The CBB

Ricky wrote:Its u lidul hard wen Ighm geding fludid with so menee, but yoo gighz keep saying thu saym thingz ovur and ovur ugen, so Igh prabublee alredee hav.

Really? Because no you haven't.

Wel then sumurighz them heer beekuz thu last fyoo payjiz wur just u bunch uv peepul righding in u bunch uv weerd sorts uv sistumz.

And DONT mayk u jok ubowt mighn beekuz it iz SO much mor lajikul than righding enee uv thu weerd wayz yoo gighz sujestid.

Ricky wrote:Wel then sumurighz them heer beekuz thu last fyoo payjiz wur just u bunch uv peepul righding in u bunch uv weerd sorts uv sistumz.

Irony, it kills me.

Igh just told yoo....

Eh, this has become boring. Thanks for playing the troll game, though.

Anistlee, if yoo thingk this mayks les sens then righding in Chighneez lighk sum peepul wur dooing, then yoo shud get yur hed checkt.

Aszev, ban this fool.

Wut iz going an? Ar yoo gighz kiding mee? :-|

A spelling reform should keep as much as possible of the regularity that exists in the current orthography. Borrowings and newly-coined words should be adapted to well-establishes patterns.

There is no reason for giving the letters IPA values or similar re-designs. When I read some of the senseless suggestions here, I wonder if it's not time to start a "trash forum".

^

Anestlee, that mayks a lidul sens too mee, and iz ritun in a mor sivulighzd way than most uv thee uthur ruplighz in this thred.

I'm bored of this now. Back to speaking Ogadit and watching ponies.

I'm gonna ignore this thread from now on. It seems to have blown up into much a bigger issue than I intended it to be. I was ready, even eager, for some discussion, but it got pretty heated, even from me, and for that I apologize. Personally, I still like my reform, but I guess if it's gonna cause a ruckus like this, I'll keep it to myself.

I'm still confused as to why I'm getting called a troll, though. :-s

I find slight issues with your system, as for me it is not phonetic; I don't find myself saying "righding" for "writing" or "anestlee" for "honestly", or even "u" (whatever that's supposed to say) for "a".

Also, it doesn't look too great; written English has a consistent, coherent form and style that makes a text look conducted and authoritative, if one so chooses, whereas yours I feel lacks impact and demeanour.

Finally, if you want to create a successful reform of the English spelling system, it should at least mirror forms and standards applied by other languages which use the Latin script as their "native" script; such as perhaps spelling your "ee" as <i> or <ie>, your "igh" as <ai> or even <ei>, and so forth.

As it stands, no-one seems to be taking your reform seriously, and you seem to even be slightly annoying everyone. Perhaps you should also refrain from using your reform-orthography in the context of you describing and discussing it, that way everyone can understand eachother and hopefully communicate in a productive and co-operative manner, for the benefit of everyone in such discussion.

Ricky wrote:Anistlee, if yoo thingk this mayks les sens then righding in Chighneez lighk sum peepul wur dooing, then yoo shud get yur hed checkt.

katakana =/= Chinese :(

Yačay256 wrote:@Ossicone: I like your reform and I think it could fit well with my "Arabic English" proposal, due to it having 3 vowels.

Inyauk English Spelling Reform

< á > - / ɑ /
< a > - / æ a ɔ ə /
< í > - / i /
< i > - / ɪ eɪ ɛ ə /
< ú > - / u /
< u > - / ʊ oʊ ə /
< ai > - / ai /
< au > - / au /

< p > - / p /
< b > - / b /
< t > - / t /
< d > - / d /
< k > - / k /
< g > - / g /

< m > - / m /
< n > - / n /
< ng > - / ŋ /

< f > - / f v /
< z > - / θ ð /
< s > - / s z /
< x > - / ʃ (ʒ) /
< h > - / h /
< tx > - / ʧ ʤ /

< r > - / ɹ /
< l > - / l /
< y > - / j /
< w > - / w (ʍ) /

Alternatively you can could use < Ch > for voiced fricatives. But I prefer the true Inyauk style. This works great for a lot of dialects because of the vowel ambiguity. ;)

It is rilí ísí tu rait yúsing ínyauk spilíng. Ai zínk it is mai fifurit ríform yit. Ispixilí bícus sum wirds laik 'txakalit' luk asum.

This reform is actually has a lot of potential, and it actually looks how people who haven't been indoctrinated into the current system would spell things.

Aim glad yú agrí. Nau yú al níd tu lirn ínyauk and ai kan tik uver ze wirld.

Zím áyarikana ínyaukahi síniha. Nír síntunat ir ínglixir.

Thnalk wrote:This reform is actually has a lot of potential, and it actually looks how people who haven't been indoctrinated into the current system would spell things.

How people would spell if the hadn't been "indoctrinated into the current system" depends on which other system they would have been indoctrinated into. People who haven't been indoctrinated into a writing system would presumably not write at all.

Personally, I don't think we should change those features of the English spelling that are already regular, like using <ee> for /i/, etc.

Yačay256 wrote:

xingoxa wrote:(1) Dialects could be a obstacle for spelling reforms, since English dialects may differ phonemically, not only phonetically.

(2) I wonder if this would be more of a problem for English, than for other languages whose spellings are regularly reformed.

The first problem could be minimalized if we went with a koiné dialect based on a compromise between Nigerian Standard English, General American, Received Pronunciation and Indian Standard English; I say these 4 standards as the USA, the UK, India and Nigeria each have the 4 largest English speaking populations and act as a standard in the Americas, Europe, South Asia and West Africa, respectively.

You have a very good point on the second, xingoxa.

1. One can use something like "diaphonemes".

2. Germans did cosmetic changes in their orthography and now cry of them. Reforming it, one should as much as it is needed, instead of making minor changes every decade and constantly reprinting every important document.

How people would spell if the hadn't been "indoctrinated into the current system" depends on which other system they would have been indoctrinated into. People who haven't been indoctrinated into a writing system would presumably not write at all.

It would be better to be indoctrinated into IPA. Or X-SAMPA. Or any language with more usual way of writing vowels.