English Spelling Reform

[Ricky]

The English spelling system is such a mess. Even smart people are constantly struggling to spell some words. That's why I've decided to make a spelling system for English that actually makes sense.

Thee Inglish speling sistum iz such u mes. Eevun smurt peepul ar kanstuntlee schruguling too spel sum wurdz. Thats wigh ighv dusighdid too mayk u speling sistum for Inglish that akchooulee mayks sens.

[roninbodhisattva]

Here we go.

[Testyal]

Shouldn't this go in Langs and Lings? Then it'd be the what, 50th thread on this topic?

[Valoski]

Many people have had this idea...and yet so many more make the effort to make negative comments on it...

[Ricky]

Wut duz it madur how menee thredz ubowt u topik cum up if eech wun sez sumthing difrint. Shur, maybee sum uthur peepul mayd an Inglish speling ruform, but thay wurnt igzaktlee thu saym az this wun.

[Xing]

There are already 50000000 (or something like that) proposed spelling reforms of English.

Maybe it'd be more interesting to discuss strategies for how one could realistically enforce a spelling reform in the English-speaking community.

[Ricky]

There are already 50000000 (or something like that) proposed spelling reforms of English.

Lighk Igh sed in migh last post, wut duz it madur if ther hav bin menee bufor, eech wun iz difrint.

[Ricky]

Igh kud tayk this wun furthur bigh righding al migh posts in it.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Yes! I have been waiting for someone to finally reform this horrid spelling system! Please, Ricky, teach us to better write English.

[thetha]

Maybe you should explain this spelling reform, especially why you sacrificed the small amount of aesthetic quality English spelling has, while still keeping the irregularity in spelling of phonemes. You use <u> to spell all of /ʌ ɜ ə ʊ/, and even insert it in places where there isn't even a vowel in most dialects.

[Yačay256]

I prefer the Shavian Alphabet myself. It is much more efficient, logical and it is even featural.

[Sankon]

ʌv 'kʰɔɻs, maɪ̯ sʌ.'lu.ʃn̩ hæz 'ɑl.wiz 'pɪn tʰu 'ɻaɪ̯tʰ ɪn ði aɪ̯ pʰi eɪ̯

pʌtʰ nɒn lɪŋ.'kwɪ.stɪ.ki 'pʰi.pʰl̩ 'ɑl.wiz 'seɪ̯ ðæt 'ðeɪ̯ɻ tʰu 'pi.zi tu 'lɻ̩n ɪt

[Ricky]

Yes! I have been waiting for someone to finally reform this horrid spelling system! Please, Ricky, teach us to better write English.

Wel baysiklee wut Ighv dun iz usighn wun sownd too wun simbul. Now, u simbul in this kays kan bee u groop uv ledurz lighk 'igh' and iz nat nesuserulee wun ledur.

Maybe you should explain this spelling reform, especially why you sacrificed the small amount of aesthetic quality English spelling has, while still keeping the irregularity in spelling of phonemes. You use <u> to spell all of /ʌ ɜ ə ʊ/, and even insert it in places where there isn't even a vowel in most dialects.

Esthediks iz al upinyin, and pursunulee Igh fighnd this ruform too bee kwight uchraktiv. Igh am nat shur wut yoo meen ubowt thu 'u' simbul; it repruzents thu sownd in 'up'.

I prefer the Shavian Alphabet myself. It is much more efficient, logical and it is even featural.

Pursunulee, Igh thingk thoz ledurz ar too hard too tel upart. And it wud tayk u lang tighm too lurn how too reed, wen migh elfubet kan bee red bigh Inglish speekurz withowt enee studeeing.

ʌv 'kʰɔɻs, maɪ̯ sʌ.'lu.ʃn̩ hæz 'ɑl.wiz 'pɪn tʰu 'ɻaɪ̯tʰ ɪn ði aɪ̯ pʰi eɪ̯

pʌtʰ nɒn lɪŋ.'kwɪ.stɪ.ki 'pʰi.pʰl̩ 'ɑl.wiz 'seɪ̯ ðæt 'ðeɪ̯ɻ tʰu 'pi.zi tu 'lɻ̩n ɪt

Thu saym thing uplighz heer. Igh kenat reed that, yet yoo kan reed migh posts.

[plathhs]

… thu 'u' simbul; it repruzents thu sownd in 'up'.

This is how I pronounce the two underlined words: [ðə] and [ʌpʰ]; that's two different vowels.

[Yačay256]

Yeah, I hate the stupid respelling in American dictionaries; why do they not simply use the IPA...Oh, that is right, non-linguiphiles say they lack the time to do so .

Anyways, the IPA gives too much detail; your indication of aspiration and retroflex approximates is a perfect example. Even the indication of the occasionally ambiguous vowel hiatus-diphthong issue is not difficult to figure out from context in English; /aI/ almost always means the diphthong in the language, if not always.

I support the Shavian Alphabet because: It is faster to write than the IPA, it is more dialect-neutral especially with regards to the rhotic situation; with slight adjustment, the Shavian alphabet could be made to write a koiné dialect and pronunciation based on General American, RP, Nigerian Standard English and Indian Standard English for the 4 countries with the largest English speaking population.

Pursunulee, Igh thingk thoz ledurz ar too hard too tel upart. And it wud tayk u lang tighm too lurn how too reed, wen migh elfubet kan bee red bigh Inglish speekurz withowt enee studeeing.

Try to decipher this. The Georgian Alphabet, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (even excluding the rotation for vowels), Arabic and Hangul also have many similar looking letters, BTW. And I have known about the Shavian Alphabet for years now but just started learning it a few minutes ago and had no trouble learning the script; it may be to hard for you, but not for me. You should ask other people as well.

[Ricky]

… thu 'u' simbul; it repruzents thu sownd in 'up'.

This is how I pronounce the two underlined words: [ðə] and [ʌpʰ]; that's two different vowels.

Wel thoz may bee difrint vowulz linggwistiklee but most peepul dont rilee nodis. Migh ruform duz u gud jab uv beeing simpul yet reedubul.

Try to decipher this. The Georgian Alphabet, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (even excluding the rotation for vowels) and Hangul also have many similar looking letters, BTW. And I have known about the Shavian Alphabet for years now but just started learning it a few minutes ago and had no trouble learning the script; it may be to hard for you, but not for me. You should ask other people as well.

Shur, thay may nat bee that hard, but wigh spend enee tighm at al lurning u noo sistum wen mighn iz instintlee reedubul?

[Yačay256]

… thu 'u' simbul; it repruzents thu sownd in 'up'.

This is how I pronounce the two underlined words: [ðə] and [ʌpʰ]; that's two different vowels.

Wel thoz may bee difrint vowulz linggwistiklee but most peepul dont rilee nodis. Migh ruform duz u gud jab uv beeing simpul yet reedubul.

Try to decipher this. The Georgian Alphabet, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (even excluding the rotation for vowels) and Hangul also have many similar looking letters, BTW. And I have known about the Shavian Alphabet for years now but just started learning it a few minutes ago and had no trouble learning the script; it may be to hard for you, but not for me. You should ask other people as well.

Shur, thay may nat bee that hard, but wigh spend enee tighm at al lurning u noo sistum wen mighn iz instintlee reedubul?

I agree with the response to the first quote (my dialect is California English, BTW) but I think you are mistaken: Ask a Korean, an Algerian or a Nunavummiuq if they can instantly read in their respective orthographies; it is not about the script with regards to "instant readability" but practice and knowledge of the script... and I think it would be easier to instantly read a popular science book in Shavian English than in Hanzi Chinese for a 10 year old.

[Testyal]

'Nodis'? Doesn't everyone nowadays pronounce it as ['nəʊtɪs]?

Also, why <igh> for [a͡ɪ]? Wouldn't it be easier to use <ai>?

How would you show [ɒ]. I would have thought it would have been <o>, but you seem to have used that for [ə͡ʊ].

[plathhs]

Shur, thay may nat bee that hard, but wigh spend enee tighm at al lurning u noo sistum wen mighn iz instintlee reedubul?

Exactly the same could be said about your reform: "Why spend any time at all learning a new system when [standard spelling] is 'instantly readable'?"

[Testyal]

I could make up a system right now-

Ay kuet mayec ueb ae siestuom rayd naw!

Seriously, though, spelling reforms need to be studied by professors to find the perfect readability. I actually had a little struggle reading that last sentence you made. Plus, this is the Conlanging forum. Spelling reforms are not conlangs.