English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen » Wed 18 Jul 2018, 18:09

Axiem wrote:
Tue 17 Jul 2018, 16:43
single, it's /ɛ/ when stressed and /ɪ/ or /ə/ (depending on dialect) when unstressed
So, is stress marked? Or am I supposed to be familiar with the word already to know where the stress goes?
Well, it's not my reform, so *shrug*... But stress in English is often at least sort of predictable based on the shape of the word, so having vowel letters be pronounced differently based on it isn't a completely unreasonable idea.

Also, I thought the point of the exercise was to remove the "depending on dialect" bit.
Eh, I suppose one could decree one of those pronunciations to be nonstandard; this just happens to be a case where it doesn't really matter.

Axiem wrote:
Wed 18 Jul 2018, 04:11
Zé do Rock wrote:
Tue 17 Jul 2018, 23:08
i dont see that we'r reech an agreement on this. Lets agree that we dont agree.
Then don't randomly quote me to drag me into a conversation to faun over your spelling/grammar reform.
Nobody's "dragged you to fawn over" anything, as far as I can tell; someone disagreed with an opinion you'd expressed here and tried to engage in a discussion about it. I'm not saying it was necessarily a very good attempt at discussing the subject - especially since the original discussion had already died down several months earlier - but if you weren't interested in continuing to talk about it, then the simplest thing to do would be to not respond at all. Or post a one-liner to the effect of "the original discussion has died down months ago, not interested in necroing it". Or something. Save both yourself and others here some trouble by not choosing to fire off an unnecessarily hostile response and then complaining about how you were "dragged" to the thread to write it.
User avatar
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Axiem » Thu 19 Jul 2018, 21:34

Xonen wrote:
Wed 18 Jul 2018, 18:09
Or something.
Fair, I could have just ignored it. But I also find the technique of "quote someone who clearly disagrees with me to argue with them and then say 'Let's just agree to disagree' when they continue to articulate their position" to also be annoying. If you want to engage someone based on something they posted, cool, but then don't suddenly be like "oh, this discussion has no point" when you started it. 🤷🏼‍♀️
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Fri 20 Jul 2018, 02:49

Axiem wrote:
Thu 19 Jul 2018, 21:34
Xonen wrote:
Wed 18 Jul 2018, 18:09
Or something.
Fair, I could have just ignored it. But I also find the technique of "quote someone who clearly disagrees with me to argue with them and then say 'Let's just agree to disagree' when they continue to articulate their position" to also be annoying. If you want to engage someone based on something they posted, cool, but then don't suddenly be like "oh, this discussion has no point" when you started it. 🤷🏼‍♀️
RE

Mencionar augen i discutir cum eli é u sentidu deci fórum, eu ja mencionei várius nu fórum, as vezis concordandu i as veis discordandu, i issu é u ki todu mundu fais akí nu fórum. Oft können fruchtbare diskussionen darüber entsteen. Mai si kelcun di ke mon sistem consider pa lee dialect, je di, non, il consider pa lee dialect, il est basee sur lee deu standar. Tu dices que no ay standars. Eu splicu purkê eu axu ki tem standard i você continua dizendu ki num tem. Du sagst unser sisteem is nich perfekt, daher bleibst du liber beim TS. Je di ke notre sistem est pas parfai, mai bocou mieu ke TS. Y tu continuas deciendo, "tu sistema no es perfecto, por eso no lo quiero". Intaum ta, eu só possu concordar, você num ker i prontu. Nosso sistema num é perfeitu, i nem pod ser, cum essa língua, i si issu é uma razaum pra você num kerer eli, intaum ta. Was kann ich sonst noch sagen? Ou can jexplic con devrai apelee la capital russki de Maskva, com lee rusis dis, tu di ke jéssey de brasilianisee lee sistem dés ôtre lang. Yo no veo la lojica. Ay discusiones que pueden ir por anhos y ser frutíferas, otras no lo son. É comu si a jent tiveci acelerandu, fazendu muintu barulhu, mais a marxa ta nu pontu mortu. Ich hab es so geseen und offensichtlich Xonen auch.

HS

Quoting sum-one and discussing with him is the sense of this forum, i quoted varius peeple in this forum, sumtimes agreeing, sumtimes not agreeing, and thats wat evrybody dus in this forum. Offen fertile discussions can emerge from it. But if sum-one ses that our sistem dusnt considder the dialects, i say, no, it dusnt, it is based on stardards. Yu say thare ar no standards. I explane wy i think thare ar standards, yu keep saying thare ar no standards. Yu say our sistem isnt perfect, wich is wy yu prefer TS. I say our sistem isnt perfect, but much better than TS. Yu keep saying, "your sistem isnt perfect, wich is wy i prefer TS. So be it, i can only agree, yu dont want it and thats it. Our sistem isnt perfect, it cant be with this language, and if thats a reeson for yu not to want it, thats it. Wat else can i say? Or i explane that we should call the russki cappital Maskva, as the russis say it, and yu say i'm trying to brazilianize the sistems of uther languages. I dont see the logic. Thare ar discussions that can go for yeers and be fertile, uthers arnt. It is as if we wer accellerating, making a lot of noise, but the geer is in neutral, the car dusnt move. I saw it that way and seemingly Xonen too.
User avatar
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Axiem » Fri 20 Jul 2018, 04:03

I don't see that as an accurate description of the conversation. As well, not everyone on this forum is male; please don't assume that I am or that anyone else is.

That all said, I've no real interest in discussing the topic further. Have fun! 💁🏼‍♀️
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Fri 20 Jul 2018, 09:16

Axiem wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 04:03
I don't see that as an accurate description of the conversation. As well, not everyone on this forum is male; please don't assume that I am or that anyone else is.

That all said, I've no real interest in discussing the topic further. Have fun! 💁🏼‍♀️
EU

El unico caso vo mi vid a "manalisacion" is la vord 'him' dopo 'sum-one'. Si inglishe havau a neutro pronome mi tacau dat, ma lu ha no, e so normalik oni take he/him ma vole no sei muslik a man, dat is in ta fal a pronome ki vale pro la do gener. Mi canau take 'li' de main europan, dat is a neutrale pronom, ma den yu vou cuestiona mi wai mi trai brazilianize la lingua sted spik abaut la tema de ta trad, la reform af inglish ortografie...

HS

The only case ware i see a masculinization is the word 'him' after 'sum-one'. If inglishe had a neutral pronoun, i'd hav taken that, but it dusnt, and so normaly one takes 'he/him', wich in this case isnt necessarily a man, it is a pronoun that in such cases has to work for both genders. I could take 'li' from my europan, thats a neutral pronoun, but then u'd ask me wy i'm trying to brazilianize the language insted of talking about the subject of this thred, the reform of inglish orthografy...
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen » Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:03

Zé do Rock wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 02:49
Or i explane that we should call the russki cappital Maskva
That is a quite frankly terrible idea for so many reasons. [:S] First of all, all languages have their own names for other countries and their major cities; it's just a part of the language, like naming any other important concept. Essentially, you're trying to erode some unique features of the English lexicon, which 1) has nothing to do with spelling, as such, 2) is kind of vaguely offensive both towards English-speakers and the speakers of other languages who don't want this kind of "help", and 3) makes it difficult to understand what you're saying.

Also, "russki" in English is a cold-war-era ethnic slur - even if something is a direct borrowing from another language, it doesn't mean it has the same connotations! So that's another reason to stick to actual English.

I saw it that way and seemingly Xonen too.
Hmm, my understanding was that Axiem's tone didn't suggest much genuine willingness to actually discuss the subject and that you, upon realizing that, decided to call it quits. Now I'm no longer so sure. In any case, though, I do suggest the two of you just drop it.

Zé do Rock wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 09:16
If inglishe had a neutral pronoun, i'd hav taken that, but it dusnt
It does: the pronoun they is perfectly acceptable to use in reference to a single person, especially after an indefinite pronoun like "someone". And the usage in other contexts is spreading as well, as people are becoming more aware of the need for a gender-neutral pronoun.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus » Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:36

Zé do Rock wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 09:16
The only case ware i see a masculinization is the word 'him' after 'sum-one'. If inglishe had a neutral pronoun, i'd hav taken that, but it dusnt, and so normaly one takes 'he/him'
No, one does not. If one does, one is likely to be accused of being greatly offensive. I assume this was unintentional.


Then again, given how arrogant you'd have to be to make your whole thing on this board be insisting that our* language isn't good enough for you and we ought to improve it for you, and then forcing us to wear out our eyes trying to pick out meaning from that unintelligible and hideous 'reform' if we want to discuss it with you - let alone the arrogance of renaming every place and people in the world with no concern either for the real words in English or for the wishes of the people who live there, even when doing so is obviously offensive (I'm sorry, "slavski cuntries"!? Just a warning there, that's a level of sounding-horrifically-racist that'll get you banned from a lot of places) - and let alone the arrogance of assuming that everyone here is male, when you're talking to a woman, and then responding to her politely telling you not to do that by you lecturing her about what words mean in her language, which you're not fluent in...

... there's a level of 'unintentional' obliviousness that becomes offensiveness through negligence.



*'we' there being 'English speakers on the board', not 'board members' - obviously there are many posters here who have other languages too.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Sat 21 Jul 2018, 18:43

Xonen wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:03

That is a quite frankly terrible idea for so many reasons. [:S] First of all, all languages have their own names for other countries and their major cities; it's just a part of the language, like naming any other important concept. Essentially, you're trying to erode some unique features of the English lexicon, which 1) has nothing to do with spelling, as such, 2) is kind of vaguely offensive both towards English-speakers and the speakers of other languages who don't want this kind of "help", and 3) makes it difficult to understand what you're saying.
RE

Geografic names - eu num sei comu é nus States nu momentu, mais eu ja vi im muintu aeroportu mundu afora us nomi jeograficu scritu na lingua ki si fala na sidad pra ond u aviaum vai, i muintu mapa ki screv u nomi du país (o da sidad) na língua du paiz. Oft kommt es mit einer übersetzung unten, vor allem wenn der name so verschiden is, das man es nich versteen könnte, aber nich immer. Tu consider sa ofensif? Quizás si, pero yo no, y no conozco a nadie que se a pronunciado contra ese fenómeno.

Nu alemaum antigament si screvia Neu York i Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika ou VSA, agora si screv New York i USA. Jemand hat damit begonnen, und immer mer leute folgten, bis es zur norm geworden is. War das beleidigend für die deutshen? Peutetre pour kelkes un, y a toujour dee jen ki em pa le chanj, mai la majoritee a pa dee problem avec sa, si non el le farai pa. O Canada, Cuba y Nicaragua: primeru si screvia Canada, Cuba y Nicaragua, mais xegandu nu fim du seclu 19, tev jent ki comessou a screver Kanada i Kuba, im part tamen Nikaragua. Aber jetz schreiben immer mer wider Cuba, und immer Nicaragua, nur Kanada bleibt Kanada. Ofensif pour lés alman éman du C, ofensif pour lés alman éman du K? Estamos siendo siempre ofensivos a una parte de la populación, independentemente de como escrevimos? Bom, si todu mundu kizer si sentir ofendidu, pur mim ki seja, mais eu num axu issu uma pozissaum saudaviu. Ich würd sagen, um ideologische krige zu vermeiden, sollte ma jedem überlassen, wie er schreiben will. Ich schreibe Canada, Cuba und Nicaragua, aber wenn jemand Kanada, Kuba und Nikaragua oder wie's momentan meistens gehandhabt wird, Kanada, Kuba/Cuba und Nicaragua - dann soll es das tun. Jem pa can lee jen on tous dee vetmen noir ou gri en iver, sa me deranj, mais encor je croi ke cest le droi de chacun de sabiyer com il veu. Como también no me gustan las burcas, pero creo que todos debrían tener el derecho de vestirla.

A propózitu, tem muinta sidad aleman (i eu suponhu ki du mundu todu) ki nem um nomi ingleis, comu Dantwich pra Danzig, Dinkelspithel pra Dinkelsbühl, Hamburgh pra Hamburg, Lipswick pra Leipzig, Mayence pra Mainz. Ich kannte dise inglishe versionen nich, kaum ein deutsher kennt sie und die meisten inglishesprecher vermutlich auch nich. Eske je devrai encor voir la list de nons inglish avan décrir un seul non jeografic? Tu le conai tous, ou tu chec toujour see list?

HS

I dont no how it is in the States (or UK, or watevver) at the moment, but i'v seen in quite a few areports sumware in the world the geografic names ritten in the language of the citty ware the plane is hedding to, and thare ar mor and mor maps riting the names of cuntrys and cittys in the language of the named cuntry. Offen thare is a translation in smaller letters under it, especialy for cuntrys that hav a very difrent name, but sumtimes thare isnt. Do u considder that ofensiv? Maybe u do, i dont no, but i dont, and i dont no enny peeple who do, except peeple that want to keep the language "pure", watevver that meens.

In the old times in german they speld Neu York and rote Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika or VSA, nowadays they rite New York and USA. Sumbody (like me) started with it, mor and mor peeple folloed until it became the standard. Was it ofensiv for the germans? Maybe for a few of them, thare ar evryware peeple who dont like enny changes, but the majority didnt hav problems with it, utherwize they wouldnt do it. Or Canada, Cuba and Nicaragua: first they speld Canada, Cuba and Nicaragua, but by the end of the 19th century sum peeple started spelling Kanada and Kuba, and offen eeven Nikaragua. Now they'r spelling agen mor and mor Cuba, and always Nicaragua, only Kanada remanes Kanada. Ofensiv for the peeple who like C, ofensiv for the peeple who like K? Ar we always ofensiv for one or the uther part of the population, independently of the way we spel geografic names? Wel, if evrybody wants to be ofended, so be it, but in my opinnion this isnt a helthy position. I'd say, to avoid ideological wars, we should let evrybody spel as they want, eeven if we dont like the resulting forms. I spel Canada, Cuba and Nicaragua, no matter in wich language, but if sum-one wants to spel Kanada, Kuba and Nikaragua, or as it is the standard at the moment, Kanada, Cuba/Kuba and Nikaragua, they should do it. I dont like the fact that so menny peeple hav blak or dark clothes in the winter, it disturbs me, stil i think evryone should hav the rite to ware watevver they like. As i dont like burkas, and stil i think that peeple should hav the rite to ware them, if they like.

By the way, thare ar menny german cittys (and from menny uther cuntrys, i guess) that hav a specific inglishe name, as Dantwich for Danzig, Dinkelspithel for Dinkelsbühl, Hamburgh for Hamburg, Lipswick for Leipzig, Mayence for Mainz. I didnt no thees inglishe versions, i dout germans no them and i guess eeven most inglishe nativ speekers dont. Should i chek the name list for all cuntrys and reegions and cittys, befor i rite enny of them down? Do u do that, or do u no all the inglishe names?
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 09:49

Xonen wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:03

Also, "russki" in English is a cold-war-era ethnic slur - even if something is a direct borrowing from another language, it doesn't mean it has the same connotations! So that's another reason to stick to actual English.
The 60s and 70s wer a time of lifting bans: wimmen wer alowd to hav a drivers licence or getting a job without the autorization of thare husbands, in the USA blaks wer alowd to sit beside wites in the bus and do evrything wites wer alowd to do, homosexuals wer alowd to liv thare lives the way they liked, cupples didnt hav to marry to hav sex, etc. I thaut it was the beginning of a glorius era of freedom. But it was the peek. Since the 80s new bans started popping up, this time not so much on sexual issues, but on quite a few uther things. Now smokers hav to hide in sum cuntrys, to "protect" non smokers and eeven uther smokers (in Bayern, Bavaria, they'r not alowd to meet in a smokers club and smoke), thare ar mor and mor bans on alcohol - i lost my drivers licence and the rite to ride a bicicle, maybe forevver, becaus i was caut drunk on my bike - and so the population is "protected" agenst me, since in Deutshland 1.36 person di evry yeer becaus of a drunk cyclist (deths by sober car drivers in a yeer: 3,000). In the USA thare ar bans on deodorant and parfume, "to protect" all the peeple who dont like deodorant or parfume. In menny cittys of the world it is forbidden to eet in the public transport, to "protect" peeple agenst food smel. In sum cuntrys the burca has been forbidden, so thare is a minnimum And a maximum of cloths u'r alowd to ware - to "protect" peeple who feel disturbd by the site of them. In France and sum uther cuntrys prostitution has been band, now they'r taking nudes from museums to "protect" wimmen from being seen as an object. In sum cuntrys and reegions u hav to sine a declaration to sho that both sexual partners want to change thare position in bed, to "protect" wimmen from havving unwanted sex practices. Eeven if hundreds of prom wimmen sined a declaration agenst all this, becaus it destroys evry naturality in human relationships.

And the bans aply for the language too. In german the word "maler" ("painter/s") meens both sexes, but thare is a suffix for the feemale form, -in, like -ess (stewardess) in inglish, and u can ad it to enny word that can hav a femminin form (maybe u no all that, but maybe sum uther reeders dont). My partneress is the directoress of one of the biggest museums in Deutshland, and she gets a crisis evrytime she gets a letter protesting that in the explanations about the artists and artistesses it is ritten "the painters of the 18th century" - it should be "the painters and painteresses of the 18th century". And thare ar bans on words like 'neger', becaus it should be "blak", but then thare ar peeple who try to prohibbit peeple of saying 'blak' too, becaus this cullor has a neggativ conotation - the cullor of morning, in deutsh it also meens "ileegal", in Brazil it also meens "quite bad" (the situation heer is quite blak). So peeple say "cullord", wich is tecnicly quite a rong expression, since wite is a mix of all cullors, but blak is the absence of cullor - if sum peeple ar cullord, its actualy the wites. And thare is a difrence between neegro and blak, for instance tuaregis or tamilis ar blak, but they'r not neegros, they'r just very suntand wites. In quite a few cuntrys u cant say "gipsis" ennymor, in Deutshland u hav to say "sinti und roma", altho the sinti dont like that expression becaus they say they dont want to be mentiond all the time together with the roma, one should say 'sinti' to them, without "and roma", and gipsy (zigeuner) is OK too, but plees not "sinti und roma". U'r not suposed to say eskimo ennymor, u should say inuit, but saying inuit and meening all eskimos is discriminating agenst all eskimos that arnt inuits - this is like calling all europis "sverigis" or "polskis", or, worse, "germans". And wen i ask peeple of gipsy ancestry wat ancestry they hav, usualy i get the anser "gipsy" (at leest in Deutshland, and in Brazil thare isnt eeven anuther expression for them). So we'r leeving the trueth behind us for the sake of "protecting" peeple, who offen dont want to be protected.

If political corectness had at leest a trace of consistency, it would ban a word like russian too, since it is offen used in a neggativ sense - few cuntrys in the world ar so offen critticized in inglishe language as Russia. And the word "german", since it is offen used in a neggativ sense too - they'r cold, they'r killers, they'r fat and ugly (as we see in american war movies). We shouldnt eeven use the deutshe word for them, since the word has offen a neggativ conotation too: thare was eeven a (deutshe) woman who aplied for divorce from her husband on the grounds that he was "too deutsh". The slavis should stop calling the deutshis "nemci" or alike, since it meens "the dum ones", and we should stop calling the slavis the slavis, since the word cums from the latin word for slaves, or bulgarians bulgarians, since the word meens "vulgar", and it wasnt certanly used all the time in a positiv sense. Brazilis ar intrinsicly corupt, they kil thare own children, so the word should be forbidden too. The portugalis ar the stupid peeple in enny braziliano joke, so ban it too, as we should ban the words "polskis, iris, belgis, austris", who ar victims of jokes in uther cuntrys. USis (or "americans") ar offen critticized for being ignorant, or arrogant towards the rest of the world, so agen, the word should be forbidden too. And i dont think in the end enny nationality wil be left, since at leest nabors offen talk in a neggativ way about thare nabors. So how should we call peeple from uther cuntrys? And eeven if we create new names for all of them, soon thare wil be sum-one using the word in a neggativ sense, so should we create new names for cuntrys and nationalitys evry week, becaus we found out that sum-one used it in a neggativ sense?

If u'r talking as a normal member givving su opinnion, i acnollege it, eeven if i dont agree. It would meen that i'd keep using the word, becaus for me it is hard to imagine that russkis ar ofended wen we call them by the name they call themselvs - if sum russis protested heer, i'd stop it and call them "peeple challenged by the cold", and ukrainis "peeple challenged by the peeple who ar challenged by the cold". If u'r talking as a modrator and u mite kik me off the forum for using expressions u dont agree with, plees rite a list of all forbidden words in this forum and i'l try to avoid them. I just dont like to speek and rite in feer, not noing wat to use and wat not, as if i was in Norde Korea. My parents wer pius baptists who forbid all sorts of "dirty" and "haf dirty" (i wasnt suposed to use eeven an expression like "go suk soks", becaus it was a ufemism for sumthing much "worse"), so i hate enny sort of language poleecing and i advocate tollerance (thare ar thousands of things that disturb me sumhow, but i'm agenst banning them), stil i'l comply with it, since i find this forum intresting and would like to stay.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 12:30

Salmoneus wrote:
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:36

No, one does not. If one does, one is likely to be accused of being greatly offensive. I assume this was unintentional.

Then again, given how arrogant you'd have to be to make your whole thing on this board be insisting that our* language isn't good enough for you
EU

La House Stile is no mai creacion, is la rezult af a plebisito na TESS, The English Spelling Society, vo mi supone ki plu ki 95% du membris is nativo spikis. So lis mei faz a campania tu beteriz el inglish ortografie, ma no nenativo spikis? Wai la membris dat is nativo spikis electou un autlandi pro su directorum - dat was a stupido desicion? E wat yu sei abaut naijiris o malaysis, lis mei critik el inglishe lingua, o solo la naciones vo inglish is el unico lingua?

Mi scrivou ale mai bukes in reformee deutsh (e "brazileis"), e somwen mi eliminou ale gramatica du deutshe lingua (nixe gener, cazos o conjugaciones), et i was nominee bai la deutshe prezidenti pro la Prix af Inovacion, et i winou diverso literatura prix. La deutshis is plu tolerante dan el anglis? Dat is difisile tu imagin, lorske mi scriv in otre inglishe spicale forumes - nelinguisticus - e nixi ha problema co main ortografie e main otre changus. Mi expectau protestus in a "forum pro la corect uzu af inglishe lingua", mas in a forum abaut conlanges dat sonen a bit strange tu mi.

HS

The House Stile isnt my creation, it is the result of a referendum in TESS, The English Spelling Society, ware i guess that mor than 95% of members ar inglishe nativ speekers from all over the world. So they ar alowd to make a campane for improving inglishe spelling, but not non nativ speekers? Wy the nativ speeking members chose a forener to be in thare comittee, was this a stupid thing to do? Wat about naijiris or malaysis, ar they alowd to criticize the inglishe language - or eeven to be activ for its reform - or only the cuntrys ware inglish is the only language?

I rote all my books in reformd deutsh (and "brazileis"), reforming spelling and sumtimes taking all grammar from the deutshe language (no gender, no cases, no conjugations), and i was nomminated by the deutshe president for the Prize of Inovation, and i wun sevral litrature prizes. Ar deutshis mor tollerant than anglis? Hard to imagin, since i rite in uther non linguistic forums (in inglishe language) and no one has problems with my spelling and my uther changes. I'd expect protest in a "forum for the usage of correct english", but in a forum about conlangs this dus sound strange to me.

and we ought to improve it for you,
EU

Hu sei yu mus beterize lu pro mi? Mi beterize lu (auminus in mai sens), e si algi vol uza la changus, li welcom, ma certli mi critica no pople coze lis uza tradicional ortografie et/o gramatik.

HS

Who is saying u hav to improve it for me? I'm improving it (at leest in my sense), and if sum peeple want to pik up sum of the changes and use them, they'r welcum to do it, but i certanly dont criticize peeple for using traditional spelling and/or grammar.

and then forcing us to wear out our eyes trying to pick out meaning from that unintelligible and hideous 'reform'
EU

Ta forum is pleni linguas vo mi supone yu can no comprend un unico vord, e yu sei main inglish ortografie is nelerable? Wen mi looke la laste sentens, wat is so necomprendable in main inglish: la vord unintelligible, la vord is, la vord spelling, la vord inglishe, la vord my, la vord say, la vord u, la vord and? Lis izi pro normalis, ma no pro linguistis o linguis as yu?

Yu vou mei sei, "auminu la conlangis uza no su conlanges tu comunica co nu", ma wat is la sens in creating a lingua dat is non uzee pro comunicacion?

Yu eva criticou esperanto or otre conlang hir coze lu renominou geografico nomes, o yu solo critica lu wen la lingua creati take la vord ki la nativis uza? Esperanto Hungario is OK, mas europano Magyarorszag no? Is OK creating a neu nom, ma non OK taking la nome du lingua du mencionee land?

Or al is acceptable in eni conlang, ma non in un ortografie reform? Bon, OK, in ta cazo mi can nomize la HS co mai personale modo de trating geografico nomes a conlang, unu dat is fortli bazat in inglish, con a legerli diferent ortografie et a legerli diferente vocabular e gramatica wen la tema is geografico nomes.

HS

This forum is full of languages from wich i supose u dont understand a single word, and u say my inglishe spelling is unintelligible? Wen i look at the last sentence, wat is so unintelligible in my inglish: the word unintelligible, the word is, the word spelling, the word inglishe, the word my, the word say, the word u, the word and? Ar they eesy for normal peeple, but not for a linguist or language nerd like u?

U mite say, "at leest the conlangers dont use thare conlangs to comunicate with us", but wats the point of creating a language that isnt used for comunication?

Hav u evver criticized esperanto or enny uther conlang heer for renaming geografical names, or u only criticize it wen the language creator piks up the word the nativs use? Is Hungario OK, but Magyarorszag a no-go? Is it OK to create a new name, but it's not OK to pik up the name in the language of the mentiond cuntry?

Or evrything is acceptable in enny conlang, but not a spelling reform? Wel, OK, in this case i can call the HS with my personal handling of geografic names a conlang, one that is strongly based on inglish, with a slitely difrent spelling and a slitely difrent vocabulary and grammar wen it cums to geografic names.

if we want to discuss it with you - let alone the arrogance of renaming every place and people in the world with no concern either for the real words in English or for the wishes of the people who live there, even when doing so is obviously offensive (I'm sorry, "slavski cuntries"!? Just a warning there, that's a level of sounding-horrifically-racist that'll get you banned from a lot of places) - and let alone the arrogance of assuming that everyone here is male, when you're talking to a woman, and then responding to her politely telling you not to do that by you lecturing her about what words mean in her language, which you're not fluent in...
EU

Nau ven, hu profess un otre membri hir? Si mi sei "sum-one", mi spik non abaut a certo membri, dat can no bi difisile tu comprend. Si algu disaparou de mai haus et i supon un unico personi robou lu, mi sa no si a fraz as "Sum-one came into my house, he must hav cum thru the chimny" vou bi fals et/o discriminale coze mi exclude femas as posible robis, meibi lu is e yu can clarifie mi abaut lu. In el otre linguas dat i spik lu vou no bi, lorske la pronome pro "sum-one" vou bi "he", oso wen yu exclude no femas - as nixi exclude femas in Brazil wen lis sei "Os brasileiros gostam de comer carne" (Brazilis laike manja meso), meme si la vord is na manale form. In inglishe mi vi frecuentli "they" vo la vord na pre was uzee na singular, ma mi sabou no ki lu can oso bin uzee pro "sum-one". Mas encora mi havau problemas co lu, lorske mi supone dat un unico personi venou in mai haus, e no plusis, so mi supone mi vad uza "li", de main europan.

No, mi sei no tu la pople ki lis mus change su ortografie o lingua tu bin adecuato pro mi, mi solo scriv in a conlang dat is bene similare tu inglish. E meibi algi can profita de lu.

HS

Cum on, who's lecturing enny member heer? If i say 'sum-one', i'm not talking about a particcular member, that cant be so hard to understand. If sumthing disapeerd from my house and i assume that a single person stole it, i dont no if a sentence like "Sum-one came into my house, he must hav cum thru the chimny" would be rong and/or discrimminating becaus i'm excluding wimmen as possible theevs, maybe it is and u can clarify me about that. In the uther languages i speek it wouldnt, since the pronoun for "sum-one" would be "he", also if u'r not excluding wimmen - as nobody is excluding wimmen in Brazil wen they say "Os brasileiros gostam de comer carne" (Brazilians like to eet meet), eeven if the word is in the masculin form. In inglish i see offen 'they' ware befor a word in the singular was used, but i didnt no it can be used eeven for "sum-one". But i stil would hav problems with it, since i'm assuming that a single person enterd my house and not sevral, so i guess i'l use 'li', from my europan.

No, i'm not telling peeple to change thare spelling or language to sute me, i'm just riting in a conlang that is quite simmilar to inglish. And maybe sum peeple can proffit from it.


... there's a level of 'unintentional' obliviousness that becomes offensiveness through negligence.
EU

Mi supone yu corect. Mi was nowen excludet af a grup, ma pre no longo tempo mi was excludet af a linguistico grup. Coze mi had uza la vord 'teroris' e 'Saudi Arabia' na same paragraf, e somis comprendou ki mi ha sei ki ale teroris veni de Saudi Arabia. Mi ha trai explica dat i volou no sei dat, ki dat vou bin a super absurdo ding tu sei, ma lis had ja exclude mi. Pro mi dat is linguistik incuizicion (naturali la consecuenses is no so wild), mas is la svet vo mi viv, so mi mus atent. Mantene mi informee, si lu no tu mult efortu pro yu. Meme si mi acorda no ki reforming (pro self, e pro lis ki laike lu) un otre lingua is arogans.

HS

I guess u'r rite. I'm in quite a few non linguistic groups, and i was nevver excluded from a group befor, but not a long time ago i was excluded from a linguistic group. Becaus i had mentiond the words "terrorists" and "Saudi Arabia" in the same paragraf, and it seems that sum peeple, including the modrator, understood that i was saying that all terrorists cum from Saudi Arabia. I tried to explane that i certanly didnt want to say that, that it is quite an absurd thing to say, but they had alredy excluded me. For me thats linguistic inquisition (of corse the consequences arnt that terrible as in the original inquisition), but it is the world ware i liv, so i should be careful. Keep me informd, if u can be botherd. Eeven if i dont agree that reforming (for oneself and for the ones who like the idea) anuther language meens arrogance. Utherwize u'd hav to say that u speek a language devellopd by the arrogant, since neerly evry word and evry gramatical form changed, wen comparing with the old aenglisc, and sum peeple must hav started with all those changes.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Lao Kou » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 13:30

Zé do Rock wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 09:49
Spoiler:
The 60s and 70s wer a time of lifting bans: wimmen wer alowd to hav a drivers licence or getting a job without the autorization of thare husbands, in the USA blaks wer alowd to sit beside wites in the bus and do evrything wites wer alowd to do, homosexuals wer alowd to liv thare lives the way they liked, cupples didnt hav to marry to hav sex, etc. I thaut it was the beginning of a glorius era of freedom. But it was the peek. Since the 80s new bans started popping up, this time not so much on sexual issues, but on quite a few uther things. Now smokers hav to hide in sum cuntrys, to "protect" non smokers and eeven uther smokers (in Bayern, Bavaria, they'r not alowd to meet in a smokers club and smoke), thare ar mor and mor bans on alcohol - i lost my drivers licence and the rite to ride a bicicle, maybe forevver, becaus i was caut drunk on my bike - and so the population is "protected" agenst me, since in Deutshland 1.36 person di evry yeer becaus of a drunk cyclist (deths by sober car drivers in a yeer: 3,000). In the USA thare ar bans on deodorant and parfume, "to protect" all the peeple who dont like deodorant or parfume. In menny cittys of the world it is forbidden to eet in the public transport, to "protect" peeple agenst food smel. In sum cuntrys the burca has been forbidden, so thare is a minnimum And a maximum of cloths u'r alowd to ware - to "protect" peeple who feel disturbd by the site of them. In France and sum uther cuntrys prostitution has been band, now they'r taking nudes from museums to "protect" wimmen from being seen as an object. In sum cuntrys and reegions u hav to sine a declaration to sho that both sexual partners want to change thare position in bed, to "protect" wimmen from havving unwanted sex practices. Eeven if hundreds of prom wimmen sined a declaration agenst all this, becaus it destroys evry naturality in human relationships.

And the bans aply for the language too. In german the word "maler" ("painter/s") meens both sexes, but thare is a suffix for the feemale form, -in, like -ess (stewardess) in inglish, and u can ad it to enny word that can hav a femminin form (maybe u no all that, but maybe sum uther reeders dont). My partneress is the directoress of one of the biggest museums in Deutshland, and she gets a crisis evrytime she gets a letter protesting that in the explanations about the artists and artistesses it is ritten "the painters of the 18th century" - it should be "the painters and painteresses of the 18th century". And thare ar bans on words like 'neger', becaus it should be "blak", but then thare ar peeple who try to prohibbit peeple of saying 'blak' too, becaus this cullor has a neggativ conotation - the cullor of morning, in deutsh it also meens "ileegal", in Brazil it also meens "quite bad" (the situation heer is quite blak). So peeple say "cullord", wich is tecnicly quite a rong expression, since wite is a mix of all cullors, but blak is the absence of cullor - if sum peeple ar cullord, its actualy the wites. And thare is a difrence between neegro and blak, for instance tuaregis or tamilis ar blak, but they'r not neegros, they'r just very suntand wites. In quite a few cuntrys u cant say "gipsis" ennymor, in Deutshland u hav to say "sinti und roma", altho the sinti dont like that expression becaus they say they dont want to be mentiond all the time together with the roma, one should say 'sinti' to them, without "and roma", and gipsy (zigeuner) is OK too, but plees not "sinti und roma". U'r not suposed to say eskimo ennymor, u should say inuit, but saying inuit and meening all eskimos is discriminating agenst all eskimos that arnt inuits - this is like calling all europis "sverigis" or "polskis", or, worse, "germans". And wen i ask peeple of gipsy ancestry wat ancestry they hav, usualy i get the anser "gipsy" (at leest in Deutshland, and in Brazil thare isnt eeven anuther expression for them). So we'r leeving the trueth behind us for the sake of "protecting" peeple, who offen dont want to be protected.

If political corectness had at leest a trace of consistency, it would ban a word like russian too, since it is offen used in a neggativ sense - few cuntrys in the world ar so offen critticized in inglishe language as Russia. And the word "german", since it is offen used in a neggativ sense too - they'r cold, they'r killers, they'r fat and ugly (as we see in american war movies). We shouldnt eeven use the deutshe word for them, since the word has offen a neggativ conotation too: thare was eeven a (deutshe) woman who aplied for divorce from her husband on the grounds that he was "too deutsh". The slavis should stop calling the deutshis "nemci" or alike, since it meens "the dum ones", and we should stop calling the slavis the slavis, since the word cums from the latin word for slaves, or bulgarians bulgarians, since the word meens "vulgar", and it wasnt certanly used all the time in a positiv sense. Brazilis ar intrinsicly corupt, they kil thare own children, so the word should be forbidden too. The portugalis ar the stupid peeple in enny braziliano joke, so ban it too, as we should ban the words "polskis, iris, belgis, austris", who ar victims of jokes in uther cuntrys. USis (or "americans") ar offen critticized for being ignorant, or arrogant towards the rest of the world, so agen, the word should be forbidden too. And i dont think in the end enny nationality wil be left, since at leest nabors offen talk in a neggativ way about thare nabors. So how should we call peeple from uther cuntrys? And eeven if we create new names for all of them, soon thare wil be sum-one using the word in a neggativ sense, so should we create new names for cuntrys and nationalitys evry week, becaus we found out that sum-one used it in a neggativ sense?

If u'r talking as a normal member givving su opinnion, i acnollege it, eeven if i dont agree. It would meen that i'd keep using the word, becaus for me it is hard to imagine that russkis ar ofended wen we call them by the name they call themselvs - if sum russis protested heer, i'd stop it and call them "peeple challenged by the cold", and ukrainis "peeple challenged by the peeple who ar challenged by the cold". If u'r talking as a modrator and u mite kik me off the forum for using expressions u dont agree with, plees rite a list of all forbidden words in this forum and i'l try to avoid them. I just dont like to speek and rite in feer, not noing wat to use and wat not, as if i was in Norde Korea. My parents wer pius baptists who forbid all sorts of "dirty" and "haf dirty" (i wasnt suposed to use eeven an expression like "go suk soks", becaus it was a ufemism for sumthing much "worse"), so i hate enny sort of language poleecing and i advocate tollerance (thare ar thousands of things that disturb me sumhow, but i'm agenst banning them), stil i'l comply with it, since i find this forum intresting and would like to stay.
Forgive me, but I don't see what any of this has to do with reforming English spelling, let alone contending with Esperanto's apparent flaws. I guess the moderators have a higher threshold of pain than I, probably rightly so (so, shut up, Lao Kou, and don't read the thread), but might we split the thread? This does not strike me as a robust debate.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Sun 22 Jul 2018, 23:24

Lao Kou wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 13:30
Forgive me, but I don't see what any of this has to do with reforming English spelling, let alone contending with Esperanto's apparent flaws. I guess the moderators have a higher threshold of pain than I, probably rightly so (so, shut up, Lao Kou, and don't read the thread), but might we split the thread? This does not strike me as a robust debate.
RE

Intaum, tu é a favor o contra reformar a ortografia inglish, i si a favor, ki tipu di reforma tu aprovaria?

RITE

So ar u for or agenst reforming inglishe spelling, and if in favor, wat tipe of reform would u aprove of?
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Dormouse559 » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 00:01

Zé, while nothing in our rules explicitly requires you to give traditionally spelled English versions of things you write in other languages/orthographies, it is a widely followed custom on this board. This makes communication easier for people who don't speak a given language or would rather not deal with new spellings. The main exceptions to this custom are threads/forums dedicated to the use of specific languages or writing systems. This is not one of those threads, so please include a traditionally spelled English version of what you write here and in other similar threads. If you want to write without translation in your English-based conlang — or any of your others — feel free to create a thread for it in the Conlangs forum.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5655
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Lao Kou » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 00:53

Zé do Rock wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 23:24
RITE
So ar u for or agenst reforming inglishe spelling, and if in favor, wat tipe of reform would u aprove of?
"Are you for or agin us?" puts it in such dire terms. I'm not diametrically opposed to reform an sich (though the term "updating" sounds a little less authoritarian than "reform"). But to rehash the same ol' issues: there are at least five countries/communities who claim English as their L1 -- whose standard will you, O Grand One (or O Grand TESS), choose as the standard for placing those vowels, or make a mishmash of standards, making everyone cranky? The Webster standards (?) for American spelling, I guess when English spelling was still in flux, sets us apart from the rest of the Commonwealth in terms of spelling (colour/color; centre/center) -- fortunately, these aren't/weren't cataclysmic changes in the end, thanks to Empire -- but it's an unnecessary dual standard.)

Rechtschreibreform: you lose a correctly-spelling generation when you do that, with even minor tweaking. The changes you propose are rather drastic, by comparison.

<aprove> but not <apruve>, really? If you want to opine on English spelling foibles, it would be more convincing if you pronounced it correctly.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 22:20

Dormouse559 wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 00:01
Zé, while nothing in our rules explicitly requires you to give traditionally spelled English versions of things you write in other languages/orthographies, it is a widely followed custom on this board. This makes communication easier for people who don't speak a given language or would rather not deal with new spellings. The main exceptions to this custom are threads/forums dedicated to the use of specific languages or writing systems. This is not one of those threads, so please include a traditionally spelled English version of what you write here and in other similar threads. If you want to write without translation in your English-based conlang — or any of your others — feel free to create a thread for it in the Conlangs forum.
Actually (actuellic), if (gif) u (thou) considder (consideras) misspellings (misspelingan) as (eallswa) dangerus (dangereux) for inglish (aenglisc) lerners (leorniare)(?), i (ic) shouldnt (sceolde nought) translate (translater) the text (textus) into modern (moderne) inglish (aenglisc), i (ic) should (sceolde) translate (translater) it (hit) into aenglisc, besides latin and grek (graikos) elements (elementa) should (sceolde) be (beon) speld (spellad) in propper (proprius) latin and grek (graikos). After (aefter) all (eall), moddern (moderne) inglish (aenglisc) is nought anything (aenigthing) else (elles) than an endless (endelaes) ro (rowan) of misspellings (misspelingan) put (putten) in the world (woruld) by (be) language hooligans like (gelic) me (sorry for the lak of macrons and the gramatical mistakes).

In case u prefer my texts translated into this endless ro of misspellings (sum peeple call it "evolution") calld moddern inglish (at the moment):

I rite (write) my books, i rite (write) articles for "seerius" (serious) newspapers, eeven (even) conservativ (conservative) newspapers, i rite (write) my letters and e-males (e-mails) to authoritys (authorities), i rite (write) in forums, in deutshe (german), brazilian, inglish (english), all (eall) in reformd (reformed) spelling, and altho (although) menny (many) of the reeders (readers) hav (have) very little linguistic tallent (talent), i'v (i've) nevver (never) got a letter bak (back) on the grounds that it is not in propper (proper) deutshe (german), portugaliano (portuguese), or watevver (whatever) the language. No one has evver (ever) required a "translation" into the "propper" language, as far as i can remember. Now i'm heer (here) in a group visited by linguists and language nerds that studdy (study) languages that hav (have) very exotic names, grammar and riting (writing) sistems (systems), and invent languages with stil (still) mor (more) exotic names, and u (you) feel (and maybe uthers (others) like u (you)) that u (you) hav (have) to "protect" them - eeven (even) if thay no (know) words like 'conlang', utherwise (otherwise) thay wouldnt find this forum, a word wich (which) i guess the grate (great) majority of the public dusnt (does not) no (know). As u (you) mite (might) hav (have) seen in my reecent (recent) posts, in reecent (recent) yeers (years) i got a sort of hatred agenst (against) this word "protect", becaus (because) it always meens (means) a new prohibition, and eeven (even) dictatorships and democorships make large use of it - thare (there) is always sum (some) peeple (people) who hav (have) to be protected (of corse (course) i dont meen (mean) with it that this is a dictatorship heer (here)). We gane (gain) one gram of "safety" and pay the price of one kilogram freedom.

I dont think that "protecting" inglish (english) lerners (learners) is a real service for them. I pronounced sum (some) words - like 'brother', for wich (which) i used to say /brOD@r/ - the rong (wrong) way for menny (many) yeers (years) in my life becaus (because) of the spelling, and i just found that out wen (when) i joind (joined) spelling reform groups and saw the words representing the real pronunciation. I taut (taught) inglish (english) in quite a few cuntrys (countries), and i had contact with menny (many) thousands of peeple (people) speeking (speaking) inglish (english) as a seccond (second) language, and menny (many) pronounced words the rong (wrong) way becaus (because) the spelling was misleeding (misleading). The fact is, it is eesy (easy) to get litrature (literature) in inglish (english), and u (you) just need an internet conection (connection) to reed (read) billions of texts in inglish (english), and u (you) can reed (read) menny (many) thousands of posts in this forum ritten (written) in TS: thare (there) is no lak (lack) of it. But it is much harder to get access to the spoken language, billions of peeple (people) nevver (never) had a single time contact with real inglish (english) speekers (speakers). And eeven (even) if u (you) do, it dusnt (does not) meen (mean) u'l (you'll) lern (learn) the rite (right) pronunciation: i guess i herd (heard) the word "brother" thousands of times, but since my brane (brain) has only /a/ in its basic database and no /V/ and /A/, i herd (heard) the USano (american) pronunciation of 'job' /dZA:b/ with /A/ as sum (some) funny variation of the sound /O/ (or /a/, as u like), and the same aplied for 'brother', eeven (even) if this word has an /V/ and not an /A/. The same aplies (applies) for menny (many) foreners (foreigners) in Brazil, who spend deccades (decades) in the cuntry (country) and dont no (know) that for instance a final unstressd (unstressed) O is an /u/ - it's ritten (written) O, isnt it? And thay'd (they'd) get rid of thare (their) foren (foreign) accent if the spelling had an /u/.

Since moast (most) words remane (remain) the same in HS (and eeven (even) in RITE), and my poasts (posts) ar (are) offen (often) rather long, at leest (least) as long as we talk about the "filosofical" (philosophical) aspects of my reformd (reformed) spelling or conlangs, i thaut (thought) it would be better if i just translated the words (inside the text) that ar (are) difrent (different) in my spelling. Sumtimes (sometimes) i mite (might) forget to translate one or anuther (another) word becaus (because) i'm too used to see them speld (spelled) that way, but if sum-one (someone) dusnt (does not) understand a word like 'hav' or 'peeple', i can translate them into "normal inglish": 'hav' meens (means) 'have', and 'peeple' meen (means) 'people'.

And a last question: do i hav (have) to translate less common spellings like 'thru' and 'tho' too, eeven (even) if thay (they) ar (are) found in dictionarys (dictionaries)? Sum (some) peeple (people) call them misspellings, uthers (others) call it evolution (at leest (least) for the ones that came to stay). And wat (what) about a word like 'u' for 'you', wich (which) is not found in the dictionarys (dictionaries) i hav (have), but found in hundreds of millions of texts, especialy in texting? Should i translate them too?
User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat 10 Nov 2012, 20:52
Location: California

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Dormouse559 » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 22:56

Zé do Rock wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 22:20
[…]
When you write in a conlang, alternative orthography or non-English language on a forum or thread not specifically dedicated to the use of said system, kindly include a traditionally spelled English translation, as a courtesy to your fellow forum members. There is no reason to abandon your block format. You can add a block for an English translation.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Tue 24 Jul 2018, 10:07

Lao Kou wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 00:53
Zé do Rock wrote:
Sun 22 Jul 2018, 23:24
RITE
So ar u for or agenst reforming inglishe spelling, and if in favor, wat tipe of reform would u aprove of?
"Are you for or agin us?" puts it in such dire terms. I'm not diametrically opposed to reform an sich (though the term "updating" sounds a little less authoritarian than "reform"). But to rehash the same ol' issues: there are at least five countries/communities who claim English as their L1 -- whose standard will you, O Grand One (or O Grand TESS), choose as the standard for placing those vowels, or make a mishmash of standards, making everyone cranky? The Webster standards (?) for American spelling, I guess when English spelling was still in flux, sets us apart from the rest of the Commonwealth in terms of spelling (colour/color; centre/center) -- fortunately, these aren't/weren't cataclysmic changes in the end, thanks to Empire -- but it's an unnecessary dual standard.)

Rechtschreibreform: you lose a correctly-spelling generation when you do that, with even minor tweaking. The changes you propose are rather drastic, by comparison.

<aprove> but not <apruve>, really? If you want to opine on English spelling foibles, it would be more convincing if you pronounced it correctly.
EU

Mi no prezidento Bush, "o vu pro nu o vu contra nu". In Deutshland 50% du populacion is pro reform, ma solo 20% was pro el implementee reform. E wen mi cuestionou la pople si lis vole "fuchs" e "wachs" reformee tu "fux" e "wax", plus o minus 80% was pro lu. So lu depende du reform...

TESS ha membris na toto svet, e nixi ha sei la House Stile funcciona no pro lis. Lis ali acorda dat ai do standard. No pok australis pro exemplo spik a dialecto dat is similare tu cockney, ma lu no wat lis profesa na scol, et is no como niusis spik. Meme si multi sei "noit" pro "night", lis ali acorda ki lu shalau bi "nite" (o "niet", "nít" o wat oni uza tu reprezenta /nait/).

Colour/color, etc: Lu realik a nenesesitale doble standard, e coze dat nu scrive 'cullor, program, center'. Dat funcciona pro nord amerikis et oso pro la Commonwelth.

Mai wunschdeutsch ("wishu-deutsh", favorito deutsh) was la rezultu de plebisitos in mai shou lezus, among 20 000 pople. Lu change no multu, ma lu elimina H's et E's ki longize la vocal - oni nesesita no lus, lorske corto vocales is fologee bai doble consonantes. E sted having 54 coma reglas as la tradicional ortografie (ki meme mouste profesis sabou no) o 9 as dopo la reform, ai no reglas - oni uza comas segon su sentu, ma bes a mau conciens. Nau mi startou con ultradoitsh, e dat is a rada fonetico sistem. No poco jurnales scrivou dat auminu dat reform vou bi consistent...

La problema co la neu deutsh ortografie reforma was ki lu was super neconsistent: pro exemplo, lis ha sei "Vamos deutshiz el autlandiano vordes A, B, C, ma no la vordes D, E, F, e la vordes G, H et I can bi deutshizee, ma lus mus no". E si oni mus look a longo vord lista tu cheke si la vord can, mus o can no bi deutshizee, lu no realik a simplizacion. La sentensa ki lis cuotou moustli de mi was: "Solo deutshe ciensis ha reusi faz a tale complicato simplizacion."

Aprove - mi suponau no dat yu pronunse la vord falsli, solo coze yu scrive lu con O. La House Stile solo trata la corto vocales a, e, i, o, u e la longo vocales a, e, i, o, u. /u:/ is non unu de lus, so lu stei as lu is. In RITE lu stan 'apruve', ma mi encora na letra E, wen mi veni tu U, lu va bin 'apruve'.


ENGLISH (the spell-chequer said the text does knot have any miss takes)

Eye am knot president Bush, "either ewe are four us or ewe are against us". In Germany, 50% of the population are four a reform, butt only 20% were four the implemented reform. And when eye asked people whether they wood like two have "fuchs" and "wachs" reformed too "fux" (fox) and "wax" (wax), moor ore less 80% were four it. Sew it depends of the reform...

TESS has members from all over the world, and know won has said that the House Stile does knot work four them (altho the ones that have own schemes, mostly much moor phonetic, think the solution should bee a different won). They all agree that there 2 standards. Quite a few australians for instance speak a dialect that is similar to cockney, butt this is knot what is taught in school, and this is knot what newsreaders speak. Even if many say "noit" four "night", they all agree that it should be "nite" (or "niet", "nít" or whatever they use to represent /nait/).

It is in deed an unnecessary dual standard, witch is why wee spell cullor, program, center. Works four the north americans and the commonwealth two.

My wunschdeutsch (wish-german, favorite german) was the result of "referendums" in my show readings, among 20 000 people. It does knot change much, butt it does take H's and E's that make the vowel long - they're knot needed, since short vowels are followed bye double consonants. And instead of having 54 comma rules as in traditional spelling (witch even most teachers didnt no) or 9 rules as after the reform, there are know rules for it - yew use the commas bye feeling, as yew have all ways done, butt without a bad conscience. Now eye started with ultradoitsh, and that's a rather phonetic system. Quite a few newspapers wrote that at least my reform would be consistent...

The problem with the knew german spelling reform was that it was very inconsistent: four instance, they said "let's germanize the lonewords A, B and C, butt knot the words D, E, F, and the words G, H and I can bee germanized, butt don't have two". And if ewe have too look at a long list of words two cheque if the word can, must or cant bee germanized, it is really knot a simplification. The sentence they quoted most often from me was: "Only german scientists managed two make such a complicated simplification".

Aprove - eye wood knot assume yew pronounce the word the wrong weigh, just bee cause yew spell it with O. The House Stile only treats the short vowels a, e, i, o, u and the long vowels a, e, i, o, u. /u:/ is nun of them (short U is /V/, long U is /ju:/), so it remains as it is. In RITE it bee comes 'apruve', but eye am still at the letter E, when eye cum two U it will bee 'apruve'.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus » Tue 24 Jul 2018, 11:46

OK, since all his posts are trolling, and the trolling-to-content quotient is increasing, at what point can we just ban him?
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen » Tue 24 Jul 2018, 13:21

Zé do Rock wrote:
Tue 24 Jul 2018, 10:07
[blatant trolling]
I hate it when I step in to provide someone some benefit of the doubt and assumption of good faith and whatnot, and then they immediately proceed to prove me wrong. [:S]

So yeah. Drop it or get off the board.
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Tue 24 Jul 2018, 20:19

Dormouse559 wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 22:56
Zé do Rock wrote:
Mon 23 Jul 2018, 22:20
[…]
When you write in a conlang, alternative orthography or non-English language on a forum or thread not specifically dedicated to the use of said system, kindly include a traditionally spelled English translation, as a courtesy to your fellow forum members. There is no reason to abandon your block format. You can add a block for an English translation.
RE

3 bloks zu shraiben is aine ganze menge, noch dazu wenn ich so lange messages shraib. i'l restructure the bloks.

ENGLISH

To write 3 bloks is too much, especially in the long messages i've been posting. I'll restructure the blocks.
Post Reply