English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by GrandPiano » Thu 16 Mar 2017, 20:30

OTʜᴇB wrote:
GrandPiano wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:English Orthography has these phonetic hints (1 up over Hanzi), semantic hints (2 up over Hanzi), and letters which are silent in most dialects.
Hanzi actually does have phonetic and semantic hints, though. In fact, the most common method of character formation is to use two pre-existing characters as components, one hinting at the meanung and one hinting at the pronunciation. For example, the character 指 zhǐ "finger; to point" is made up of 手 shǒu "hand" (reduced to 扌), and 旨 zhǐ "purpose; decree; excellent". 扌 hints at the meaning, while 旨 hints at the pronunciation. Sometimes these hints are somewhat obscured by sound change and semantic shift, but phonetic and semantic hints are still definitely very prevalent in hanzi.
Interesting, but only 26 symbols are needed for the hints in English, where there are far more in Hanzi, meaning that—while the hint may be better—you only get the hint once you're good enough to have less use with the hint.
I'm not saying that hanzi's phonetic and semantic clues are superior (or inferior) to those of the English orthography, just that it's not at all true that hanzi has no phonetic or semantic clues.

Unless I'm mistaken, your argument actually only applies to phonetic hints. Hanzi's semantic hints are arguably easier to make use of in that respect that English's, because, unlike English, hanzi has several extremely common semantic components that each occur in a very large number of characters.
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic » Thu 16 Mar 2017, 20:41

OTʜᴇB wrote:while reform on the consonants could work a bit, reform on vowels is simply impossible without cheesing off half the dialects - and if there must be reform, it cannot split up dialects anymore than they are already, what with English being such a global language.
It's not possible to have perfect representation of the vowels in all accents, but it is possible to reform current spelling of vowels some in a dialect-neutral fashion. I wrote an essay a while back on the "Anglish moot" site (kind of a random place for it) that discusses this: http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Clearest_ ... h_Spelling Basically, "oa" in place of "long o," "ew" in place of "long u", and "ie" as in "thief" in place of "ee" as in "feet" are all unnecessary variant spellings of vowels and don't have any siginficance as far as I can tell in any dialect. (Some dialects with variable yod-dropping may accidentally distinguish some words that have "u" vs. "ew," like "flue" vs. "flew," but I think that's never a consistent pattern.) Probably someone who actually studies this a lot could come up with more examples.
GrandPiano wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:
GrandPiano wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:English Orthography has these phonetic hints (1 up over Hanzi), semantic hints (2 up over Hanzi), and letters which are silent in most dialects.
Hanzi actually does have phonetic and semantic hints, though. In fact, the most common method of character formation is to use two pre-existing characters as components, one hinting at the meanung and one hinting at the pronunciation. For example, the character 指 zhǐ "finger; to point" is made up of 手 shǒu "hand" (reduced to 扌), and 旨 zhǐ "purpose; decree; excellent". 扌 hints at the meaning, while 旨 hints at the pronunciation. Sometimes these hints are somewhat obscured by sound change and semantic shift, but phonetic and semantic hints are still definitely very prevalent in hanzi.
Interesting, but only 26 symbols are needed for the hints in English, where there are far more in Hanzi, meaning that—while the hint may be better—you only get the hint once you're good enough to have less use with the hint.
I'm not saying that hanzi's phonetic and semantic clues are superior (or inferior) to those of the English orthography, just that it's not at all true that hanzi has no phonetic or semantic clues.

Unless I'm mistaken, your argument actually only applies to phonetic hints. Hanzi's semantic hints are arguably easier to make use of in that respect that English's, because, unlike English, hanzi has several extremely common semantic components that each occur in a very large number of characters.
Exactly. As I said earlier, I don't think it makes sense to say that English has any semantic hints at all, if we're using "semantic hints" to mean the same type of thing that hanzi semantic components and Egyptian determinatives are. Those things are graphemes whose only function is to convey semantic information--they are completely unrelated to the phonology of the word. English spelling is almost always related to some kind of phonology (often historical rather than current, and often related in an overly-complicated way) or morphology, or in some cases the lexical stratum of the word (e.g. Greek, French, Latin origin). The semantic associations of graphemes are either due to parallel semantic associations in the phonology, or they are morphological, or for some minor patterns they are due to false etymologies or analogy. Stuff like "sc" for cutting words (like "scythe" and "scissors") is barely useful as a semantic hint, and it's only possible anyway for these words because they start with the sound /s/ (we don't have any words with spellings like "sctrimmers" /trɪmərz/, where the semantics-related part of the spelling is completely unrelated to the phonology-related part).
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by GamerGeek » Sun 28 May 2017, 22:47

I know there has been a lot of discussion, but I'm not reading 37 pages. I kinda skimmed over the last two pages.
The best way to reform english is to minimize irregularity, not to change how it looks. We wont be "cacεŋ" balls anytime soon.
How do we do this? Simplify our digrafs like this, and it's pretty eesy to reed, even if it looks a litle derpy. I think this is the most likely speling reform, wat do yoo think?
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic » Sun 28 May 2017, 23:13

GamerGeek wrote:I know there has been a lot of discussion, but I'm not reading 37 pages. I kinda skimmed over the last two pages.
The best way to reform english is to minimize irregularity, not to change how it looks. We wont be "cacεŋ" balls anytime soon.
How do we do this? Simplify our digrafs like this, and it's pretty eesy to reed, even if it looks a litle derpy. I think this is the most likely speling reform, wat do yoo think?
Certainly that is the easiest course of action, and if you're interested in using or promoting practical spelling reforms it makes sense to do that (Jack Windsor Lewis uses some simplified spellings on his blog). But it seems that very few people are motivated to do this. I know that I just think of English spelling reform as an interesting puzzle, and something that I am broadly sympathetic to, not something that I actually care about. Furthermore, even if I did care, the way I write will have essentially no effect on society. It's like the paradox of voting. I'd join an organization or something like that if I wanted to effectively accomplish societal change.

On my level of engagement (as I said, interested in the "puzzle" elements of spelling reform) the issue with changes like "digraf" is that they're too obvious to be very interesting to discuss. Everyone on this board already knows that English uses "ph" to represent the sound /f/, and that this is pretty much unnecessary. Making things less complicated by using "f" instead works fine, with no particular complications that I know of that might need to be circumvented in interesting, unexpected ways. Furthermore, it isn't particularly important either: I haven't checked but I'd imagine that a very small percentage of spelling errors involve writing "f" for "ph" or vice versa, and a very small amount of the difficultly of learning English spelling is tied up with this convention. So besides being obvious (and therefore, kind of boring to me) it's not one of the areas where a "fix" is obviously needed. And last, like you said, it looks a bit derpy. All else equal, I'm biased toward spelling reforms that appeal to my sense of aesthetics.

(There are some differences between the examples in your post, of course. I talked about "ph" > "f" in the preceding paragraph; "ea" > "ee" is similarly "obvious" but seems much more useful, so I like it more, even though it does look a bit weird; "ll" > "l" in "spelling" is actually a problematic decision because it implies re-working the whole system of doubling consonants and replacing it with something else that works better as a system, which is a bit tricky if we're sticking with the idea of not making drastic changes. So "ll" > "l" is potentially interesting, but what I really want to see is a description of the general principles/system for changing spelling like this, and arguments for why it would be better than the current system.)
Hominid
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 20 May 2017, 22:33

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Hominid » Tue 30 May 2017, 14:57

I don't really like these moderate hero spelling reforms that take away the interesting parts of English without actually making it easier to spell or pronounce.

Ajd ræðë rid sämpþíŋ lajk ðís than sumthing liek this.
User avatar
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by alynnidalar » Tue 30 May 2017, 18:06

Hominid wrote:Ajd ræðë rid sämpþíŋ lajk ðís
Certainly "interesting"; not sure I'd characterize it as "easier to spell or pronounce", though.
User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by OTʜᴇB » Tue 30 May 2017, 18:08

alynnidalar wrote:
Hominid wrote:Ajd ræðë rid sämpþíŋ lajk ðís
Certainly "interesting"; not sure I'd characterize it as "easier to spell or pronounce", though.
I don't think that's the point. I think Hominid is more interested in the artistic potential of orthography reform, rather than the practical.
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch
Hominid
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 20 May 2017, 22:33

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Hominid » Tue 30 May 2017, 20:32

alynnidalar wrote:
Hominid wrote:Ajd ræðë rid sämpþíŋ lajk ðís
Certainly "interesting"; not sure I'd characterize it as "easier to spell or pronounce", though.
The point is that it would be easier to learn, for non-native speakers. These spelling reforms that only get rid of some obvious problems while keeping others seem counterproductive to me.

That said, I am indeed not really interested in any kind of orthography reforms for English.
Ahtaitay
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 27 Oct 2017, 01:37

How deranged is the English spelling system?

Post by Ahtaitay » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 23:24

I am a second learner of English, a pretty good one at that, and the English spelling system is the kinda thing that make me wanna rip my eyes out. It seems not only foreign learners are frustrated with this spelling system, but also native speakers. In the couple of past weeks, I researched this topic, with quite some depth, and I wrote an article about it. It seems that the English spelling system has far-reaching (negative) implications that go beyond the individual learner. Find the original article [http://ahtaitay.blogspot.com/2017/11/th ... -deep.html]. Please, suggest any additions that might be added to this article, and point out any corrections. I would love this to turn into a profitable multinational debate.

Have a good read [:D] [:D]
User avatar
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: How deranged is the English spelling system?

Post by Axiem » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:06

The English spelling system is perfectly fine. Strange, yes, but perfectly fine.

I really like the property that English has where a person whose dialect I wouldn't be able to understand in speech can still write a letter that I can understand, and vice-versa. Any reform to English spelling that at all tried to make it closer to modern pronunciations would invariably break this property.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: How deranged is the English spelling system?

Post by Xonen » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:33

Merged the new thread with the existing one.

Axiem wrote:
Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:06
The English spelling system is perfectly fine. Strange, yes, but perfectly fine.
Well, I'd say "perfectly fine" is stretching it. It's not as bad as its detractors tend to make it out to be, but it is quite objectively harder to learn than it would strictly need to be, and largely for fairly stupid reasons.
I really like the property that English has where a person whose dialect I wouldn't be able to understand in speech can still write a letter that I can understand, and vice-versa. Any reform to English spelling that at all tried to make it closer to modern pronunciations would invariably break this property.
/aɪm fɛərli ʃɜːr juː kæn ʌndərstænd ðɪs dʒʌst faɪn/, and so could anyone whose native language is English, if that's what they were taught in schools and whatnot. After all, teaching a system closer to modern pronunciation could hardly be harder than the current one! But obviously, the real problem is that the hundreds of millions of speakers already used to the current system would effectively have to learn to read all over again, and that's just never gonna fly.

In any case, the main problem with English spelling isn't that it's too far from modern pronunciation - it's not - but that it's irregular. Even a fairly minor spelling reform could fix a lot of the irregularity - but as we've seen with fairly recent examples from, say, German and French, even fairly minor spelling reforms can be really difficult to implement.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by qwed117 » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:45

To quote Sean Paul /bɪɾəbɑ̃ŋgbɑ̃ŋg/
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic » Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:53

Axiem wrote:
Sat 18 Nov 2017, 01:06
The English spelling system is perfectly fine. Strange, yes, but perfectly fine.
As Xonen says, that's true if you define "perfectly fine" as something like "not entirely unusable", but there are all sorts of fairly obvious ways the spelling of English words could be improved (if we ignore the costs of changing things, of course). Just because the system is not actually composed of ghotis and ghoughphtheightteeaus doesn't mean it's perfect.
I really like the property that English has where a person whose dialect I wouldn't be able to understand in speech can still write a letter that I can understand, and vice-versa. Any reform to English spelling that at all tried to make it closer to modern pronunciations would invariably break this property.
The last sentence of this is false, and even a weakened version of this argument is not very good (see e.g. the counter-arguments given by Justin B Rye). It is well known that some words, such as "debt", "doubt", "receipt", "isle", have consonant letters that don't correspond to any sound in anyone's pronunciation. In words like "island", "aisle", "redoubt", "scythe", "scent", "ache", "ptarmigan", the silent consonant letters don't even serve as guides to the etymology of the words: they actually suggest false etymologies. We could easily do without them, just as present-day French does without "ç" in the word "savoir" (formerly often spelled "sçavoir").

Vowels are more tricky, but in this area also there are words with spellings that are misleading for pretty much everyone, like "heart", "hearth", "hearken", "English", "England", "double", "trouble", "friend", "tongue", "busy", "shoe".

A reform that fixed only the words listed in this post would in fact qualify as "any reform to English spelling that at all tried to make it closer to modern pronunciations" and it would do nothing significant to break the property you are attached to. Present-day English spelling is not actually some kind of perfect diaphonemic/morphological spelling system.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 10:05

Here is the introduction of the Wikipedia article English-language spelling reform rewritten in a reformed spelling I put together today. (It's a major reform, but it does contain some elements based on the current English spelling system.) but I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts about this system.
For sentyryz, dhaar haz bin a mouvment tou reform dha speling ov inglish. It seikz tou chaanj inglish speling soo dhat it iz mor konsistnt, machiz pronunsyaasyn betr, and folo'z dhy alfubetik prinsipl.

Komn mootivz for speling reform inkloud maaking it eizyr tou lurn tou reid (dekood), tou spel, and tou pronauns, maaking it mor yousful for intrnasynl komeunikaasyn, redeusing ejukaasynl bujitz (redeusing litrusy teichrz, remeidyaasyn kosts, and litrusy proogramz) and/or enaabling teichrz and lurnrz tou spend mor taim on mor importnt subjektz or ekspanding subjektz.

Moost speling reform propoozlz ar modrut: dhaa youz dha tradisynl inglish alfubet, trai tou maantaan dha familyr shaapz ov wurdz, and trai tou maantaan komn konvensynz (such az sailnt ei). Hauevr, sum propoozlz ar mor radikl and maa involv ading letrz and simblz or eivn kreaating a neu alfubet. Sum reformrz prefur a grajul chaanj implimentid in staajiz, whail udhrz faavr an imeidyut and tootl reform. A mor modrut aprooch advokaatz for a kaarful implimentaasyn dhat wuud bei introdeusd at dha graad wun levl, bai waavz, wun graad at a taim, spaaring kurnt litrut lurnrz from having tou lurn dha neu sistm.

Sum speling reform propoozlz hav bin adoptid parsyly or temporarily. Meny ov dha spelingz prefurd bai nooa webstr hav bekum standrd in dha younaitid staatz, but hav not bin adoptid elswhaar (sei amerikn and british inglish speling difrnsiz). Hary lindgrenz propoozl, es-ar-wun, woz popylr in ostraalya at wun taim.

Speling reform haz raarly atraktid waidspred publik suport, sumtaimz deu tou organaizd rezistns and sumtaimz deu tou lak ov intrest. Dhaar ar lingwistik argyumentz agenst reform; for egzampl dhat dhy orijinz ov wurdz maa bei obskeurd. Dhaar ar olso meny obstuklz tou reform: dhis inkleudz dhy efrt and muny dhat maa bei neidid tou impliment a hoolsaal chaanj, dha lak ov an inglish othority or regylaatr, and dha chalnj ov geting peipl tou aksept spelingz tou which dhaa ar unakustmd.
Parts that I'm not entirely satisfied with:
  • spelling the prefix en- is tricky because while most people merge it with in-, some people apparently use an unreduced "dress" vowel, at least sometimes. I've used en- here, but it might be better on balance to use in-.
  • word-final "aa" looks bad (at least in my opinion), but changing "aa" to "ay" everywhere would look worse (again, IMO; it would make "ation" into <aysyn>), and changing "aa" to "ay" only word-finally or morpheme-finally is too much of a needless complication.
  • Some people pronounce "been" with the fleece vowel, but I chose to go with the kit vowel because the shortened pronunciation is actually quite old and as far as I know is not restricted to any particular dialect (unlike, say, the use of strut in the strong forms of from, of and what, which seems mostly restricted to American English at present).
  • The apostrophe in folo'z looks kind of silly. I could leave it out--although foloz would technically be ambiguous, as it could represent /foʊˈlɒz/, I don' think that's a problem in practice. Another spelling could be "folooz", which is ambiguous about the stress but not about the vowel quality once the stress is put on the right syllable. Using <ow>, as in "folowz", isn't ambiguous, but it seems a bit extreme to have a special digraph just for the unstressed "goat" vowel (or the "grotto" vowel).
  • The use of <u> for schwa in many contexts makes some pretty weird-looking spellings, like <litrusy> and <litrut>. These could be revised to something like <litrasy> and <litrat>, but I'm not sure how much better that looks.
  • I'm not sure to what extent vowel letters should be retained in word-final unstressed syllables before resonants when it's possible to pronounce the word with a vowel other than schwa, e.g. in <sistm> (sistim?), <orijin> (orijn?) and <kaarful> (kaarfl?).
  • The spelling kurnt could be mistakenly taken to rhyme with "burnt". But I think there are only a few cases of ambiguity like this.
  • I'm not sure about the decision to spell function words with the long vowel digraphs. I expect spellings like "tou" and "and" do waste a fair amount of space, but I don't really like the look of special abbreviated spellings like "nd" or "n" and I don't like spelling vowels special ways in function words (that seems like it would be confusing and would quickly become inconsistent, as in modern English with "to" and "so").
Setting aside the fact that it's a quite extreme reform, which I know is not to everybody's taste, does anyone want to comment about any other major flaws in this? I'm also curious if the basic logic of this set of vowel spellings is obvious to anyone, or if it's too convoluted and just comes across as an arbitrary set of respellings.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 16:51

I don't know if I'd say "abitrary", but I do find your vowels systematically counterintuitive. And given that you go to so much effort, I'm not sure why you retain ambiguities like your "y" standing for either /i:j/ or /jU:/, two totally different sounds.

It probably goes without saying that you've also used dialectical pronunciations that don't apply to me. Like spelling /gr{djU@l/ as "grajul" or /mQd@r@t/ as "modrut".

I guess I also just don't see the point? If you want to make a phonemic spelling for English, why go out of your way to make it hard to read, when the same result could be brought about through only minor and intuitive reforms of the existing system?
Hominid
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 20 May 2017, 22:33

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Hominid » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 20:49

Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 16:51
I don't know if I'd say "abitrary", but I do find your vowels systematically counterintuitive. And given that you go to so much effort, I'm not sure why you retain ambiguities like your "y" standing for either /i:j/ or /jU:/, two totally different sounds.

It probably goes without saying that you've also used dialectical pronunciations that don't apply to me. Like spelling /gr{djU@l/ as "grajul" or /mQd@r@t/ as "modrut".

I guess I also just don't see the point? If you want to make a phonemic spelling for English, why go out of your way to make it hard to read, when the same result could be brought about through only minor and intuitive reforms of the existing system?
If someone is completely unfamiliar with the English writing system, they aren't going to find the current system any more "intuitive" (in terms of translating spelling to and from pronunciation) than a completely different system.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 21:00

Hominid wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 20:49
Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 16:51
I don't know if I'd say "abitrary", but I do find your vowels systematically counterintuitive. And given that you go to so much effort, I'm not sure why you retain ambiguities like your "y" standing for either /i:j/ or /jU:/, two totally different sounds.

It probably goes without saying that you've also used dialectical pronunciations that don't apply to me. Like spelling /gr{djU@l/ as "grajul" or /mQd@r@t/ as "modrut".

I guess I also just don't see the point? If you want to make a phonemic spelling for English, why go out of your way to make it hard to read, when the same result could be brought about through only minor and intuitive reforms of the existing system?
If someone is completely unfamiliar with the English writing system, they aren't going to find the current system any more "intuitive" (in terms of translating spelling to and from pronunciation) than a completely different system.
True, but irrelevant - the vast majority of English-speakers ARE at least to some extent familiar with the English writing system.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 22:19

Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 01 Apr 2018, 16:51
I don't know if I'd say "abitrary", but I do find your vowels systematically counterintuitive. And given that you go to so much effort, I'm not sure why you retain ambiguities like your "y" standing for either /i:j/ or /jU:/, two totally different sounds.

It probably goes without saying that you've also used dialectical pronunciations that don't apply to me. Like spelling /gr{djU@l/ as "grajul" or /mQd@r@t/ as "modrut".

I guess I also just don't see the point? If you want to make a phonemic spelling for English, why go out of your way to make it hard to read, when the same result could be brought about through only minor and intuitive reforms of the existing system?
Thanks for the comments.

I had forgotten that affrication of post-tonic "d" in this context doesn't occur in all accents. The spelling of "gradual" in this system actually ought to be "gradyul". Hmm, I might have to fiddle with that, since that spelling kind of looks like it could end in the same sounds as words like "radial", even though it actually can't ("radial" would be spelled "raadyl" in the current system). In general, schwa is not spelled before resonants in this system, so I think the spelling "modrut" should work for all accents. As mentioned in my initial post, I'm having some problems with representing vowels that can be schwa in some accents, but not in others: "centuries" maybe should have been written "sentyuryz" instead.

The idea behind "y" is that it can represent the "happy" vowel, a palatal glide, and/or that the preceding consonant is palatalized, since there is variation between these features in certain words in different accents of English, as well as between related words (e.g. presyus, presyosity). In a previous version of this spelling that didn't have the rule about not writing schwa (or certain other unstressed vowels) before resonants, post-tonic "long u" was always written "yu" or "u" (as opposed to stressed "long u", which is written "eu", "ou" or "you" depending on what comes before it). Maybe it would be better to just use "eu" instead of "yu" even in unstressed syllables, though, since the "happy" vowel is not ever a possible realization of the onglide of "long u".

As for reform of the current system--I agree that it's possible to make a lot of improvements with only moderate reform (and I've tried to identify some targets for that as well). However, more extremely reformed systems are also interesting to me because it's pretty much necessary to do something extreme if you want to eliminate the use of double letter digraphs/trigraphs and silent e, which are two features of present-day English spelling that work OK but that have certain troublesome aspects that I don't think could be fixed without eliminating them, or drastically changing how they are used. (A lot of common spelling errors are related to the use of double consonants--it's true that many of the troublesome cases are pre-tonic, and so could be eliminated by a reform without breaking the current system, but people also seem to find it fairly difficult to learn the system of doubling consonants in the inflected forms of certain verbs, which cannot be changed without some more radical shift in how vowel sounds are represented. "Silent e" is I think a less common cause of spelling errors, but the removal of "silent e" upon affixation in certain derived words, e.g. globe/global, is a somewhat complicated and arbitrary rule, as shown by the words in the current system that have multiple spellings, like "judgment" and "ageing", or common misspellings, like "argument".)

As far as I can tell, the best way to differentiate between the spelling of English vowels without using double consonants or "silent e" is by using digraphs for some of them. But there are a lot of options. I definitely could have stayed closer to the present-day system and gone with something like "ai" /eɪ/ "ee" /i:/ "ie" /aɪ/ "oa" /oʊ~əʊ/ "ue" /ju:/ "oo" /u:/ "ou" /aʊ/. But although this works, I'm little bit bothered by the arbitrary internal construction of each digraph in systems like this; I also felt that it was not ideal for "long u" to have two completely different spellings "ue" and "oo" depending on whether it started with a glide or not.

The idea behind the system used here was that vowels that were similar phonetically would get spelled with the same type of digraph (e.g. the "true diphthongs" /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ are written as "ai" and "au"; the high tense vowels /i:/, /u:/ and /ju:/ are written "ei", "ou" and "eu"; the mid tense vowels /eɪ/ and /oʊ~əʊ/ are written "aa" and "oo") and also that the representation of each "long vowel" that is traditionally associated with a "short vowel" letter (and maybe alternates with that "short vowel" in certain derived words) would contain that vowel letter: so e.g. we have saan~sanity, sleip~slept, toon~tonik, ignait~ignisyn, kondukt~kondeusiv, kruks~krousifi, skoul~skolr. Of course, there are still other kinds of vowel changes between related words even in a system like this (e.g. join~junksyn, saa~sez~sed, draiv~droov~drivn, steil~stool).
Birdlang
greek
greek
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu 25 Dec 2014, 20:17
Location: Virginia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Birdlang » Fri 08 Jun 2018, 11:59

My reform of English for my dialect would be
/p b t d k g ʔ/ p b t d k g ɂ
/m n ŋ/ m n ŋ
/f v s z θ ð ʃ ʒ h/ f v s z ŧ/insular t đ/insular d ŝ ĵ h
/ts dz tʃ dʒ/ c ȥ/Visigothic z ĉ ẑ
/l ɻ w j/ l r w/ŭ j/ĭ
/iː uː ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ ə æ a ɑː/ ī ū i u è/e ò/o e/ə a/ä o/a ā
/aɪ aʊ eɪ oʊ/ aĭ/æ aŭ/(ao ligature) é/ē ó/ō
The second option for w and j is used before vowels. I know it’s a bit diacritic-heavy, but I was going to put Visigothic z for the dz sound. It’s done in the style of my conlang’s alphabet. The second option for the vowels and other consonants is for more Unicode compliant fonts.
Ꭓꭓ Ʝʝ Ɬɬ Ɦɦ Ɡɡ Ɥɥ Ɫɫ Ɽɽ Ɑɑ Ɱɱ Ɐɐ Ɒɒ Ɓɓ Ɔɔ Ɖɖ Ɗɗ Əə Ɛɛ Ɠɠ Ɣɣ Ɯɯ Ɲɲ Ɵɵ Ʀʀ Ʃʃ Ʈʈ Ʊʊ Ʋʋ Ʒʒ Ꞵꞵ Ʉʉ Ʌʌ Ŋŋ Ɂɂ Ɪɪ Ææ Øø Ð𠌜 Ɜɜ Ǝɘ
Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2018, 17:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » Sun 15 Jul 2018, 11:09

EUROPAN

TESS, The English Spelling Society, is a societee die befor üba 100 jaren fon lords e professoren gründet wurde, es had bis befor wenigen jaren Prinz Philip als shirmherr. They used Nu Speling, a systema dat spele maek, speek, liek, joek, kuet (in some variants cuet), but it was abandoned a few decadas ago. Plus ou moins la moitiee des membres sont appelee de ""full scheemers" (quelque chose comme "totalistes"), cest a dir ils sugerent des reformas completes qui couvrent ales sons. El otre mitad de los miembros son mas moderee - o realistas - y esperan que al menos una reforma parciale pueda ser realizee. Alguns anos atrás nós desenvolvemos o RITE (Redusing Iregularitys in Tradicional English - dont spel right, spel RITE!), que foi un metodo democratico de decidir o que devia ser reformedo e como. Aber es war a mini grupa von a dutzend, der rest des vereins war nit intereseert. A few years later i organized a referendum in the Societee, the majoritee de membres participated e the House Stile was createe, to be usee by ale membres in their correspondence and on our websait. El unique problem était que la directeur ne le voulait pas dans nôtre websait. Ace algunos meses la neuvo director organizó una conference mundial (también con webinar) y en breve va ser decidee cuale sistema va ser utilizee por la Sociedee, House Stile o un otre sistem.

O HS est longe de ser um sistema completo, ja que no é facil de achar regras que a maioree dos membros aprovam. Er hat 4 reglan:

1) Cut redundant lettras
2) Regularise la vocales courtes a-e-i-o-u: scrib a-e-i-o-u pra la sonidos correspondientes, e si tienes una vocal corta, después una consonant y otre vocal, dobla la consonant: hav, happen, let, evver, it, bigger, not, boddy, sum, funny.
3) Regulariz as vocais longas a-e-i-o-u, usando E magico onde possible, exeto o E longo, que é scrito EE: name, ame, peeple, rite, like, hope, bote, cute, fule.
4) F für F: stuf, cof, fase.

Of course dat is a super reducee vercion of the reglas, there ar cuait a few speciale cases. Ici dans ce forum je lintroduis lentement, je suis dans la lettra H, cest a dir je remplace ou enleve ales lettras af A a H, dans la prochain message I, puis J, etc.


ENGLISH HOUSE STILE

TESS, The English Spelling Society is a society that was founded mor than 100 yeers ago by lords and professors, a society that had Prince Philip as a patron until reecently. They used Nu Speling, a system that spells maek, speek, liek, joek, kuet (in some variants cuet), but it was abandond a few deccades ago. Mor or less half the members ar full scheemers, that is they suggest an overall reform that covers all the sounds. The other half is rather moderated - and realistic - and hopes that at leest a partial change comes thru eventually. A few yeers ago we developd RITE (Redusing Iregularitys in Tradicional English - dont spel right, spel RITE!), wich was a democratic way to decide wat should be reformd and how. But it was just a small group of a dozen, the rest of the Society wasnt intrested. A few yeers later i organized a referendum in the Society, the majority of members participated and the House Stile was created, to be used by all members in thare correspondence and on our website. The only problem was, the chairman didnt want it on the website. A few months ago the new chairman organized a world confrence (with webinar) and it will be decided wich system will be used, the House Stile or another system.

The HS is far from being a compleet system, since it is not eesy to find rules that most members agree on. It has 4 rules:
1) Cut redundant letters
2) Reggularize short vowels a-e-i-o-u: spell a-e-i-o-u for the correspondent sounds, and if you hav a short vowel, then a consonant and another vowel, double the consonant: hav, happen, let, evver, it, bigger, not, boddy, sum, funny.
3) Reggularize long vowels a-e-i-o-u, using magic E ware possible, except long E, wich is spelld EE: name, ame, peeple, speek, rite, like, hope, bote, cute, fule.
4) F for F: stuf, cof, fase.

Of course this is a reduced version of the rules, thare ar quite a few special cases. I'm introducing it graddually in this forum, i'm at the letter H, ie i'm replacing or dropping all letters from A to H, in the next message also I, then J, etc.
Post Reply