Spelling Reform Thread

Gore   Friday, June 18, 2004, 05:19 GMT
Joe says-''Well, Aren't [hw] and [W] the same? I've seen people say that they were the same on different parts of the web. Another question is, Do the Scots that distinction ''wh'' and ''w'' say [W] or [hw]? I've seen some say that they say [W] and others say that they say [hw]. For example, this quote that I got off the web that shows the pronunciation of some Scottish Dialects says the say [hw]. Here's the quote,

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Quote-''/x/ in night, daughter
/kn-/ in knock, knee
/vr-/ in write, wrought (Northern Scots)

Quote-the convergence of // and /t/ to /t/ and of // and /d/ to /d/ Island Scots
// in house, out, now
/u/ in moon, good, stool
/e:/ in home, go, bone
/hw-/ in what, when, etc.;


In urban Scots many of the features listed are recessive, for example:

/x/, /kn-/ or /vr-/.

However, /hw/ is generally retained.''

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

They say that Scots say [hw] and other people say they say [W] and some people say that [hw] and [W] are the same. They say that [hw] is just another way to write [W] and [W] is just another way to write [hw].

Do Scots say [hw] or [W]? Yeah, I've seen some people on the web say that [W] and [hw] are the same just like you have. Maybe they are the same sound(s).
Jim   Friday, June 18, 2004, 06:03 GMT
"Tehner" might mess up my "karate" spelling but "teoner" would mess up my "geography", "video", "audio", etc. spelling (i.e. "geogryfy", "video", "audeo", etc.)
Loch   Friday, June 18, 2004, 06:16 GMT
So, if you respelled ''tenner'' as ''tehner'' then ''karate'' would have to become ''kurrute'' and then that would mess up your ''me'', ''be'', ''he'', ''we'' spelling. And isn't ''geography'' spelled ''jeogryfy'' not ''geogryfy'' in your system?

Well, once again, I think what this is showing is that there are hardly enough letters in the alphabet. There are more than 40 phonemes in English but only 26 letters. The alphabet just doesn't have enough letters for us to include all dialects in a phonemic spelling reform without a bit of mess. Perhaps we should add some more letters to the alphabet.
Jim   Friday, June 18, 2004, 06:28 GMT
Like Joe says [hw] and [W] are just two different ways of pronouncing "wh" the third (most common) way is [w]. It's a bit like the [j] verses [hj] verses [C] for /hj/.

We all pronounce /j/ as [j] but some pronounce /hj/ as [hj].
We all pronounce /w/ as [w] but some pronounce /W/ as [hw].

We all pronounce /j/ as [j] but some pronounce pronounce /hj/ as [C].
We all pronounce /w/ as [w] but some pronounce pronounce /W/ as [W].

Some pronounce both /j/ and /hj/ as [j].
Some pronounce both /w/ and /W/ as [w].

So you might think that if you're using "wh" for /W/, then it would make sense to use "yh" for /hj/. Alternatively you might think that if you're using "hy" for /hy/, then you should use "hw" for /W/.

If this is how you think then you'd probably think it strange that I suggest "wh" for /W/ and "hew" or "heu" for /hju:/. What I say is that it's not so strange because what I'm basing this choice on is traditional orthography.

In traditional orthography /W/ is spelt "wh" and /hju:/ is spelt "hew", "heu", "hue", "hu" with a magic "e" or something similar. I see no reason to adopt "hw" or "yh".
Jim   Friday, June 18, 2004, 06:34 GMT
Yeah, "jeogryfy" not "geogryfy". What to do with "karate" would have to be sorted out though, this would further complicate an already complicated "simplified" spelling system.

Perhaps what we're showing is that spelling reform, at least phonemic spelling reform, isn't such a great idea.
Jim   Friday, June 18, 2004, 07:30 GMT
For [Ou] verses [O] I'm following your system, Loch.

"oa"/"o"/"o-" for [O]-toe, sole, groan, nose
"oe"/"o-" [Ou]-tow, soul, grown, knows

But, of course, with a twist so as to make things just that much more complex but, I hope, more readable.

[O] is "o" at the end of a word, "o-" before "a" or "o" and otherwise "oa"
[Ou] is "o-" before "e" and otherwise "oe"

"Where" was "whair" until I made the [A]/[ei] distinction. This means that, like you I have

air-[e..(r)] vs. [eir] stairs, their, heir, hair, air
eir-[e..(r)]vs. [eir] vs. [Ar] stare, care, hare, scare, there

and thus "wheir" (I think).

It's all very confusing, isn't it. Base spelling on your own pronunciation and things are easy but completely unfair. Base spelling on the pronunciation of everyone and things are fair but no longer simple. The best indication of the distinction made by others is traditional orthography so in the end we're basing the new on the old spelling. Why bother then with the phonemic approach? Perhaps we're better off just attacking certain words, morphemes, graphemes, letters, etc. here and there.
Paul M   Friday, June 18, 2004, 08:40 GMT
Well, I personally don't think spelling reform is necessary or it would work.
But.. if there is going to be one, I would suggest to invent more letters to make it more.. phonemically correct..
Might Mick   Friday, June 18, 2004, 10:37 GMT
That change would be too drastic, don't you think Paul? It would have to come through almost seamlessly to give everyone hope of adapting to it.
Joe   Friday, June 18, 2004, 14:42 GMT
''Like Joe says [hw] and [W] are just two different ways of pronouncing "wh" the third (most common) way is [w]. It's a bit like the [j] verses [hj] verses [C] for /hj/.''

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

No, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that I've seen some people say that [W] and [hw] are no different at all and that there's a difference between [W] and [hw] is just a myth. And about what Scots say, some people say that they say [W] and other people say that they say [hw]. There was a quote I got from something showing the pronunciation of some of the Scottish dialects that said they say [hw].

Quote-''/x/ in night, daughter
/kn-/ in knock, knee
/vr-/ in write, wrought (Northern Scots)

Quote-the convergence of // and /t/ to /t/ and of // and /d/ to /d/ Island Scots
// in house, out, now
/u/ in moon, good, stool
/e:/ in home, go, bone
/hw-/ in what, when, etc.;


In urban Scots many of the features listed are recessive, for example:

/x/, /kn-/ or /vr-/.

However, /hw/ is generally retained.''

They list [hw] for their pronunciation and others list an upside ''w''. Aren't [W] and [hw] really no different at all, just two different ways to write the same phone(s).
Loch   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 15:17 GMT
''''Where" was "whair" until I made the [A]/[ei] distinction. This means that, like you I have

''air-[e..(r)] vs. [eir] stairs, their, heir, hair, air
eir-[e..(r)]vs. [eir] vs. [Ar] stare, care, hare, scare, there''

''and thus "wheir"

Also, if you're including the ''ea'' [i..] vs. ''ee'' distinction. ''ear'' and ''eer'', most people use [i..(r)] and some people use [i:r] and some people may use both. So, you'd wind up with [i..(r)] vs. [i:r]. ''ear'' or ''earr'' vs. ''eer''.

''ear'' or ''earr''-''hear'', ''tear''
''eer''-''here'', ''beer'

At least we have fewer homographs including the distinctions.

Also, there's,

ii-libel
ie-Bible

and

nh-canyon, lasagna, piñata ''palatal nasal sound'' [J]
ny-opinion, onion, companion [nj]

How less of a mess would it be if we just added some more letters to the alphabet? Trying to represent all of the sounds in English using only the 26 letters that we have causes most of the mess in spelling reforms.
Joe   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 15:26 GMT
''What to do with "karate" would have to be sorted out though, this would further complicate an already complicated "simplified" spelling system.''

The easiest thing to do would be to just spell it how most English speakers actually pronounce it like truespel does. Who cares about the correct way to say it? Why not spell it how most of us actually pronounce it? Spell it how it's usually said in English and then you would not need to further complicate an already complicated "simplified" spelling system.
Gore   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 15:40 GMT
''It seems that the better way of expressing what Paul means is to say that the difference between [C] and [hj] is not phonemic because there exists nobody who uses both. Either you're a [C] sayer or you're a [hj] sayer.''

''Therefore spelling needn't be adjusted to account of the phonetic distinction between [C] and [hj]. Both [C]s and [hj]s can be written as /hj/s and everyone will know how they should be pronounced.''

''So you might think that if you're using "wh" for /W/, then it would make sense to use "yh" for /hj/. Alternatively you might think that if you're using "hy" for /hy/, then you should use "hw" for /W/. ''

''If this is how you think then you'd probably think it strange that I suggest "wh" for /W/ and "hew" or "heu" for /hju:/. What I say is that it's not so strange because what I'm basing this choice on is traditional orthography.''

''In traditional orthography /W/ is spelt "wh" and /hju:/ is spelt "hew", "heu", "hue", "hu" with a magic "e" or something similar. I see no reason to adopt "hw" or "yh".''

That makes sense. But, another question would be,

If we extended the alphabet and included a letter for each phoneme in the English language should we include a letter for /hj/ ''be it [C] or [hj]'' because some people pronounce it with a single sound [C], instead of [hj]?
Inglish Reespeling   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 16:43 GMT
Okay, my proposal has changed a bit. Here's my new proposal.

a-apple, acronym
b-boat
ç-chip
d-door
e-egg
f-fire
g-goat
h-hook
i-internet
j-janitor
k-cat, kitchen
l-long
m-microphone
n-need
o-open
p-pet
þ-think, thing, thin, thought, through
r-rat
s-stuff
t-television
u-up, under
v-vehicle
w-wet, when, with
ð-that, this, there, then, though, the
y-year
z-zebra

Consonant Diagrams
ng-sing
nk-sink
sh-shine
zh-genre, beige

Vowel Diagrams
ae-day, play
ee-bee, meat
ie-lie, fly
oe-doe, throw, grow
ue-cue, few, mute

These all go together.

Others
oi-toy
oo-moo
ou-plow, now
uu-wood

R-vowel sounds
ar-car, starry
er-care, carry, hairy, berry, hair, fair
ir-beer, hear, mirror
or-corn, core, torn
ur-fern, bird, word, better, hertz

''er'' and ''ir'' are how ''air'' and ''ear'' are actually pronounced in rhotic accents [er] and [ir] so what's wrong with them.

Jim, isn't this system much better than your complicated ''simplified'' spelling system. Unlike your complicated system my system only uses one way to write each sound. That prevents unnecessary and messed up spellings like these for example, Spellings that unnecessarily change because something is done to the word.

body-body
bodies-bodeyz

soda-soada
sodas-soadyz

fix-fix
fixing-ficsing

bank-bank
banks-banx

cook-cook
cookbook-coocbook

easy-eezy
easier-eezeyer

heavy-hevy
heavyweight-heveywait

day-day
days-daiz

toy-toy
toys-toiz

pew-pew
pews-peuz

awkward-auquerd

Don't these seem really illogical.

Here's them in my system,

body-bodee
bodies-bodeez

soda-soedu
sodas-soeduz

fix-fiks
fixing-fiksing

bank-bank
banks-banks

cook-kuuk
cookbook-kuukbook

easy-eezee
easier-eezeeyer

heavy-hevee
heavyweight-heveewait

day-dae
days-daez

toy-toi
toys-toiz

pew-pue
pews-puez

awkward-okwurd

More logical aren't they.

What do you think about my proposal?
Bill   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 22:56 GMT
''What to do with "karate" would have to be sorted out though, this would further complicate an already complicated "simplified" spelling system.''

Good solution, Get rid of the glottal stop since it's not a phoneme. [?] is not a phoneme so, why include it? It's an allophone of [t] in the Cockney accent.
Bill   Saturday, June 19, 2004, 23:03 GMT
Jim writes-''Actually, it wouldn't have been "mannnkiend" but the slightly less unwieldy "mannkiend" afterall. Have a look at my post, Shoving (26/4/04 6:43).

http://p081.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=40.topic

''Anyway, another approach could be to regard [nk] and [Nk] as allophones allowing them both to be written as "nk" (or "nc", "nqu" or "nx" as the case may be). Really, can you tell the difference between [m@nkaind] and [m@Nkaind] (unless you concentrate)? Of course, this would got for [ng] and [Ng] too.''

For some people the ''a'' sound sounds a bit different when it's before [N] than when it's before [n] and so those people can probably tell a difference by the ''a'' vowel. So, they can tell the difference by hearing the ''a'' vowel.