spelling reform

<<Why not use the English ð, θ [=NO] => þ [=YES!--we're English; not GREEKS], z, & w? >>

I agree. Swedish doesn't use the sounds: ð, θ, z, w, so I had to eliminate them to be able to say I was using Swedish orthography.

In a more serious proposal I would use:

(letter to the left, IPA to the right)

u - ʊ u
o - o ɔ ɒ
æ - æ

d - d
th - ð
t - t
þ - θ
s - s
z - z
v - v
w - w

<<d - d
th - ð
t - t
þ - θ
s - s
z - z
v - v
w - w >>

I like this better. But I still want þ instead of θ. We're English not Greek : )

<<But I still want þ instead of θ.>>
Well, that is exactly what I'm suggesting.

More serious proposal:

For skor ænd sevøn jerz øgou auør fathørz brot forþ onn thiss kontinønt ø nju neishøn, kønsivd inn libørti ænd deddikeitid tu thø propøzishøn thætt ol menn ar krieitid ikwøl.

Nau wi ar ingeidjd inn ø greit sivil wor, testiŋ wethør thætt neishøn or ænni neishøn sou kønsivd ænd sou deddikeitid kænn loŋ endjur. Wi ar mett onn ø greit bætlfild ovv thætt wor. Wi hævv kamm tu deddikeit ø porshøn ovv thætt fild æzz ø fainøl restiŋ-pleis for thouz hu hir geiv therr laivz thætt thætt neishøn mait livv. Itt izz oltøgethør fittiŋ ænd propør thætt wi shudd du thiss.

Batt, inn ø lardjør sens, wi kænnott deddikeit, wi kænnott konsikreit, wi kænnott hællou thiss graund. Thø breiv menn, liviŋ ænd dedd hu stragld hir hævv konsikreitid itt far øbavv auør por pauør tu ædd or ditrækt. Thø wørld will litl nout nor loŋ rimembør wott wi sei hir, batt itt kænn nevør førgett wott thei didd hir. Itt izz for ass thø liviŋ rathør tu bi deddikeitid hir tu thø anfinnisht wørk witsh thei hu fot hir hævv thass far sou noubli ødvanst. Itt izz rathør for ass tu bi hir deddikeitid tu thø greit task rimeiniŋ bifor ass -- thætt fromm thiz onørd dedd wi teik inkrist divoushøn tu thætt koz for witsh thei geiv thø last full mezjør ovv divoushøn -- thætt wi hir haili rizolv thætt thiz dedd shall nott hævv daid inn vein, thætt thiss neishøn andør Godd shall hævv ø nju børþ ovv fridøm, ænd thætt gavørnmønt ovv thø pipl, bai thø pipl, for thø pipl shall nott perrish fromm thø ørþ.

Sorry, but your use of "ø" is seriously scary, as the vast majority of English dialects lack rounded front vowels (especially if one excludes Scots), and most definitely lack such in most of those positions; likewise, the North Germanic languages do not use "ø" or "ö" for marking schwas either.

That said, I do have to say that such is not a bad attempt for what is clearly a, well, naive proposal. (Note that I mean "naive" in the sense that it does not seem to attempt to really be crossdialectal and to have a rounding in diachronic linguistics, as shown by things such as the use of "shall" rather than the "shæll" one would espect for a more diachronically-informed design.)

All of that said, I would still criticize it in the way that these days I criticize *all* orthographic reform proposals for English - that is, that the current orthography is far more dialect-neutral than we give it credit for and tha any orthographic reform proposal most likely will be *less* dialect-neutral not more, and that we are honestly better off leaving things be until English has unambiguously broken up into a group of separate Anglic languages (not counting Scots, which broke off long ago); even then it may still be beneficial to have a common literary language if we cannot understand each other in speech.

That should be "a grounding in diachronic linguistics" above.

What, oh what is the problem with English spelling? It can't be that difficult to learn - and if one is a native speaker, one learns it naturally anyway.

The thing about English orthography is simply that pronunciation is learned separately from writing, with writing only providing cues as to pronunciation rather than forming an unambiguous basis for it, and that fact is taken for granted by literate native speakers of English. The matter with many non-native speakers of English is that they do not seem to understand this, due to their native languages having orthographies which more closely reflect pronunciation than English orthography, and thus try to tie English orthography closer to English pronunciation than it really is.

<<(Why are “what” and “why” spelled wiþ a silent h?) >>

The h is not silent: one pronunciation (--which is the historical pronunciation) is /hw@t/; /hwAi/

cf. "hwat", "hwy"

<<your use of "ø" is seriously scary, >>

What symbol do you suggest instead?


<<does not seem to attempt to really be crossdialectal>>

Can a spelling represent more than one dialect?


<< and to have a grounding in diachronic linguistics>>

I just used the pronunciation that sounds most correct to me.

>><<your use of "ø" is seriously scary, >>

What symbol do you suggest instead?<<

<e>, as in most other Germanic languages' orthographies, and to use something like <è> for historical /ɛ/ in unstressed syllables or in other environments where /ə/ could be found (as has been borrowed from French orthography for writing in some continental West Germanic dialects).

>><<does not seem to attempt to really be crossdialectal>>

Can a spelling represent more than one dialect?<<

Yes, by representing historical forms that can be mapped to present-day forms in different dialects, and by having the symbols being used being in terms of *distinctions* rather than in terms of particular present-day phonemes in some particular dialect (with no particular dialect actually having all the distinctions represented). Likewise, one can deliberately favor more conservative forms over more progressive forms, and simply expect the reader to be able to apply innovations present in their particular dialects to that which is written.

>><< and to have a grounding in diachronic linguistics>>

I just used the pronunciation that sounds most correct to me.<<

But the thing is that does not really work if one wants to create an orthography that works for the entirety of English or even just the major standard varieties of English.

Travis:

Many spelling reform proposals have been suggested by people. Is there any one that meets your requirements?

Saant Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:55 pm GMT:

''How come the Germans have no qualms about adopting new spelling to reflect the changing language yet English must remain static forever? I guess that's the problem with English not having had an official academy.''

Saant, you seem to by very uninformed!

There was and still is very much opposition against the so called ''Rechtschreibreform''. These spelling reform doesn't reflect the changing of the language at all. It's just the other way round: the german reform is to change the language! There was and is no real change in German language which could be relevant for justifying a change in the spelling. See www.sprachforschung.org or www.vrs-ev.de

If there would be an official academy, then you would have the permanent English spelling reform. Think, an academy has to justify its existence.

Don't complain about the English spelling, just learn it!

>>Many spelling reform proposals have been suggested by people. Is there any one that meets your requirements?<<

None that I have seen, and I have given up with my own attempts at such when I realized that what I wanted was essentially a modernized version of Middle English orthography - but even then, Middle English actually had a lot of dialectal variation, which would foil even that. Of course, if one did not go back as far as Middle English, there would be plenty of dialect variation that one could not really include into a single unified system, when one considers the wide range of variation in even just the extant English English dialects.

The solution is to standardize on a particular dialect. This is what is done for other languages that have an orthography which closely matches the spoken pronunciation.