Author Topic: English Spelling Reform  (Read 4618 times)

Offline hiimjo

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
English Spelling Reform
« on: April 26, 2014, 12:11:35 PM »
Hello everyone  :),

I am new here and I wanted to post a topic I've been thinking about recently. I'm gonna propose a new spelling reform for English. Not looking for this to
be accepted. Just something interesting to think about and dream of happening  ;D

Ddă Nu Innliss Alfăbet


a  -  alfăbet (alphabet)

ă  -  bŭlăvord (boulevard) Note: The only time this is not used to denote a mid-central vowel sound is in a plural word that may contain this sound. E.g. masz (masses)

b  -  bit (bit)

d  -  dicc (ditch)

e  -  em (am)

ē  -  uēr (where)

f  -  fry (free)

g  -  gass (gash)

h  -  hav (have)

i  -  hit (hit)

j  -  jinks (jinx)

k  -  kik (kick)

l  -  loyt (light)

m  -  mŏncc (munch)

n  -  nikăl (nickel)

o  -  hot (hot)

ŏ  -  lŏk (luck)

p  -  pork (park)

q  -  qyn (queen)

r  -  ryălistik (realistic)

s  -  steryoutoyp (stereotype)

t  -  tikăl (tickle)

u  -  hyu (hue)

v  -  vēry (very)

y  -  styl (steel)

z  -  advoyz (advise)

Difttonnz/Dipttonnz (Diphthongs):

au - aukk! - (ouch!)

ay - layt - (late)

ou - lou - (low)

oy - loy - (lie)

kk - kkărkk - (church)

dd - ddis - (this)

nn - rinn - (ring)

ss - ssak - (shack)

tt - zenătt - (zenith)

uu - luus - (loose)

zz - lyzzăr - (leisure)

Igzampăl sentins:

ddă qik braun foks jŏmps ouvăr ddă layzy dog.

Sampăl frayziz:

Hellou!

Moy naym iz Jou. Uots yurz?

Hau or yu?

Oym foyn, ttanks, and, yu?

ttank yu!

yur welkŏm!

Gudboy!

Nŏmbărz:

uon - one

tu - two

ttry - three

fur - four

foyv - five

siks - six

sevin - seven

eyt - eight

noyn - nine

ten - ten

elevin - eleven

tuelv - twelve...

hŏndrid - hundred

milyin - million


Let me know what you all think of this and please point out any inconsistencies or mistakes you may find in this post. Thank you!

« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 04:48:19 PM by hiimjo »

Offline lx

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 164
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 01:26:59 PM »
Hi and welcome to the forum!

You've defined an 'x' in jinx but it seems to be missing from your list of accepted letters. Oversight?

Offline Corybobory

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
  • Country: gb
    • English
    • Coryographies: Handmade Creations by Cory
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2014, 01:54:32 PM »
Hi, welcome!

What do you propose about spelling words in English that are pronounced differently?  Is this just for one narrow accent type, or would people with different English accents spell differently?
BA Linguistics, MSt Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology, current PhD student (Archaeology, 1st year)

Blog: http://www.palaeolinguist.blogspot.com
My handmade book jewellery: http://www.coryographies.etsy.com

Offline hiimjo

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2014, 04:47:44 PM »
Hi and welcome to the forum!

You've defined an 'x' in jinx but it seems to be missing from your list of accepted letters. Oversight?

Oh yeah! Oops, that should be "jinks". thanks haha

Offline hiimjo

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2014, 05:07:31 PM »
Hi, welcome!

What do you propose about spelling words in English that are pronounced differently?  Is this just for one narrow accent type, or would people with different English accents spell differently?

I was using the phonology of General American when making this alphabet so it does lean towards American English. However, I am proposing this alphabet not only as a spelling reform but also as an orthographic reform. Diphthongs like "sh" and "ch" are too ambiguous for spelling when reading any English dialect.

So were this to be implemented worldwide:

American "char" (U.S.) [tʃɑɹ] and British "char" (U.K.) [tʃɑː] would both be rendered:

kkor

A British speaker could change this to "kko" but that would turn this alphabet into a phonetic transcription for how language sounds rather than a proper alphabet so I would like to avoid making distinctions like this.

Notice that not all phonemes are included in this alphabet, just the ones that cause confusion. i.e. mishap vs. misshape, ache vs. chart vs. broach vs. quiche, etc.  So there may be some words that are different in pronounciation but don't differ in spelling because too many diacritics turn people off (except for Romanians and Poles).

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2014, 09:34:35 PM »
I would prefer a return to a orthography closer to Old English: þe gāt was ēten þe hey.

Offline hiimjo

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2014, 08:52:46 AM »
I would prefer a return to a orthography closer to Old English: þe gāt was ēten þe hey.

At least then we pronounced a lot more words how they were spelled  ;) Even French and German have better spelling rules

 

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2014, 10:34:37 AM »
I would prefer a return to a orthography closer to Old English: þe gāt was ēten þe hey.

At least then we pronounced a lot more words how they were spelled  ;) Even French and German have better spelling rules

Old English-esque spelling still performs fairly well, being more regular, although not one-to-one phonemic.

(EDIT)

þe gāt was ēten þe hey = the goat was eating the hay

a = /a~o/
ā = /əu~ou/
e = /ə~e~i/
ē = /iː/
ey = /ei/
þ = /θ~ð/

It's been a while since I've last worked on it, so I can't remember all the details, but the reason why it works so well is because of short and long vowels, e.g. {e ē o ō}. It's not phonetic, but rather phonemic of even a bit higher level, so it's more regular but still allows for varying pronounciation and accents.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 12:15:44 AM by freknu »

Offline Corybobory

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
  • Country: gb
    • English
    • Coryographies: Handmade Creations by Cory
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2014, 11:53:37 PM »
I wouldn't like a spelling system that reflected how Americans spoke and not others :( It's a bit racist and nationalistic... and I can only see Americans adopting it.

And what would you do about accent change?  As words change in their pronunciation, would the spelling change to reflect this?  Otherwise in 50 years there will already be a bunch of words spelled the way no one speaks them.
BA Linguistics, MSt Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology, current PhD student (Archaeology, 1st year)

Blog: http://www.palaeolinguist.blogspot.com
My handmade book jewellery: http://www.coryographies.etsy.com

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2014, 07:09:58 AM »
Removing odd irregularities from the spelling would make sense. Beyond that, there are serious problems due to varying accents and how the often irrelevant spelling differences do reflect a pronunciation difference SOMEWHERE most of the time. (This was actually the topic of my first linguistics essay years ago :) )


Beyond that, you'll be much more likely to get people to adopt digraphs like SH than new diacritics!
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline hiimjo

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2014, 08:42:00 AM »
Removing odd irregularities from the spelling would make sense. Beyond that, there are serious problems due to varying accents and how the often irrelevant spelling differences do reflect a pronunciation difference SOMEWHERE most of the time. (This was actually the topic of my first linguistics essay years ago :) )


Beyond that, you'll be much more likely to get people to adopt digraphs like SH than new diacritics!

May you give me an example of such problems arising? I want this to mainly reform the alphabet and the phonemes they denote rather than a spelling reform. I should've phrased it differently.

E.g.

Hypothetical New English word:

Rhinojocum = nose game

This would be rendered "roynăjoukăm" which might offend some classicists lol but that's more what I'm looking for.

@Corybobory

What I plan to do with this, is kinda the same thing that went on with Interlingua where majority rules regarding cognates (in this case spelling).

So what I'd like to happen is this: These letters denoting phonemes will replace the present spelling of words so that they are more true to their oral renditions as well as those who are attempting to learn English (as well as those who already know it) can have an easier time with spelling.

Now regarding other nations, in 50 years, British and American English may change along the same lines due to technological advances in communication. Each nation can have its own spelling reform every now and then to at least basically reflect the pronunciation. So alphabet would be universal, spelling by country. And because of different pronunciations, words could be conformed so that they reflect the least difference if spelling were to be taken into account.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2014, 10:28:44 AM »
Quote
May you give me an example of such problems arising?
A basic one is the cot-caught merger, which is still contrastive for many dialects of English but possibly a minority of Americans. Other examples include just about any spelling difference with a pronunciation different preserved somewhere-- write may be contrastive with right in some dialects due to the r vs. wr and length with gh. I don't have many details on this, but the complexity of English spelling does have the major advantage of allowing all/most dialects to be reliably written with the needed distinctions.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline sofiniks

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: English Spelling Reform
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2016, 07:27:15 PM »
heɪ hɪmdʒo, haʊ'z jəɹ spɛlɪŋ rifoɹm goɪŋ? aɪ'm ɔlso ɪn feɪvəɹ ʌv ʌ rifoɹm. pəɹhæps ɪt's bɛdəɹ tu juz ðʌ ɪntəɹnæʃənəli rɛkəgnaɪzd sɪmbəlz fɹʌm ði IPA ɪnstɛd ʌv ɹiɪnvɛntɪŋ ðʌ wil. aɪ'd laɪk tu hiɹ haʊ θɪŋz ɑɹ goɪŋ wɪð jəɹ ɛfəɹts! :)

sof