A Simple Unscientific Poll

The ''a'' sound in my accent in those two words is the same. In pronounce ''parent'' and ''nation'' both with the ''a'' sound in ''made'' (monothong).

''The ''a'' sound in my accent in those two words is the same. In pronounce ''parent'' and ''nation'' both with the ''a'' sound in ''made'' (monothong).''

That ''in'' that starts the second sentence should be ''I''.

Mick's right:

'nation' = "naysh.n" = /neiS.n/ = [næIS.n]
'parent' = "pair..nt" = /pe..r..nt/ = [pe:r..nt]

This is yet another problem with phonem/tic* spelling: different phonemes are used in different dialects. There would be an easy solution for this particular one, though. We could use "ár" as a digraph for both /eir/ and /e..(r)/. I'm already using the digraph "ør" for /..(r)/. However, we'd still need "ë" for "yeah" (unless we use something else, e.g. "áh") ... but then not everyone pronounces it /je../.

Anyway this was only meant to be an example of phonemic spelling not a phonemic spelling proposal. Whether you use "përønt", "párønt", "pairynt" or some other phonemic spelling you're still left with the problem that the connexion to "parental" is lost.

* By "phonem/tic" I mean "phonemic and/or phonetic". With any luck this could become a well used abbrieviation.

Jim, In my accent (and I think the same is true for most Americans) ''yeah'' is pronounced /je/.

It's true that ''fair'' can either be pronounced [fer], [feir] or [fe..(r)]. In American it's [fer]. In Scotland and Northern Ireland it's [feir]. In RP it's [fe..]. So, how would we deal with that in a phonemic spelling reform if one were to happen.

What I'd perhaps do is take the symbol I'm using for /ei/ and use it in a digraph ending in ''r'' for /er/, /eir/ or /e..(r)/.

So, if I were to add the letter ''á'' for [ei] I'd spell ''fair'' as ''fár'' and that would work for North Americans that pronounce it [fer], Scots and Irish that pronounce it [feir] and RP speakers that pronounce it [fe..].

Jim, Erimir argues that morphemic spelling is not really that important. What do you think about Erimir's argument?

Here's Erimir's argument against morphemic spelling,

Quote-''I'm pretty sure everyone would be able to realize that:''

''néyshen & náshenel
''fowtegráf & fetagrefí''
''plíz & plézher''

''are related words. Expecially when you realize that similar vowel changes occur in many words beside nation/al and photograph/y, therefore one would be familiar with such patterns.''

''So it's slightly obscured.''

''But other words would become more similar:

''bayt and baytiŋ are more similar than bite and biting
tay and tayiŋ are more similar than tie and tying''

''Also, the things you're complaining about never caused anyone any trouble with the roots not being the same in the words "ordain" and "ordin-ation", "abound" and "abund-ant", "fool" and "folly", "receive" and "reception", etc. Did you ever get confused because you couldn't tell that "deceive" and "deception" were related? Probably not. Just as I imagine you would be rather unfazed by "neyshen"/"nashenel".''

Source- http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/6011-2.htm

Wie due wee need tue chaenj thu speleeng sistim Ie doent bie enee uv yer aargyuemints fer speleeng rifform. Thair aar menee uther laengwijiz that hav u naan-foenneemik speleeng sistim, and yue doent heer them wieneeng and kumpllaeneeng ubbout.

I don't recall Erimir's ever having mentioned morphemes, morphology or morphemic spelling. It's not clear whether he's considered it as an option. The large chunk of text of his/hers you keep copying and pasting, Keep spelling the way it is, is not "Erimir's argument against morphemic spelling". Take care not to put words in the mouthes of others. I've put my point forth: no spelling reform is neccessary but if we must have one let it be morphemic. What more do you want me to add?

Jim, Well he/she makes a good point about "ordain" and "ordin-ation", "abound" and "abund-ant", "fool" and "folly", "receive" and "reception". Should we throw an ''o'' in to ''abundant'' and an ''a'' into ''ordination'' to show that they are related words? ie. ''aboundant'' and ''ordaination''. Should we throw an ''o'' into ''pronunciation'' to show that it's related to ''pronounce''? How far do we need to go?

Do ''néyshen & náshenel'', ''naeshun & ''nashunul'', ''naishyn'' and ''nashynyl'' etc. look any more confusing than ''deceive'' and ''deception''? Anyway, I agree that this is one reason why I don't like spelling reform.

''The large chunk of text of his/hers you keep copying and pasting, Keep spelling the way it is, is not "Erimir's argument against morphemic spelling".''

Well, then what is it then. What's that argument about?

I couldnae agree with ye more..greetings, blood bro! ;-)

''I've put my point forth: no spelling reform is neccessary but if we must have one let it be morphemic.''

But, I'd agree that we should remove the silent ''b'' in ''doubt'' and ''debt'' and the silent ''s'' in ''island'', because no one pronounces them and nor were they ever pronounced but were thrown in by some people who unnecessarily complicated the spellings of those words. Wouldn't you agree with that, Jim? We don't need these silent letters that some etymologists threw in that just complicated the spellings of these words.

doubt-dout
debt-det
island-iland

''Take care not to put words in the mouthes of others.''

Jim, did you mean to write the plural of ''mouth''? If so it's spelled ''mouths'' although it's pronounced as if it were spelled ''mouthes'' i.e. [mauTHz].

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=mouth

''jewel ==>> jül''
''jeweller ==>> jülør''
''jewellery ==>> jülrý''

That's just a silly argument for a morphemic spelling reform system. We don't write an ''e'' in ''wintry'' (although it's related to ''winter'') so, why do we need to write a third ''e'' in ''jewelry''?

If you want to spell ''jewelry'' as ''jewellery'' just because it's related to ''jeweller'' you should pronounce it as it's spelled
[ju:-..l-..r-i(:)]. If you're going to pronounce it [ju:-..l-ri(:)] then there's nothing wrong with the spelling ''jewelry'' like ''wintry''.

I'm definitely against spelling reform.

''no spelling reform is neccessary but if we must have one let it be morphemic.''

I don't think a morphemic spelling reform as opposed to a phonemic spelling reform system is really that neccessary if spelling reform were to occur.

Good example - ''deceive'' and ''deception''. Have you ever been confused because you couldn't tell that ''deceive'' and ''deception'' were related words? No?

If we think that it's really important that spelling reform must be morphemic then we ought to have no complaint about respelling ''deceptive'', ''deceit'', ''reception'' and ''receipt'' as ''deceivptive'', ''decevpt'', ''receivption'' and ''receivpt'' to show their relationship to ''deceive'' and ''receive''. Is that what we should do?

We also have many words that lie about their history. The word ''history'' for example, has nothing to do with the word ''his''. A phonemic spelling reform would get rid of some of those lying spellings.

If we think that it's really important that related words should be spelled really similar then we should just modify our pronunciation to make related words sound more similar. For example, for ''nation'' and ''national'' we'd say [nesIon] and [nesIon@5] instead of the less similar sounding pronunciations [nesIon] and [næsIon@5] (I'm using X-Sampa except that I'm using [æ]) and then we'd have no problem with having a phonemic spelling system except that accents differ.

I'll use ''á'' for /e/, ''æ'' for /æ/, ''ö'' for /Io/ (I assume that this phoneme doesn't exist in Jim's accent) and ''ø'' for /@/. (I'm still using X-sampa).

nation-násön

national-næsönøl

Is the relationship between ''násön'' and ''næsönøl'' any more difficult to tell than the relationship between ''deceive'' and ''deception''?