''Is the relationship between ''násön'' and ''næsönøl'' any more difficult to tell than the relationship between ''deceive'' and ''deception''?''
If you think it's difficult to tell the relationship of ''deceive'' and ''deception'' we could easily spell it ''deceivption'' and then it would shew it's relationship with ''deceive''. I wouldn't want such a spelling and such a spelling would look strange and nor do I think anyone would want such a spelling.
''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)/.''
Jim, doesn't a similar thing go for /i:r/ and /i..(r)/, /Our/ and /o..(r)/, and /u:r/ and /u..(r)/ in ''tear'', ''tore'' and ''tour''. My accent is non-rhotic and I use the centring diphthongs /e../, /i../, /o../ and /u../. i.e.,
tear-[te..] (rip)
tear-[ti..] (from your eye)
tore-[to..]
tour-[tu..]
Obviously nae! I'm used to our beloved English alphabet. I think English is a bit confusing, but it is OK.
Keep spelling the way it is,
"How far do we need to go?" you ask. We don't need to go anywhere. That's the point. We don't need spelling reform.
That large chunk of text is not "Erimir's argument against morphemic spelling". You could call it his/her argument that phonetic spelling reform is not so bad but since (s)he never mentions morphemic spelling once it cannot be an argument against this.
Joe,
"If you want to spell 'jewelry' as 'jewellery' just because it's related to 'jeweller' ..." you argue "you should pronounce it as it's spelled [ju:-..l-..r-i(:)]." The problem is that there is no logic here. Who says things should be pronounced as they are spelt or spelt as they are pronounced? Besides I spell "jewellery" as "jewellery" just because this is the way it's spelt. The fact that the word is "jewel" plus the suffix "-er" and the suffix "-y" is fair justification for its spelling. Spelling doesn't neccessarily become better or simpler just because you throw a few letters out that you imagine are redundant.
"If you want to spell 'jewelry' as 'jewellery' just because it's related to 'jeweller' ..." you argue "you should pronounce it as it's spelled [ju:-..l-..r-i(:)]." The problem is that there is no logic here. Who says things should be pronounced as they are spelt or spelt as they are pronounced? Besides I spell "jewellery" as "jewellery" just because this is the way it's spelt. The fact that the word is "jewel" plus the suffix "-er" and the suffix "-y" is fair justification for its spelling. Spelling doesn't neccessarily become better or simpler just because you throw a few letters out that you imagine are redundant.''
They are redundant and here's why, We don't write an ''e'' in ''wintry'' to show that it's related to ''winter'' and therefore we don't need a third ''e'' in ''jewellery'' to show that it's related to ''jeweller''. Would you accept it if someone decided to throw in an ''e'' in ''wintry'' or an ''o'' in ''abundant'' and ''pronunciation'' or respell ''reception'' and ''receipt'' as ''receivption'' and ''receivpt'' to show their relationship to ''receive'' and ''receipt'' and ''abound'' and ''pronounce''. Should we spell it ''voical'' instead of ''vocal'' to show the relationship to the word ''voice''?
We don't need the ''le'' in ''jewelry'' anymore than we need to spell ''deceit'', ''deception'', ''receipt'' and ''reception'' as ''deceivpt'', ''deceivption'', receivpt'' and ''receivption''.
''Keep spelling the way it is,''
''"How far do we need to go?" you ask. We don't need to go anywhere. That's the point. We don't need spelling reform.''
''That large chunk of text is not "Erimir's argument against morphemic spelling". You could call it his/her argument that phonetic spelling reform is not so bad but since (s)he never mentions morphemic spelling once it cannot be an argument against this.''
What about the question I asked about ''mouthes''?
''How far do we need to go?" I meant, how far do we need to go making words that are related look similar, should we throw in an ''o'' into ''abundant'' and ''pronunciation'' to show their relationship to ''abound'' and ''pronounce''? Should we write ''deceivpt'', ''deceivption'', receivpt'' and ''receivption'' to show those words relationships to ''deceive'' and ''receive''?
Jim, 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'' to show it's relationship to ''jeweller''?
If you think we all ought to spell 'jewelry' as 'jewellery' just because it's related to ''jeweler'', you should pronounce it as it's spelled
[dZu:-..l-..r-i(:)]." If you pronounce it [dZu:-..l-ri(:)] rather than the cumbersome [dZu:-..l-..r-i(:)] then the spelling ''jewelry'' is fine.
We get by with writing ''winter'' but ''wintry'' and so therefore can get by with writing ''jeweler'' but ''jewelry''.
"Wintry" and "jewellery" are two different words. Who says we have to be consistant?
Besides, as I already said, I spell "jewellery" this way because that's the way it's spelt. "Wintry" is spelt that way and I'll spell it that way. I'll spell things as they're spelt and pronounce them as they're pronounced. I'm not the one advocating spelling reform and/or pronunciation reform.
Keep spelling the way it is,
Yeah, "mouthes": a mistake.
"... how far do we need to go making words that are related look similar ...?" Same answer: nowhere. To do this is spelling reform to which I voted "Naeigh!"
''how far do we need to go making words that are related look similar ...?" Same answer: nowhere. To do this is spelling reform to which I voted "Naeigh!" ''
Jim, shouldn't we get rid of the ''b'' in ''doubt'', ''debt'' and the ''s'' in ''island'' that are not pronounced by anyone and nor were they ever pronounced but just thrown in by some crazy etymologists, though. How could you not agree with getting rid of those stupid additions to those words? How could anyone possibly defend those crazy silent additions that were added by some crazy etymologists? There's no way to defend them. You can't defend them. They should be removed because all they do is just complicate the spellings of those words.
doubt-dout
debt-det
island-iland
Why did some etymologists long ago have to complicate the spellings of three goodly spelled words?
I count 3 'yae', and 8 'nae' overall. That me be because most people who are for spelling reform decided to put forward an argument instead of casting a vote, though.