America and Australia.

Truthfully, I would like to see English have a German-based spelling system.

Jim.....good to have you back.

Okay, sorry for calling your letter eth but I still doubt that it's necessary.

I'm by no means trying to poke fun at you. When I wrote "... your suggestions are very much American baised." (typo: "biased") I didn't mean that I think you favour American English (I know you prefer British spelling). I just wanted to point out that I notice the influence of your accent on your suggested spellings. Of course it's an accident: I can see that you've tried to avoid basing your system on either British or American English.

I agree that if any revision of English spelling were to be done, it should be a group of people from round the English-speaking world doing it. But who else is intrested on this forum?

You asked what people think of your idea. What do you think of my comments?

Why the "dhu" to mean "the?" Wouldn't that denote more of a "d" sound to people learning English? While some may find the "th" sound difficult, I don't think adding a "d" into the mix would make it any clearer. It's a certain sound be it a "dh" or a "th."

mjd,

Good to be back and good to hear from you again.

... and typo "psudopolitical" should be "pseudo-political"

I think your comments were well thought out. You have a good system, even if you like consonants representing vowels ;-)

Yes, the "o" is a tricky letter; but so is the English spelling system.

About the "dh"; I believe cmhiv is using it to distinguish the voiced and unvoiced sound. For example, "I think thy thigh is the thickest one there." would become "Ii theenk dhii thii iz dhu thicest wun dher." in cmhiv's system (I think).

Yeah, "x" and "q" do make odd vowel letters but thanks anyway.

Jim,

It's interesting what you write about "caught" and "father" as well as "cot" and "caught." I pronounce "cot" and "caught" differently.

cot (caht)

caught (cawt.....like a crow's caw)

Caught and father also sound different to me and others from the greater NYC metropolitan area, therefore I agree with your criticism regarding the "a."

That's interesting that you pronounce "cot" and "caught" differently I hadn't realised that they were distinct in the greater NYC metropolitan area accent - dictionaries don't tell you everything.

For me the "o" in "cot" is pronounced with more rounded lips, a slightly more closed mouth and maybe a toung back farther in the mouth than the "a" in "father" but that's my accent.

I pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same; "kaht"

Or in my system, which I think Jim has mastered, "cat." And our "cat," as in "meow," would be "caet."