English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2300
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by k1234567890y »

I kinda wanna suggest to write English in Hanzi/Kanji+Korean Hangul instead...
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5636
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by eldin raigmore »

[+1]
k1234567890y wrote: 08 Aug 2018 22:03 I kinda wanna suggest to write English in Hanzi/Kanji+Korean Hangul instead...
[+1]
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2300
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by k1234567890y »

eldin raigmore wrote: 08 Aug 2018 22:45 [+1]
k1234567890y wrote: 08 Aug 2018 22:03 I kinda wanna suggest to write English in Hanzi/Kanji+Korean Hangul instead...
[+1]
I think many English Hanzi/Kanjis would have two readings though.
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

CZECH ENGLISH

I know this subject doesnt belong to this thred, actually, but it was being discussd here, since i usually write geografical names as the local people call them.

Now i'm cycling along the čech-german bordr, i need google maps all the time, and since google thinks i'm german, becaus i look mostly for german sites, it givs me the čech place names in german - for the ones who dont know it, Bohemia was for a long time part of the Sacred Roman Empire, and a great percentage of the inhabitants spoke german. So i plan my route seeing the name Wassersuppen ("Watersoups"), but there is no sign in Čechia with that name, of course they use the čech name Nemanice. Or aj plan to go thru Eger, but the čech sajns dont know that nejm, it is Cheb for them. So do wi rilly níd all that konfjusion? It is as if google maps showd a kompletly diferent kountry...

Grítings from Babilon, in Čekia

ENGLISH

I know this subject doesnt belong to this thread, actually, but it was being discussed here, since i usually write geographical names as the local people call them.

Now i'm cycling along the czech-german border, i need google maps all the time, and since google thinks i'm german, because mostly i look for german sites, it gives me the czech names in german - Bohemia was for a long time part of the Sacred Roman Empire, and a great percentage of the inhabitants spoke german. So i plan my route seeing the name Wassersuppen ("Watersoups"), but thare is no sign in Czechia with that name, of course they use the czech name Nemanice. Or i plan to go thru Eger, but the czech signs dont know that name, it is Cheb für them. So do we really need all that confusion? It is as if google maps showed a completely different country...

Greetings from Babilon, in Czechia
Keenir2
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 06 Aug 2018 23:51

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Keenir2 »

Zé do Rock wrote: 14 Aug 2018 00:56 CZECH ENGLISH
Czech English? does Tess know you're cheating on her? :)
Grítings from Babilon, in Čekia
I knew a Czech once....they never misspelled "Greetings".
Or i plan to go thru Eger, but the czech signs dont know that name, it is Cheb für them. So do we really need all that confusion?
What confusion? I'm afraid to ask what happens when you go further afield, where the signs are not in either German or Czech.
:)
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

Keenir2 wrote: 14 Aug 2018 03:10 Czech English? does Tess know you're cheating on her? :)
ČEK ENGLISH

Aj kount on your diskretion.

ENGLISH

I count on your discretion.
Grítings from Babilon, in Čekia
I knew a Czech once....they never misspelled "Greetings".[/quote]

ČEK ENGLISH

Aj know a few čechs too, at líst 2 of them would certainly misspel it becaus they dont spík inglish. And i know some inglish nejtiv spíkrs who majt spel it lajk that - reformrs, of kours.

ENGLISH

I know a few czechs too, at least 2 of them would certainly misspel it becaus they dont speak english. And i know some english native speakers who might spell like that - reformers, of course.
Or i plan to go thru Eger, but the czech signs dont know that name, it is Cheb für them. So do we really need all that confusion?
What confusion? I'm afraid to ask what happens when you go further afield, where the signs are not in either German or Czech.
:)
ČEK INGLISH

Ajv sín meny funny sajns in maj lajf, and aj kan liv with them - mostly. Provajded the nejms on the sajns ar the sejm as on the maps. But wen ajm sej in Chicago, the sajns sej that but the maps sej ajm in Bumbuhoola, aj get konfjusd sometajms. Todej aj passd a vilage that in german is kalld Perlsberg (Pearl Mountain), but wen aj ask pípl how aj get ther, aj hav to ask for "Horní Lazy" - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... zy_(4).JPG. Thej were all in ther houses, so aj dónt nou if thej were bíing horny or lejzy.

ENGLISH

I'v seen many funny signs in my life, and i can live with them - mostly. Provided the names on the signs are the same as on the maps. But when i'm say in Chicago, the signs say that but the maps say i'm in Bumbuhoola, i get confused sometimes. Today i passed a village that in german is called Perlsberg (Pearl Mountain), but when i ask people how i get there, i have to ask for "Horní Lazy" - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... zy_(4).JPG. They were all in their houses, so i dont know if they were being horny or lazy.
Keenir2
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 06 Aug 2018 23:51

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Keenir2 »

Zé do Rock wrote: 14 Aug 2018 21:32
Keenir2 wrote: 14 Aug 2018 03:10 Czech English? does Tess know you're cheating on her? :)
I count on your discretion.
must...not...laugh...or...blackmail...

I'v seen many funny signs in my life, and i can live with them - mostly. Provided the names on the signs are the same as on the maps. But when i'm say in Chicago, the signs say that but the maps say i'm in Bumbuhoola, i get confused sometimes.
I think I see the problem: where are you getting your maps from?
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

Keenir2 wrote: 14 Aug 2018 22:16
Zé do Rock wrote: 14 Aug 2018 21:32
Keenir2 wrote: 14 Aug 2018 03:10 Czech English? does Tess know you're cheating on her? :)
I count on your discretion.
must...not...laugh...or...blackmail...
ČESK INGLIŠ

Isnt blakmejliň forbidn in this forum?


ENGLISH

Isnt blackmailing forbidden in this forum?

I'v seen many funny signs in my life, and i can live with them - mostly. Provided the names on the signs are the same as on the maps. But when i'm say in Chicago, the signs say that but the maps say i'm in Bumbuhoola, i get confused sometimes.
I think I see the problem: where are you getting your maps from?
ČESK INGLIŠ

Du ju nou gůgl maps? Its that one.

Maj german atlas givs the česky nejms, but gůgl, an american kompany, givs the nejms in german as a special servis for germans. It is as if duč atlases gejv the nejm Nieuw Amsterdam tu New York, sins they wer the frst ones tu bi ther and that was the nejm they gejv tu the plejs.

Grítings from Sokolov nad Ohri, or az gůgl sez, Falkenau an der Eger.


ENGLISH

Do you know google maps? It's that one.

My german atlas gives the czech names, but google, an american company, gives the names in german as a special service for germans. It is as if dutch atlases gave the name Nieuw Amsterdam to New York, since they were the first ones to be there and that was the name they gave to the place.

Greetings from Sokolov nad Ohri, or as google says, Falkenau an der Eger.
Birdlang
greek
greek
Posts: 632
Joined: 25 Dec 2014 20:17
Location: Virginia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Birdlang »

My English spelling reform.
/p b t d k g ʔ/ p b t d k g ʻ
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h/ f v ṭ ḍ s z š ž h
/m n ŋ/ m n ŋ
/l w j ɻ/ l ŭ~w ĭ~j r

/iː uː ɪ ʊ ə ɚ ɛ ɝː ʌ ɔ ɔː æ ɐ ɑ ɒ/ ī ū i u e ṛ è ṝ ò ṑ ḕ a ā o
/aɪ aʊ eɪ oʊ oɪ uɪ/ aĭ aŭ ē ō oĭ uĭ
Birdlang
greek
greek
Posts: 632
Joined: 25 Dec 2014 20:17
Location: Virginia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Birdlang »

English (combined RP/American/Australian) a la Pigeonese
/p b t d ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ k g/ p b t d c ʒ č ǯ k g
/m n ŋ/ m n ŋ
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ (x) h/ f v ŧ đ s z š ž ꝁ h
/l r j w/ l r j ʋ

/i iː ʉː u uː ɪ ʊ e eː oː ə ɛ ɜ ɜː ʌ ɔ ɔː æ ɐ ɐː ɑ ɑː ɒ/ i ī û u ū ì ù é ê ô e è ë ä ö o ō æ â å a ā á
/ʉ̯ ɪ̯ ʊ̯ e̯ o̯ ə̯ ɛ̯ ɔ̯ a̯/ ȗ ĭ ŭ ĕ ŏ ė ȇ ȏ ă
User avatar
Bryan
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 17
Joined: 29 Oct 2011 21:03
Location: England
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Bryan »

Apart from the overthrow of the not-really-used-by-the-layman-anyway Runes, there has never been a total overhaul of English spelling. What there has been is norms, precedent, and analogy which evolve and become standardised. Any and all successful "reforms", such as they have been, have really been about bringing rogue spellings into line (e.g. gaol --> jail) with the overall rules/norms. Personally, I support a reform which would leave the essential system in place, but remove those roguish elements. For example, "axe" --> "ax", "trouble" --> "trubble", "doubt" --> "dout", and so on.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

Bryan wrote: 22 Sep 2018 12:54 Apart from the overthrow of the not-really-used-by-the-layman-anyway Runes, there has never been a total overhaul of English spelling. What there has been is norms, precedent, and analogy which evolve and become standardised. Any and all successful "reforms", such as they have been, have really been about bringing rogue spellings into line (e.g. gaol --> jail) with the overall rules/norms. Personally, I support a reform which would leave the essential system in place, but remove those roguish elements. For example, "axe" --> "ax", "trouble" --> "trubble", "doubt" --> "dout", and so on.
This is mor or less wat the House Stile dus. Ax, trubble, dout. 1) Cut useless letters (hed), 2) reggularize the 5 basic short vowels (enny), 3) reggularize the 5 basic long vowels (grate, brite, bote), 4) F for F (foto, enuf).
MoonRightRomantic
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: 11 Feb 2016 23:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by MoonRightRomantic »

Trying to account for accents and dialects isn't feasible. It makes more sense that English speakers would adopt Cut Spelling. The benefit of Cut Spelling, as the name implies, is that it focuses on cutting unnecessary letters so that the written language more closely reflects how it is spoken (later stages involve regularizing spelling, but it is presented in stages for that reason). It can't account for lexical sets, so it doesn't try to. Of all the spelling reforms I have seen, it is probably the most feasible and helpful at this point in time.

One problem I have had with English, particularly all the Latin loan words, is that every instance of a syllabic liquids /r/ or /l/ includes an unnecessary <e> before or after it. This <e> typically vanishes whenever a suffix is added, such as the difference between <songster> and <songstress>. The former could easily be written as <songstr> without losing any meaning, and you wouldn't have to remember to drop the <e> every time you append the <ess> morpheme. I cannot recall any minimal pairs in English that distinguish syllabic versus non-syllabic liquids, so I doubt this will cause more confusion in comparison.

Trying to add new letters like thorn, eth, esh, ezh, schwa, etc are best reserved for after the heaving lifting of Cut Spelling is made. Replacing <sign> and <signal> with <syn> and <signl> is already difficult enough for English speakers to deal with. They don't need new letters yet.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

HOUSE STILE

Chris Upward, the creator of Cut Spelling, rote once a revew about my first book, wich was ritten in ultradoitsh, a sort of foneemic german. And so we became frends. I red his cut spelling book, but eeven if the idea is apeeling, i had a certan trubble with cut spelling, becaus offen i didnt no wether i was alowd to cut or not, so i had to look up in the book. Cut Spelling didnt hav a principle or set of (a few) principles that would guide the user, so i wouldnt no if 'there' can be shortend to 'ther' or not. HS (house stile) has one cutting principle, "Cut wenevver the most likely way to pronounce the resulting word is the way the word is actualy pronounced." So wat would be the most likely pronunciation of 'ther', acording to english spelling patterns? We cant considder the millions of polisilabic words that end with -er, since this final sillable is usualy an unstressd shwa. We can only count monosillables with -er, and i only no two of them, per and her. Since they dont rime with 'there', we couldnt spel 'ther'. But thank God in menny cases we dont hav to chek the most likely pronunciation of a word, becaus of the 2 uther rules that simplify a lot the work of cutting: the rule for streemlining short stressd vowels and the rule for long stressd vowels. So we spel 'thare' for 'there', as we spel bare, dare, thare, pare, prare, tare, care, ware, share, fare, flare, spare, stare, scare, hare, lare, mare, rare. And we dont hav to keep the G in 'sign', becaus we can spel 'sine'. This goes along with the spontaneus reforms that exist alreddy, like 'nite' (overnite), 'lite'. I'v nevver seen a word ware a spontaneus reform changed an 'igh' to 'y', as light to lyt or night to nyt.

The uther problem is in my vew the cutting of shwas, so that cut spelling no longer looks like english, at leest in words like permntly, relvnt (or is it relevnt?). HS only cuts shwas in one specific case, ware the resulting words dont get an "unenglish" look (intresting, seprate). Cutting shwas is also a problem becaus in quite a few cases there is no agreement on wether a letter is shwa or not (is it /in'tElidZ@nt/ or /in'tEl@dZ@nt/?).

In TS (traditional spelling) u hav 50% of the words with a likely spelling, ie if u no all english spelling patterns, u can get 50% of the spellings rite - but u can nevver be sure that the word u'r riting down has a likely spelling. And 50% of the words hav a "rong" spelling. In CS u hav mor or less 75% of likely words and 25% rong words. But u dont hav safe words, ie words that u heer and spel in a way that u'r sure they'r rite. If u heer /bEd/, u no it cant be 'bead' (as head or bread), but u cant be sure that it is not 'baid' as in 'said'. The House Stile has 50% safe words (/bEd/ can only be speld 'bed'), 30% likely words and 20% rong words. And it looks like english. CS has one advantage, it is shorter than HS, but it seems that for most peeple ees of lerning and regularity is mor important than econnomy.



ENGLISH

Chris Upward, the creator of Cut Spelling, wrote once a review about my first book, which was written in ultradoitsh, a sort of phonemic german. And so we became friends. I read his cut spelling book, but even if the idea is appealing, i had a certain trouble with cut spelling, because often i didnt know whether i was allowed to cut or not, so i had to look up in the handbook. Cut Spelling didnt hav a principle or set of (a few) principles that would guide the user, so i wouldnt no if 'there' can be shortend to 'ther' or not. HS (house stile) has one, "Cut wenevver the most likely way to pronounce the resulting word is the way the word is actually pronounced." So what would be the most likely pronunciation of 'ther', according to english spelling patterns? We cant consider the millions of polysyllabic words that end with -er, since this final syllable is usually an unstressed shwa. We can only count monosyllables with -er, and i only know two of them, per and her. Since they dont rhyme with 'there', we couldnt spell 'ther'. But thank God in many cases we dont have to check the most likely pronunciation of a word, because of the 2 other rules that simplify a lot the work of cutting: the rule for streamlining short stressed vowels and the rule for long stressed vowels. So we spell 'thare' for 'there', as we spell bare, dare, thare, pare, prare, tare, care, ware, share, fare, flare, spare, stare, scare, hare, lare, mare, rare. And we dont have to keep the G in 'sign', because we can spell 'sine'. This goes along with the spontaneous reforms that exist already, like 'nite' (overnite), 'lite'. I've never seen a word where a spontaneous reform changed an 'igh' to 'y', as light to lyt or night to nyt.

The other problem is in my view the cutting of shwas, so that cut spelling no longer looks like english, at least in words like permntly, relvnt (or is it relevnt?). HS only cuts shwas in one specific case, where the resulting words dont get an "unenglish" look (intresting, seprate). Cutting shwas is also a problem because in quite a few cases there is no agreement on whether a letter is shwa or not (is it /in'tElidZ@nt/ or /in'tEl@dZ@nt/?).

In TS (traditional spelling) you have 50% of the words with a likely spelling, ie if you know all english spelling patterns, you can get 50% of the spellings right - but you can never be sure that the word you're writing has a likely spelling. And 50% of the words have a "wrong" spelling. In CS you have more or less 75% of likely words and 25% wrong words. But you dont have safe words, ie words that you hear and spell in a way that you're sure they're right. If you hear /bEd/, you know it cant be 'bead' (as head or bread), but you cant be sure that it is not 'baid' as in 'said'. The House Stile has 50% safe words (/bEd/ can only be spelled 'bed'), 30% likely words and 20% wrong words. And it looks like english. CS has one advantage, it is shorter than HS, but it seems that for most people ease of learning and regularity is more important than economy.
Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 226
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Clio »

MoonRightRomantic wrote: 16 Nov 2018 17:38 I cannot recall any minimal pairs in English that distinguish syllabic versus non-syllabic liquids, so I doubt this will cause more confusion in comparison.
I'm aware that there are two- and three-syllable pronunciations of "interest." Does anyone distinguish in speech between the financial and emotional kinds of interest, or between the noun and verb? (Probably not.)

Also, regarding sign/syn/sine: I remember that my high-school trigonometry teacher very frequently used spelling to distinguish between "sign" (i.e., positive or negative) and "sine" (the trigonometric function). Otherwise, it would be confusing to ask what the /saɪn/ of -π is, in a way that e.g. "knight" and "night" or "aunt" and "ant" aren't so easily confused. Since a large amount of sentences are equally sensible with either meaning of /saɪn/, I'd say it's not a bad idea to maintain an orthographic distinction between the two terms. "What's the s-i-n-e of negative pi?" is easier to say than "What's the sine-as-in-trigonometric-fuction-sine of negative pi?"
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit
scratchpad
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

Clio wrote: 17 Nov 2018 19:35
MoonRightRomantic wrote: 16 Nov 2018 17:38 I cannot recall any minimal pairs in English that distinguish syllabic versus non-syllabic liquids, so I doubt this will cause more confusion in comparison.
I'm aware that there are two- and three-syllable pronunciations of "interest." Does anyone distinguish in speech between the financial and emotional kinds of interest, or between the noun and verb? (Probably not.)

Also, regarding sign/syn/sine: I remember that my high-school trigonometry teacher very frequently used spelling to distinguish between "sign" (i.e., positive or negative) and "sine" (the trigonometric function). Otherwise, it would be confusing to ask what the /saɪn/ of -π is, in a way that e.g. "knight" and "night" or "aunt" and "ant" aren't so easily confused. Since a large amount of sentences are equally sensible with either meaning of /saɪn/, I'd say it's not a bad idea to maintain an orthographic distinction between the two terms. "What's the s-i-n-e of negative pi?" is easier to say than "What's the sine-as-in-trigonometric-fuction-sine of negative pi?"
EUROPAN

In inglish, as in europano portugalian, ai nepoco shwas dat is pronunsee so cuiclik o so mekli ki mi vou sei lu is a halfe silab. Eniwei in HS oni can spel interest or intrest.

Moust homofones is homografos, la cerebro imdiatli get la corecto senso du context. In tai mesag ai la vord 'that', ki can bin a demonstrativo pronom, a relativo pronom et a conjunccion. In deutsh la pronomes (et el article) is spelee 'das', la conjunccion is spelee 'dass', e wen lis ha trai reforma 'dass' to 'das', hav ai a rebelion ki nu vou ha problemas tu comprende la text. Ma mi pensa no pople ha problemas tu comprende la corecto significu de lu in inglish, meme si lus is spelee na same modo. Yu ha la vord 'kind', ki canau oso ha la significu de 'gud' in a morale sens. Oso la vord 'sign' can signifik a signal, mas oso la verbo 'signa'. O la vord 'ask', ki ha 2 traducciones in otre linguas (demanding e cuestioning). 'Way' can bi la wei mas oso la modo com oni faz alg. La vord 'since' can signifik 'od' o 'coze'. A 'sentence' can bin a gramaticale mas oso a juridico vord. 'To' can signifi direccion mas oso uzee tu form el infinitiv. E meme so, despite ta homofones dat is oso homografos, mi pensa no ki mai cerebro durou plu tempo tu comprende la mesage coze lus.



ENGLISH

In english, as in european portuguese, there are quite a few shwas that are pronounced so quickly or so weakly, i'd say it is half a syllable. Anyway in HS you can spell interest or intrest.

Most homophones are homographs, the brain immediately gets the right sense from the context. In your message there is the word 'that', which can be a demonstrative pronoun, a relative pronoun and a conjunction. In german the pronouns (and the article) are spelled 'das', the conjunction is spelled 'dass', and when they tried to reform 'dass' to 'das', there was an outcry that we'd have problems to understand the text. But i dont think anyone has problems getting the right meaning of it in english, even if they're all spelled the same way. You have the word 'kind', which could also have the sense of good in a moral sense. Also the word 'sign' can mean a board where something is written or the act of writing down the own signature. Or the word 'ask', which has 2 translations in other languages (asking a question is one verb, asking a favor is another). 'Way' can be a path, a street, but can also be the way how you do something. The word 'since' can mean the time in which something was started (I've been in Chicago since last year), but in your sentence it is a word with the same sense as 'because'. A sentence can be used for a grammatical term the way you used it, but can also be a term in law. 'To' can be a direction but can also be used to form the infinitive. And still, despite of all these homophones that are homographs too, i dont think my brain took any longer to understand the message because of them.
Clio
sinic
sinic
Posts: 226
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 23:45

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Clio »

@Zé: I'm aware that English has homophones which are also homographs, and I agree that context usually clears up any ambiguity between two meanings (especially when the two meanings belong to different parts of speech, like your examples of "kind" and "to"). I'm saying that in the (relatively rare) case when two homophones with different spellings are used in the exact same context, literate speakers can and do use spelling for disambiguation.
Niûro nCora
Getic: longum Getico murmur in ore fuit
scratchpad
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 160
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock »

Clio wrote: 19 Nov 2018 16:50 @Zé: I'm aware that English has homophones which are also homographs, and I agree that context usually clears up any ambiguity between two meanings (especially when the two meanings belong to different parts of speech, like your examples of "kind" and "to"). I'm saying that in the (relatively rare) case when two homophones with different spellings are used in the exact same context, literate speakers can and do use spelling for disambiguation.
REFORMD

Yeah, sure, in sum cases it mite be handy, but as u say, thay'r rare. Kelke palavras podai haver la meme gramaticale clas, mas è raro ki homofones prezenta dificilitees meme co context, porkee asie lus etai a problema pra la comunicacion parlee. Mas la context a veses è bene "peken". Einmal hab a froind fon mir mich gefragt wo ain par froinde fon uns gegangen waren, un ich saget, si waren ins kino gegangen um den film 'the knight' zu sen. And sinse i didnt no if the frend had herd about the film, and the context was neer nuthing, i had tu say, "i meen 'knight' with k". Si lus etai omografos osie, yo havai dizee, "yo vole di la tipo co la caval".

ENGLISH

Yeah, sure, in some cases it might be handy, but as you say, they're rare. Some words might have the same grammatical class, but it is rare that homophones present difficulties even if there is a context, because then they would be a problem for spoken communication. But the context is sometimes very "small". Once a friend of mine asked what other friends of us had gone, and i said they went to wach the film 'the knight'. And since i didnt know if the friend had heard about the film, and the context was near nothing, i had to say, "i mean 'knight' with k". If they were homographs too, i'd have said, "i mean, the guy on the horse".
Birdlang
greek
greek
Posts: 632
Joined: 25 Dec 2014 20:17
Location: Virginia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Birdlang »

2 orthographies for General American
I like the first one the best. The second one is close though.
/m n ŋ/ m n ng/m n ŋ
/p b t d k g/ p b t d k g/p b t d k g
/ʧ ʤ/ tc dj/č ǰ
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h/ f v th dh s z c j h/f v þ ð s z š ž h
/l ɹ j (ʍ) w/ l r y q w/l r j (ŵ) w

/i u ɪ ʊ ə ɛ (ɜ) ʌ ɔ æ ɑ/ ii uu i u eu e (ue) eo o a aa/í ú i u e è (â) o ò æ a
/eɪ oʊ ɔɪ aɪ aʊ/ ee oo oi ai au/é ó oĭ aĭ aŭ

The first one can use any English keyboard. The second one would need a special one due to diacritics. I’m not thinking of using an entirely different alphabet based on it would be extremely difficult for native English-speakers who aren’t into other languages or linguistics to read Devanagari/Arabic/Greek/Cyrillic/etc.
I think the first alphabet is good, but it would need some adjusting to one-on-one phonemic spelling.
In the first, words that would be the same pronunciation but not the same word would be a little hard to differentiate but it would be clear by context.
MoonRightRomantic
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 149
Joined: 11 Feb 2016 23:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by MoonRightRomantic »

Clio wrote: 17 Nov 2018 19:35
MoonRightRomantic wrote: 16 Nov 2018 17:38 I cannot recall any minimal pairs in English that distinguish syllabic versus non-syllabic liquids, so I doubt this will cause more confusion in comparison.
I'm aware that there are two- and three-syllable pronunciations of "interest." Does anyone distinguish in speech between the financial and emotional kinds of interest, or between the noun and verb? (Probably not.)

Also, regarding sign/syn/sine: I remember that my high-school trigonometry teacher very frequently used spelling to distinguish between "sign" (i.e., positive or negative) and "sine" (the trigonometric function). Otherwise, it would be confusing to ask what the /saɪn/ of -π is, in a way that e.g. "knight" and "night" or "aunt" and "ant" aren't so easily confused. Since a large amount of sentences are equally sensible with either meaning of /saɪn/, I'd say it's not a bad idea to maintain an orthographic distinction between the two terms. "What's the s-i-n-e of negative pi?" is easier to say than "What's the sine-as-in-trigonometric-fuction-sine of negative pi?"
That's why the Cut Spelling reform doesn't change the spelling of <sine>. The <e> at the end already indicates that the preceding <i> is pronounced as /ai/ rather than /i/.

As laid out in the book I linked to, the <y> is only substituted in situations like <igh>, <ig> and <ie> that all denote /ai/.
Post Reply