Phonetic reforms will never happen, but it'd be nice if spellings could be at least be standardized (or standardised if you prefer) across the board.
Fonetic spelling of Inglish
<<but I can't see how completely rebuilding the spelling system of English and replacing it with a new set of rules is a natural progression of the language. >>
That's because a grand-scale rebuilding is not necessary, nor is it recommended. We only need to "tweak" the spelling a bit to remove gross inconsistencies, while preserving the natural look and feel of English text. Confer:
<Noa oàn wuôd hav belíevd in the last yeers ov the niinteenth centuurie that thiss wuorld was beeing watchd keenlie and clooslie byy intéllidgences greater than mans and yet as mortal as his own; that as men bisiyd themselvs abóut their vaariùs concérns they wer scruutiniizd and studied, perháps almoast as narrowlie as a man with a miicroscoop miiht scruutiniiz the transiènt creetuurs that swoarm and multiplyy in a drop ov water... >
That's because a grand-scale rebuilding is not necessary, nor is it recommended. We only need to "tweak" the spelling a bit to remove gross inconsistencies, while preserving the natural look and feel of English text. Confer:
<Noa oàn wuôd hav belíevd in the last yeers ov the niinteenth centuurie that thiss wuorld was beeing watchd keenlie and clooslie byy intéllidgences greater than mans and yet as mortal as his own; that as men bisiyd themselvs abóut their vaariùs concérns they wer scruutiniizd and studied, perháps almoast as narrowlie as a man with a miicroscoop miiht scruutiniiz the transiènt creetuurs that swoarm and multiplyy in a drop ov water... >
"That's why phonetic spelling is a terrible idea. It necessarily discriminates against everyone outside some arbitrarily chosen standard. People may complain about its irregularity of spelling and pronunciation and say that makes it harder to learn, either as a child or a non-native learner, but that irregularity actually makes it more inclusive. "
Is there not a system that could accomodate all pronunciations, while still being phonetic at the same time?
Is there not a system that could accomodate all pronunciations, while still being phonetic at the same time?
Like for example. 'er' has a distinctive sound in the different dialects but nobody pronounced knife as kuh-nife or knight or kuh-nygt.
<<Is there not a system that could accomodate all pronunciations, while still being phonetic at the same time? >>
There are, but they probably wouldn't be 100% phonetic.
The type of system you ask about would require certain letters or combinations of letters representing more than just one specific phoneme.
There are, but they probably wouldn't be 100% phonetic.
The type of system you ask about would require certain letters or combinations of letters representing more than just one specific phoneme.
The problem is just what English dialects would one seek to accomodate. If one solely seeks to accomodate most English dialects spoken today in southeastern England, North America, Australian, and New Zealand, you can get by with an orthography that largely describes later Early New English as spoken in the southeast of England, aside from leaving some of the more inconsistent innovations in such English and the dialects descended from it unspecified (such as the lot-cloth split).
However, though, if one wants to accomodate all Anglic dialects outside of Scots, one has to go back at least as far as Middle English; except, though, that even that won't work as even Middle English had very considerable dialect variation which is still visible in English dialects spoken in England and Ireland today. At that rate one has to go back at least as far as Old English, but even then there are dialectal variations in Old English which still show up in English dialects spoken today... Basically, it is rather hopeless to try to create an updated orthography that actually includes all Anglic dialects, and even all Anglic dialects outside of Scots, spoken today.
However, though, if one wants to accomodate all Anglic dialects outside of Scots, one has to go back at least as far as Middle English; except, though, that even that won't work as even Middle English had very considerable dialect variation which is still visible in English dialects spoken in England and Ireland today. At that rate one has to go back at least as far as Old English, but even then there are dialectal variations in Old English which still show up in English dialects spoken today... Basically, it is rather hopeless to try to create an updated orthography that actually includes all Anglic dialects, and even all Anglic dialects outside of Scots, spoken today.
Oh, and when I say "Anglic dialects", it is because honestly, even when one outright excludes Scots, I still think it is really hard to speak of the Germanic dialects spoken in the British Isles as being a single unified language, beyond the level that one can consider Rhine Franconian dialects, East Central German dialects, Alemannic dialects, and Austro-Bavarian dialects as all being "German". If one really thinks that English is really a relatively coherent entity, that is because one is only aware of Anglic dialects descended from those of southeast England in the early 1600s.
But the trick is Modern English Spelling--as un-phonetic as it may be--actually *does* accomodate all English varieties rather nicely (or at least adequately) as is.
One only has to tweak the current system to reduce inconsistencies and anomalies, and it would work as well as if not better than any purely phonetic system ever could.
One only has to tweak the current system to reduce inconsistencies and anomalies, and it would work as well as if not better than any purely phonetic system ever could.
That kind of reason is why I have largely given up on the idea of orthographic reform when it comes to English. The complexity and inaccuracy of the current English spelling system is almost a good thing, as I have come to think of it, in that it does not really definitively prescribe any particular pronunciation to be used; rather, it merely provides written "names" for words and general hints as to what they might sound like, with speakers of various dialects being relatively free to actually pronounce them as they please.
<<rather, it merely provides written "names" for words and general hints as to what they might sound like, with speakers of various dialects being relatively free to actually pronounce them as they please. >>
exactly. that's the only viable solution to this dilemma
exactly. that's the only viable solution to this dilemma
-all should be spelled as -oll
doll, to coll, coller (a person colling, pronounced as collar).
foll, to foll, to follow
Donna should be spelled Dawna (it's much nicer ;) )
doll, to coll, coller (a person colling, pronounced as collar).
foll, to foll, to follow
Donna should be spelled Dawna (it's much nicer ;) )