My spelling reform proposal.

>>That's exactly much what I had in mind. No point going halfway with our spelling reform proposals. I think this orthography has a certain "modern" or "technical" look to it -- well suited to the computer age we live in.<<

Actually, I was trying to show why such is actually a really bad idea in practice; to read my transcriptions, one really needs both a very good knowledge of X-SAMPA or IPA and English phonology and phonetics and a good awareness of the details of dialects in the Upper Midwest...

Aktiualli, ai woz traiing tu sjou hwai sutj iz aktiualli ee rialli bad aidie in praktis; tu ried mai transkrípsjenz, wun rialli niedz booth ee veri gûd naullidj ov X-SAMPA oar IPA and ingglisj fonóllodji and fonéttiks and ee gûd ewéernes ov dhy dytéilz ov daielêkts in dhy Úppermidwést...

I am making a change to the orthography above, in that I am going to distinguish pre-open syllable lengthening /E/ and /O/ which have undergone open syllable lengthening for both pre-open syllable lengthening /e:/ and /E:/ and /O:/ by marking pre-open syllable lengthening /E:/ as "iê" and pre-open syllable lengthening /O:/ as "oô". This would result in "meet" being "myt" from /"me:t/, "team" being "tiêm" from /"tE:m/, and "meat" being "miet" from /"mEt@/.

The reason for this change is that there are extant English dialects with this distinctions, in Yorkshire for /e:/ versus /E:/ versus lengthened /E/ and in East Anglia for /o:/ versus /O:/ versus lengthened /O/, and I am trying to create an orthography for all of English and not merely the standard varieties of English. I know that the latter distinction was present at least historically in parts of the northeast US, even though it apparently has disappeared there today.

<<Aktiualli, ai woz traiing tu sjou hwai sutj iz aktiualli ee rialli bad aidie in praktis; tu ried mai transkrípsjenz, wun rialli niedz booth ee veri gûd naullidj ov X-SAMPA oar IPA and ingglisj fonóllodji and fonéttiks and ee gûd ewéernes ov dhy dytéilz ov daielêkts in dhy Úppermidwést... >>

Actuuallie, I was tryying toe show hwyy such is actuuallie a reellie bad iideea in practicz; toe reed myy transcriptions, woan reellie needs boath a vearie goed knawlledj ov X-SAMPA or IPA and Ienglish phonolojie and phonetics and a goed awaarness ov the deetails ov diialects in the Upper Midwest...

...just practiczing : )

with myy grammatical reforms, thiss woeud reed:

Actuuallie, I was tryyind toe shown hwyy such is actuuallie a reellie bad iideea in practicz; toe reeden myy transcriptions, woan reellie needs boath a vearie goed knawlledj ov X-SAMPA or IPA and Ienglish phonolojie and phonetics and a goed awaarness ov the deetails ov diialects in the Upper Midwest...

<<knawlledj>>

that shoeud bee "knawledj"

: )

Another long list of English spelling reforms? *sigh* Why is it that whenever there is a spelling reform proposal, the party proposing the reform is:

1) Too lazy and/or stupid to learn the real orthography?
2) A west-coast teenage girl who tans all day and thinks school is “like, so, like, hard...”?
3) An educator lacking in their ability to educate and so searching for a ‘quick fix’?
4) Someone who’s gone too long without a ‘diddle on their fiddle’, if you know what I mean?
5) A person who speaks a dialect of English so rare that it should be classified as a separate language?
6) Travis from Antimoon?

Would all this explain why they are never able to present valid evidence in support of their assertions that such a reform is worthy of the effort put into it? Or do they just avoid this for the same reason they avoid the real world—fear of being found out?




Jon

Wt u tlkin abt? Da bst Englsh rfrm pssble is obvsly txt mssge splling. No need fr vwls at all in fct.

Then why did you use more than a dozen of them? ;)

Sme r ncssry bt only in a fw cses wn its ncssry 2 dffrntte btwn dffrnt wrds n so on n sch frth. Bt vwls r rlly nt tht imprtnt, mny wrttng systms wrk prfct wtht thm, fr xmple arbc.

>>Wt u tlkin abt? Da bst Englsh rfrm pssble is obvsly txt mssge splling. No need fr vwls at all in fct.<<

Ja, dhat wûd ylímmineet manni ov dhy differensiz bytwýn ingglisj daielêkts, az dhei aar mutj greter with ryspékt tu vauelz dhen konsonnentz, but ingglisj stil izzent ee sêmmittik langgwidj, and hens ju stil nyd tu maark vauelz in praktis yven if dhei meek dhy djob ov kriéting an ingglisj oarthógraffi mutj haarder.

Bt I thnk tht lmst evryn prncncs th sme cnsnts, nd th vwls whch r ncssry r prnnced th sme in all dlcts.

Naa, at liest in dhy daielêkt hier (and oalso in manni udher nóarthemériken ingglisj dailêktz, witj offen rydúus serten kónsonnentklústerz laik /st/ veri frykwentli) dheer aar manni konsonnentz witj aar lost in everidei spytj. Esáid from dhy rydúksjen ov klusterz laik /st/ witj iz iuziual foar NEI-daielêktz, mai daiêkt oalso veri frykwentli luziz intervokállik /t/, /d/, and /n/ and luziz intervokállik /v/ and /D/ in serten wurdz (esáid from rytéind neezelizéesjen and allofónik vauel'length) az wel as /t/ and /d/ after /r/ and byfóor unstrésd vauelz. Dheer aar oalso paartíkkiular wurdz oar freziz witj tend tu by hevil'li sjoartend in dhe dailêkt hyr, sutj az standerd "probbebli" (but dhis iz oalso kommen foar dhis wun in manni NEI-daielêktz), "problem", and "ebel tu".

Dhat sjûd by "neezallizéesjen" and "dhy" radher dhen "neezelizéesjen" and "dhe" ebúv.