English Orthography Reform

[Glossaphile]

There is definitely some predictability there, but I just don't think it's quite predictable enough to justify what you're suggesting, as shown by the near-minimal pair I gave above: /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /ɹɪəl/ ("real"), or even better, /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /mɪəl/ ("meal"). I almost always assume that lexicographers have good reason for the distinctions they make.

There is no rhotic involved in real - it has, or at least had, a regular /iː/ followed by a /ə/. If you look at Cambridge Dictionaries Online, you will see that /ɪə/ is the regular way in which they transcribe sequences of /iː/ + /ə/ - see for instance their transcription of idea.

There again, there are some contrastive counter-examples, such as "idea" and "onomatopoeia," listed in Cambridge respectively as /aɪˈdɪə/ and /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə/.

Other dialects seem to be coming up alot lately, but the heart of RLS takes its cues from RP and GA, since they tend to be the most widely understood, respected, and therefore useful accents. As I said before...

If a reform proposal benefits some (major) dialect at the expense of other (major) dialects, it is, IMO, highly preferable not to reform.

Which major dialect have I slighted? I've got RP and GA equally covered, and those are really the only two I think any reformer should be expected to consider. I cover a few well-known regional varieties just as a bonus, but I don't think the system should bend over backwards for them.

If you have, for example, a strong northern inland accent, your /æ/ is probably a quite close vowel, that's very different from the Romance /ä/. (This is probably one reason why Americans tend to pronounce recent loanwords with /ɑː/ rather than /æ/) For speakers of such an accent, letting short <a> represent some other vowel than /æ/ might make spelling more Romance. But in many other dialects, /æ/ is much more open. For speakers of such dialects - not using <a> for /æ/ would make spelling less Romance.

Even if it's impossible to please all dialects, certain changes would be more problematic than others. Not to write /æ/ and /ɑː/ with the same letter would lead to lots of mismatches, since the distribution of /æ/ and /ɑː/ differs greatly among English dialects. (Or alternatively, dialectal spelling standards would have to proliferate.) As far as I know, there are no such differences in the distribution of /ɑː/ and /ʌ/. (Or maybe there are a few; I just can't think of any right now...) Spelling /ɑː/ and /ʌ/ with different letters would therefore not pose any great problems from a dialectal point of view.

The people who stand to benefit most from Romance-like vowels/diphthongs are most likely non-native speakers, and when was the last time you saw or heard one of them deliberately seek to emulate a Northern Inlander's accent? Plus, if we're examining the proximity of /æ/-variants to [a] (the generic continental value of <a>), what of dialects that centralize /ʌ/ to /ɐ/? They could probably go either way. At the very least, I'd first have to know how many accents exhibit this /æ/-lowering versus how many do not, and even then, this may be one of those instances where Romanization is trumped by other concerns. Spelling reform is, in my opinion, a delicate balancing act between several, often conflicting drives, and although my thrust towards re-Romanization may be particularly visible, it is not my only consideration.

The whole concept of spelling reform should actually be avoided because a spelling-reformed version of English would greatly hamper international trade, science etc. If you designed a phonetic orthography, then English would orthographically splinter into many different and unconnected dialects, making international cooperation impossible. If you pronounced English just a little differently, then you'd need a completely different way to spell words. Ridiculous!

This is, unfortunately, a fairly typical argument. It's also overly alarmist. As I said, the vast majority of communication would be written according to an agreed-upon international standard dialect, which would differ sufficiently little from all but the most provincial of accents as to require only minor mental adjustment on the part of those using the new orthography. As little as the current code reflects any real accent, I think a new system that may not quite match everyone's native speech but nevertheless comes much closer in most if not all cases would be infinitely preferable.

Even the occasional regional form that happens to slip through would probably remain easily comprehensible to others, provided that the standard itself is neutral enough and equidistant from all major accents. It is only with respect to this neutral standard that international written communication would be absolutely phonemic (not phonetic; there is a difference).

The dialectal flexibility I talk about in RLS would only really come into play in certain situations where it is both relevant and appropriate (e.g. national anthem lyrics, lines in a play written to help an actor get the accent right, etc).

[Xonen]

The whole concept of spelling reform should actually be avoided because a spelling-reformed version of English would greatly hamper international trade, science etc. If you designed a phonetic orthography, then English would orthographically splinter into many different and unconnected dialects, making international cooperation impossible. If you pronounced English just a little differently, then you'd need a completely different way to spell words. Ridiculous!

Um. Spelling reform ≠ phonetic orthography.

[Xing]

There again, there are some contrastive counter-examples, such as "idea" and "onomatopoeia," listed in Cambridge respectively as /aɪˈdɪə/ and /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə/.

I would guess the most common realisation the historically centring diphthong is /iːə/ (when carefully recited), or /ɪː/ (when smoothened). Onomatopoeia would be an example of a word where and /iːə/ is not the result of /iː/ followed by a rhotic - it's just /iː/ followed by a regular /ə/. The simplest way to write such a word would be to use whatever symbol is used to write /iː/, with whatever symbol is used to write /ə/. I don't see what this has to do with the representation of pre-rhotic vowels. There are clear patterns for the marking of pre-rhotic vowels in English:

/ɪ/ + /r/ is regularly written <irr> (as in mirror) - pronounced [mɪɹə(ɹ)]

/iː/ + /r is regularly written as <ear>, <eer>, or <ere> - or if we opted for continental vowels, we could write it <ir>. Perfectly regular. It's pronounced [ɪə(ɹ] in conservative RP, and [iːə(r)] or [ɪː(r)] in contemporary forms of English.

(There are apparently dialects in which tense and lax vowels have neutralised before <r> - in which mirror thus would rhyme with nearer - but that's a later, dialect-specific development.)

If there are examples where a centring diphthongs like /ɪə/ that neither can be analysed as /iːr/ or as /iːə/ - as the (Cambridge entry on idea might suggest) - those are marginal to English phonology. And again, if anything needs to be changed about - it is the few non-predictable exceptions, not the whole system.

So, assuming "continental" vowels: idea could be written <aidìø>.

But on the other hand, one could of course always discuss whether Cambridge Dictionaries in this case has a good phonemic analysis and transcription. It doesn't indicate intrusive r's, which might well be regarded as a standard British pronunciation - so that <idea> in standard British should be transcribed as [aɪdiːə(ɹ)] or [aɪdɪː(ɹ)]. (Btw would the prevalence of intrusive r's affect your spelling reform in any way?)

The people who stand to benefit most from Romance-like vowels/diphthongs are most likely non-native speakers, and when was the last time you saw or heard one of them deliberately seek to emulate a Northern Inlander's accent?

The fact that you don't want to identify /æ/ with Romance /ä/ suggest that you presuppose a rather close - or at least, not-too-open /æ/.

Plus, if we're examining the proximity of /æ/-variants to [a] (the generic continental value of <a>), what of dialects that centralize /ʌ/ to /ɐ/? They could probably go either way. At the very least, I'd first have to know how many accents exhibit this /æ/-lowering versus how many do not,

It's very difficult to say exactly how many speakers and dialects that move their /æ/'s in either direction. However, it seems to be trend towards opening in Standard British - but it also occurs in many North American dialects. (Though in the latter /æ/ is often conditionally raised before nasals.)

and even then, this may be one of those instances where Romanization is trumped by other concerns.

And what are those concerns? You are basically open for the thought that changing the value of "checked" <a> from /æ/ to /ʌ/ need not make the English spelling system more Continental. What else could purpose could there be in such a change?

[Glossaphile]

There again, there are some contrastive counter-examples, such as "idea" and "onomatopoeia," listed in Cambridge respectively as /aɪˈdɪə/ and /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə/.

I would guess the most common realisation the historically centring diphthong is /iːə/ (when carefully recited), or /ɪː/ (when smoothened). Onomatopoeia would be an example of a word where and /iːə/ is not the result of /iː/ followed by a rhotic - it's just /iː/ followed by a regular /ə/. The simplest way to write such a word would be to use whatever symbol is used to write /iː/, with whatever symbol is used to write /ə/. I don't see what this has to do with the representation of pre-rhotic vowels. There are clear patterns for the marking of pre-rhotic vowels in English:

I never said they really did have anything to do with pre-rhotic vowels. I consider neither /aɪˈdɪə/ nor /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə/ to have any latent final rhoticity. They're just examples of the diphthong /ɪə/ and the bi-syllabic vowel sequence /iːə/ occurring in analogous environments.

/ɪ/ + /r/ is regularly written <irr> (as in mirror) - pronounced [mɪɹə(ɹ)]

/iː/ + /r is regularly written as <ear>, <eer>, or <ere> - or if we opted for continental vowels, we could write it <ir>. Perfectly regular. It's pronounced [ɪə(ɹ] in conservative RP, and [iːə(r)] or [ɪː(r)] in contemporary forms of English.

So when and if reform is ever implemented, the parties responsible for administering it can decide whether they want the standard spelling to reflect /ɪə˞/ or /iːə˞/. The advantage to a system like RLS is that it can handle either option, so it's functionality doesn't depend on which way the decision swings.

If there are examples where a centring diphthongs like /ɪə/ that neither can be analysed as /iːr/ or as /iːə/ - as the (Cambridge entry on idea might suggest) - those are marginal to English phonology. And again, if anything needs to be changed about - it is the few non-predictable exceptions, not the whole system.

So, assuming "continental" vowels: idea could be written <aidìø>.

But on the other hand, one could of course always discuss whether Cambridge Dictionaries in this case has a good phonemic analysis and transcription. It doesn't indicate intrusive r's, which might well be regarded as a standard British pronunciation - so that <idea> in standard British should be transcribed as [aɪdiːə(ɹ)] or [aɪdɪː(ɹ)]. (Btw would the prevalence of intrusive r's affect your spelling reform in any way?)

One thing you may not have considered in addition to the above is the number of syllables constituted by /ɪə/ versus /iːə/. The diphthong /ɪə/ parses as one syllable, whereas /iːə/ parses as two.

If you were writing in the international standard, you would ignore intrusive r's. If you had cause to write in a dialect with intrusive r's, RLS allows you to mark them easily.

The people who stand to benefit most from Romance-like vowels/diphthongs are most likely non-native speakers, and when was the last time you saw or heard one of them deliberately seek to emulate a Northern Inlander's accent?

The fact that you don't want to identify /æ/ with Romance /ä/ suggest that you presuppose a rather close - or at least, not-too-open /æ/.

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with what I said about non-natives?

and even then, this may be one of those instances where Romanization is trumped by other concerns.

And what are those concerns? You are basically open for the thought that changing the value of "checked" <a> from /æ/ to /ʌ/ need not make the English spelling system more Continental. What else could purpose could there be in such a change?

Well, <æ> doesn't exist at all in Romance, so there are really no previous associations that continental speakers would have to unlearn. After I had gotten the most out of the current alphabet with the reassignment of <c>, <x>, and <q>, additional characters were chosen carefully. Within the constraints of the US-International keyboard, preference was given first two those glyphs which had some history in English itself even if they weren't part of the modern script (<æ>, <þ>, and <ð>), then to glyphs from other languages to which English speakers tend to be frequently exposed (French <ç>, Spanish <ñ>), and finally to anything left on the US-Int'l layout. This is why ash was chosen over something like "ä" nor "ã." Within each of these three groups, the respective symbols were roughly ranked by relative intuitivity for the intended sounds. Scandinavian <ø> seemed to me like the least counter-intuitive letter still available for /ə/. One possible mnemonic for <ø> is to think of it as the red crossed circle that signals the prohibition of something, which in this case is full enunciation of whatever the etymological vowel would have been.

Now that we've established that ash is presumably going to be used in some way or other, as I said before...

Using <æ> for /ʌ/ would not only re-introduce what is to most a new letter, it would also conflict with its own original historical purpose. That's two strikes against it, whereas using it for /æ/ instead means only one strike...The unfamiliarity of the letter itself will be a factor in any case, so I think it would be more persuasive if we can at least justify the apparent intrusion with some historical legitimacy, which would only really work if it has its original sound value.

[Chagen]

There is definitely some predictability there, but I just don't think it's quite predictable enough to justify what you're suggesting, as shown by the near-minimal pair I gave above: /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /ɹɪəl/ ("real"), or even better, /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /mɪəl/ ("meal"). I almost always assume that lexicographers have good reason for the distinctions they make.

There is no rhotic involved in real - it has, or at least had, a regular /iː/ followed by a /ə/. If you look at Cambridge Dictionaries Online, you will see that /ɪə/ is the regular way in which they transcribe sequences of /iː/ + /ə/ - see for instance their transcription of idea.

I...what. Since when did <real> have /iə/? It's always been /ri:l/ for me. Only in words like <reality> is the <ea> part two vowels, and then it's more /riælɪti/. <realism> is /ri:lɪzṃ/ though.

[sangi39]

There is definitely some predictability there, but I just don't think it's quite predictable enough to justify what you're suggesting, as shown by the near-minimal pair I gave above: /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /ɹɪəl/ ("real"), or even better, /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /mɪəl/ ("meal"). I almost always assume that lexicographers have good reason for the distinctions they make.

There is no rhotic involved in real - it has, or at least had, a regular /iː/ followed by a /ə/. If you look at Cambridge Dictionaries Online, you will see that /ɪə/ is the regular way in which they transcribe sequences of /iː/ + /ə/ - see for instance their transcription of idea.

I...what. Since when did <real> have /iə/? It's always been /ri:l/ for me. Only in words like <reality> is the <ea> part two vowels, and then it's more /riælɪti/. <realism> is /ri:lɪzṃ/ though.

I pronounce it as [ri(:)əl]. For example "real", "kneel", "meal", etc. all have /iə/. I'd assume it's an insertion of [ə] between /i:/ and /l/, applying more frequently before coda /l/, but it seems to be partly dependent on morpheme boundaries too, since I would say [riəliz(ə)m] but not [riəli:] which would instead by [ri:li:], so maybe it's just a weirdly conditioned merger.

[Xing]

I never said they really did have anything to do with pre-rhotic vowels. I consider neither /aɪˈdɪə/ nor /ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə/ to have any latent final rhoticity. They're just examples of the diphthong /ɪə/ and the bi-syllabic vowel sequence /iːə/ occurring in analogous environments.

Those words have final, latent rhoticity in RP (and various other British and Southern Hemisphere accents). Not that this has to be reflected in your spelling reform. But the fact that intrusive r's is not mentioned in many dictionaries could be an indication that transcriptions in dictionaries have some degree of arbitrariness in them. Not that they are generally unreliable, but that there always are some more or less arbitrary decisions involved when deciding which pronunciation is the most "standard" one. The next edition of some English Dictionary could decide to transcribe the centring diphthong as /iːə/ or /iə/. Or to include intrusive r's.

To the extent anglophones make a systematic contrast between /ɪə/ and /iːə/, it's an extremely marginal contrast.

So when and if reform is ever implemented, the parties responsible for administering it can decide whether they want the standard spelling to reflect /ɪə˞/ or /iːə˞/. The advantage to a system like RLS is that it can handle either option, so it's functionality doesn't depend on which way the decision swings.

I suggest this also should apply to other pre-rhotic vowels.

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with what I said about non-natives?

Your spelling reform presupposes that non-speakers will learn a dialect with a close close/raised /æ/, and an open, central /ʌ/.

[Xonen]

There is definitely some predictability there, but I just don't think it's quite predictable enough to justify what you're suggesting, as shown by the near-minimal pair I gave above: /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /ɹɪəl/ ("real"), or even better, /niːl/ ("kneel") versus /mɪəl/ ("meal"). I almost always assume that lexicographers have good reason for the distinctions they make.

There is no rhotic involved in real - it has, or at least had, a regular /iː/ followed by a /ə/. If you look at Cambridge Dictionaries Online, you will see that /ɪə/ is the regular way in which they transcribe sequences of /iː/ + /ə/ - see for instance their transcription of idea.

I...what. Since when did <real> have /iə/? It's always been /ri:l/ for me.

For most Americans, it's indeed phonemically /ri:l/ (or /ril/, considering that vowel length isn't phonemic), but phonetically there tends to be a centralizing offglide. That is, [ri(:)əl] (as sangi39 points out above), or thereabouts. The same thing occurs in British English - and in some dialects, this [i(:)ə] has then started merging with the diphthong /ɪə/ (which these dialects originally acquired from earlier /i:r/).

But yeah, for the purposes of an official orthography, I'd ignore this and stick with using the more conservative pronunciations as a reference point. If you try to take every single colloquial contraction into account, you'll need to be changing the spelling every two weeks or so (and probably back and forth as the sound change starts affecting new words but then gets leveled out in others due to analogy or influence from a more prestigious variant... or whatever; sound changes tend to be quite messy while in progress, even if they often end up looking deceptively neat and clear-cut hundreds of years afterwards).

[Salmoneus]

I think you're backwards there. The more conservative pronunciation is /rI@l/, which has since become /ri:l/ for most speakers (which is indeed often realised as [rI@] or [ri@l] or something like that). You can see the older form when you look at derivatives, like 'realise' and 'reality', which would in theory be distinguished from other /i:l/-derived words, if they existed (for instance, a 'reel' is a type of dance, so turning something into a reel would be 'to reelise', phonemically distinct from 'to realise'). But in the adjectival form there's been a merger, probably because the non-diphthongised version has become allophonically diphthongised itself.

[Xonen]

I think you're backwards there. The more conservative pronunciation is /rI@l/, which has since become /ri:l/ for most speakers (which is indeed often realised as [rI@] or [ri@l] or something like that). You can see the older form when you look at derivatives, like 'realise' and 'reality'

You're probably right; I failed to consider those. But wouldn't the original pronunciation most likely actually be disyllabic /ri:.əl/, then?

Edit: FWIW, Wiktionary gives the pronunciations /ˈɹiːəl/, /ɹiːl/.

[Squall]

I did not read the thread and just found it now.

A reform would break the identity of English language, which is known by foreigners (me) to have difficult vowels and orthography.

Unexpected sounds: food/book, pie/piece, meat/head
Different meanings: piece/peace, sight/site, buy/by/bye, see/sea, night/knight

Just for fun, I had written some proposals in my computer.


Digraphs: sh, zh, ch, th, dh

First option for vowels:
ä - cat
är - far
e - red
i - ship
ï - sheep

a - cut (stressed)
a - 'a' in about (unstressed)
ar - bird (stressed)
ar - 'ar' in near (unstressed)
o - ball
u - book
ü - food

ai/ay - nice
ei/ey - lake
ou/ow - hope
oi/oy - boy
au/aw - cloud
iu/yu - cute

Second option for vowels:
a - cat (stressed)
ar - far
a - 'a' in about (unstressed)
er - 'ar' in near (unstressed)
e - red
i - ship
ee/ea - sheep

u - cut
ur/ir - bird
au/aw - law
oo - book
ue - blue

ui/uy - buy
ai/ay - lake
o/oa/oe - hope
oi/oy - void
ou/ow - cow
eu/ew - new

[TBPO]

Du iu laik mai iqlish ortograthi riform? (ies, ai nou dhat it luks nubish, buht it is thiqkyd ouvyr uel)

[Flavia]

Du iu laik mai iqlish ortograthi riform? (ies, ai nou dhat it luks nubish, buht it is thiqkyd ouvyr uel)

Minor nitpicks: Why is /f/ spelled <th> in <ortograthi>? Also, the two <o>s in the word orthography are different vowels, NORTH and LOT. Thinked is an unusual form, maybe you meant to use thought?

How do you spell the following words?
kit
foot
fleece
goose
trap
lot
cloth
palm
thought

[Arayaz]

Ai þıŋk pərsənəli ðæt ə riform ız ə bæd aidiə.

[Flavia]

Ai þıŋk pərsənəli ðæt ə riform ız ə bæd aidiə.

Ai agrí ðät it iznt a gúd aidia in präktis, bùt it kän bi fùn äs an eksasaiz.

[Arayaz]

Ai þıŋk pərsənəli ðæt ə riform ız ə bæd aidiə.

Ai agrí ðät it iznt a gúd aidia in präktis, bùt it kän bi fùn äs an eksasaiz.

Čru, čru. Laik åksleŋz, ın ə wei.

[Nortaneous]

Why haren wez tryingō to maxken Xenglishos morê phoxnexticos? Withros thed poᵗweir xofo dlinguixsticos wez canxʷ xadd morê sijlentt dlephtters hinsteaxds. ʷIdeʰalslych xofo coursse wez'ʷˡdₘ wrijten desxʷregtlych hin PIH hbⁱut this mustt beh hinteroduwced hin estaxges.

[Arayaz]

Why haren wez tryingō to maxken Xenglishos morê phoxnexticos? Withros thed poᵗweir xofo dlinguixsticos wez canxʷ xadd morê sijlentt dlephtters hinsteaxds. ʷIdeʰalslych xofo coursse wez'ʷˡdₘ wrijten desxʷregtlych hin PIH hbⁱut this mustt beh hinteroduwced hin estaxges.

Nd f crs w hv xprnc wth thr wrtng sstms, s w cld ls s n bjd. Mch mr dns nd ffcnt!

[Visions1]

Ρετζ̌εκτ Λατιν σκριπτ, ρετυρν του Γρηκ.

Ρεμεμβερ, κιτζ, ιου καν'τ σπελλ 'Ελληνικά ουιθαοτ 'Ελλ.

[lurker]

𐑢𐑳𐑑 𐑩𐑚𐑬𐑑 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯?

𐐄𐑉 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻?

ᚪᛁ᛬ᚪᛚᛋᚩ᛬ᚦᛁᛝᛣ᛬ᚱᚢᚾᛋ᛬ᚹᛖᚱᛣ