English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: If English used diacritics

Post by Ser » 20 Oct 2019 19:31

Xonen wrote:
18 Oct 2019 22:21
Topic merged.
I'm sad you or some other mod deleted thevietguy's esoteric post with magic circles explaining why the Vietnamese alphabet is superior to transcribe the world's languages.

I was thinking of making a similar post elaborating on why Hebrew should be used instead, with a relevant diagram of the Kabbalah.

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1513
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: If English used diacritics

Post by Xonen » 20 Oct 2019 21:34

Zé do Rock wrote:
20 Oct 2019 11:08
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
19 Oct 2019 23:25
I'd say <i y> should be spelled <ai ay> if they are pronounced /ai/, and <a> should be spelled <ea> or <ae> if pronounced /ei/.
Yea, sam piepel haev sajestid thaet wi spel inglish saunds with "cantinental" leter vaelius, olthou yu haev tu meik sam impravizeishen, for the saunds thaet igzist ounli in inglish. Ai laik the aidia, bat ai dount think it staends a chaens, aes the spaenish wudnt laik ther laengwij biing speld with an inglish sistem (eg umeegoez for 'amigos'?)... aend af corse meni internaeshanal wörds wudnt bi imiediatli recagnaizabal, laik 'neishan' for 'nation', etc...
Let's face it: no reform actually stands much of a chance. Some informal spellings like "thru" or "nite" might gradually gain more ground, so that at some point, they'll start replacing the traditional spellings even in more formal contexts... but I wouldn't bet on it, especially not in the reasonably near future. More ambitious reform plans are about as realistic as auxlangs; designing them might be interesting as a thought exercise, but you can't really expect that many people (or indeed, anyone but their creator, in most cases) to start actually using them.


Ser wrote:
20 Oct 2019 19:31
Xonen wrote:
18 Oct 2019 22:21
Topic merged.
I'm sad you or some other mod deleted thevietguy's esoteric post
Seems it was the admin, actually. He appears to have a fairly low tolerance for nonsense these days, I'm afraid.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1686
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus » 21 Oct 2019 01:50

I'm actually not convinced that that's the case. I've been thinking about this a bit in the context of a SF world of mine - in which there have indeed been a number of successful orthography reforms for English.


I think there are three key obstacles to a reform:

a) weirdness of the resulting spellings, which makes reforms seem ugly and counterintuitive, immediately flags their use to an observer, and threatens mass illiteracy on adoption;

b) a global, interconnected English in which universal understanding is expected;

c) a highly prescriptivist attitude to spelling.


The first of these is specific to the reform, but certainly some reforms are more natural than others. A succesful reform would have to be of the sort that people make intuitively.

The second two, however, could conceivably change. English didn't use to have prescriptive spelling - it's a relatively new idea - and there's no reason why it's necessary. Without it, popular reform could gradually compete against and replace 'dictionary' spellings. And if that happened, then, with increasing linguistic divergence between dialects, dialects could increasingly come to be written in reformed spellings, and freedom from having to reflect all dialects would in turn make more reforms possible. Eventually, we could have regional Englishes written in slightly different, locally-reformed spellings, alongside international, dictionary spelling for contexts designed for universal readability (such as key signage) or a traditional aesthetic. So you could have a big sign reading "AMBULANCE" wherever you went in the world, even if in social media posts to their friends people in difference places might write "ambyulents", "amlance", "amblints", or whatever.



Oh, and there's also the unconsidered problem:
d) freedom and democracy (so people don't have to follow the reform if it's unpopular).

This could also conceivably change in the future, at least in some areas.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: If English used diacritics

Post by Zé do Rock » 21 Oct 2019 10:02

Xonen wrote:
20 Oct 2019 21:34
Let's face it: no reform actually stands much of a chance. Some informal spellings like "thru" or "nite" might gradually gain more ground, so that at some point, they'll start replacing the traditional spellings even in more formal contexts... but I wouldn't bet on it, especially not in the reasonably near future. More ambitious reform plans are about as realistic as auxlangs; designing them might be interesting as a thought exercise, but you can't really expect that many people (or indeed, anyone but their creator, in most cases) to start actually using them.
U'r rite, the chances to reform english spelling ar very small. TESS (The English Spelling Society) had always the idea that guvverments hav to be convinced to reform spelling, but politicians arnt intrested in solving problems the population dusnt see as a big problem, especialy becaus they mite end up being criticized by anti-reformers, without realy getting the suport of pro-reformers. In cuntrys with a Litrature Acaddemy we could concentrate our efforts in convincing them - they dont hav the power to decide, but offen they get reforms thru, usualy quite small reforms - guvverments usualy lissen to them. But english dusnt hav such a boddy, and not eeven a single dialect that servs as standard, it has 2. So enny decision would hav to be agreed on on both sides of the pond. So the only way out i see is poppular reform, and for that sum peeple hav to start using a reformd spelling. Wich is wy i initiated a referendum in the Society for a House Stile, ware evrybody could make suggestions for changes and the members had to vote on them. The House Stile would be used by the members and on the TESS website - we cant preech water and drink wine, we cant keep telling peeple to use reformd spelling but not use it ourselvs. And we could let uther peeple - enny human being - vote on the changes, so that we'd just make changes in spelling that ar aproved by the majority of the population. And mor and mor peeple could start using it, wen they see that it is been used.

But the chareman didnt agree on using reformd spelling on the website and its corespondence with the world. So we cant expect peeple to use reformd spelling if we dont use it ourselvs. Amung the members, haf of them ar rather for modrat reforms, sumthing like the House Stile or eeven for a single change (eg F FOR F - telefone, enuf, etc). Quite a few members swichd thare spelling to House Stile, but the uther haf ar members with own spelling sistems, all the time telling that only thare scheems could work. And all thees sistems arnt realy "organic", they insist that a good spelling reform must hav only one letter or sine or digraf for one sound. Wich meens that they spel 'late, aim, like, bright, vote, boat' sumthing like 'laet, aem, liek, briet, voet, boet', or 'lát, ám, lík, brít, vót, bót', or 'leit, eim, laik, brait, vout, bout' or watevver. But this is not the way spontaneus reforms work, they'r always based on english patterns. And at leest haf the members can agree on late, ame, like, brite, vote, bote, the uthers cant agree at all on the ideal solution. And kwiet u fue wont too solv dhu schwa problum, ignoring dhu fakt that eevun dikshunureez kant ugree wich w3rdz hav u shwa and waer. Wqn skeemqr eevqn had q Q for schwa or short U, and wen ue reed q paej ritqn in sqch q skeem, ue need qn aspireen aftqrwqrdz.

Now TESS has a new chareman, thare has been an international confrence organized by TESS to choos a new scheem, and a jury of experts is evalluating all those scheems, but if they choos a "perfect scheem", i'm quite sure they'l preech it but not use it. And nuthing wil change. Its an absurd logic: we need a perfect sistem, but a perfect sistem is quite disruptiv and rather ilegible, so we wont use it, we dont want to ofend peeple. So if we cant convince ourselvs, how do we want to convince the world?

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 21 Oct 2019 10:27

Salmoneus wrote:
21 Oct 2019 01:50
I'm actually not convinced that that's the case. I've been thinking about this a bit in the context of a SF world of mine - in which there have indeed been a number of successful orthography reforms for English.


I think there are three key obstacles to a reform:

a) weirdness of the resulting spellings, which makes reforms seem ugly and counterintuitive, immediately flags their use to an observer, and threatens mass illiteracy on adoption;

b) a global, interconnected English in which universal understanding is expected;

c) a highly prescriptivist attitude to spelling.


The first of these is specific to the reform, but certainly some reforms are more natural than others. A succesful reform would have to be of the sort that people make intuitively.

The second two, however, could conceivably change. English didn't use to have prescriptive spelling - it's a relatively new idea - and there's no reason why it's necessary. Without it, popular reform could gradually compete against and replace 'dictionary' spellings. And if that happened, then, with increasing linguistic divergence between dialects, dialects could increasingly come to be written in reformed spellings, and freedom from having to reflect all dialects would in turn make more reforms possible. Eventually, we could have regional Englishes written in slightly different, locally-reformed spellings, alongside international, dictionary spelling for contexts designed for universal readability (such as key signage) or a traditional aesthetic. So you could have a big sign reading "AMBULANCE" wherever you went in the world, even if in social media posts to their friends people in difference places might write "ambyulents", "amlance", "amblints", or whatever.



Oh, and there's also the unconsidered problem:
d) freedom and democracy (so people don't have to follow the reform if it's unpopular).

This could also conceivably change in the future, at least in some areas.
I agree with u that most reform projects ar counterintuitiv. But i dont think peeple hav to spel in thare own dialects. After all, the grate majority of english speekers hav a cleer notion of wat is standard and wat not. The only problem is that thare ar 2 standards, the UK and the US standard. But u dont hav to reform stuf that contradicts one of the 2 standards. This text heer dusnt hav enny reformd spelling that contradicts one of them. And i guess all dictionarys agree that the pronunciation of 'ambulance' is /'aembjul@ns/, and most english speekers would agree with it. So an intuitiv spelling could spel 'ambulans' (or ambulanse, if u keep the plural with S, to sho that the S has an /s/ sound, not /z/). In the House Stile it was decided to keep the C as C, to keep the number of change rules at a minnimum: 1) cutting redundant letters, 2) streemlining short vowels (dubbling the folloing consonant ware necessary (wimmen), 3) streemlining long vowels (late, am, vote, bote, etc), 4) F for F (tellefone, enuf). It seems that menny problems ar left out, stil it would be a grate progress: in english u hav 50% of words with an expectable spelling (maching current spellings), but u nevver no if the word u hav to spel has an expectable spelling or not. And 50% of words hav an unexpected spelling. Wile with those 4 rules, 50% of the words hav automaticly a spelling acording to rules (u no that 'bed' and 'hed' can only be speld that way, u no that bite, brite, plite, tite, kite, wite, fite, site, slite, hite, lite, mite, nite, rite can only speld that way), 30% hav an expectable spelling (without being ruled based), and 20% hav unexpected spellings. Not perfect, but much, much better...

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 946
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Ælfwine » 22 Oct 2019 05:12

I think the best way to go forward with English Orthography Reform is to slowly push acceptable deviations or shortenings of various words...compare for example how American English came to prefer "donut" over "doughnut." A lot of signs where I live too write "Boro" for "Borough" so you'll have the Boro of Manasquan NJ or something similar. Assuming globalization doesn't reverse this trend, I can see the US dialect in both phonology and orthography starting to appear radically different from say, the English used by the European Union for communication.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 22 Oct 2019 10:31

Wel, u can wate until sum peeple "in the frunt" start using mor logical spellings to start using it, or u can be one of those peeple in the frunt who start using it. I'm one of those peeple...

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 24 Oct 2019 03:19

Zé do Rock wrote:
22 Oct 2019 10:31
Wel, u can wate until sum peeple "in the frunt" start using mor logical spellings to start using it, or u can be one of those peeple in the frunt who start using it. I'm one of those peeple...
The problem here is that using letters, such as c and u, as words originated text speak and will, very likely, never gain wider acceptance in any fashion. I, for one, find it repulsive and consider you very lucky to have earned this response from me.
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 24 Oct 2019 04:16, edited 1 time in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by qwed117 » 24 Oct 2019 03:30

Hot take: English orthography reform is already happening, and you've probably engaged in it without noticing it. If you've ever spelled homogenous then yes, you're a part of the process. Just start with a few words, spelling them closer to your pronunciation. Just don't make it too obvius and you'll be fine.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Ser » 24 Oct 2019 06:18

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
24 Oct 2019 03:19
Zé do Rock wrote:
22 Oct 2019 10:31
Wel, u can wate until sum peeple "in the frunt" start using mor logical spellings to start using it, or u can be one of those peeple in the frunt who start using it. I'm one of those peeple...
The problem here is that using letters, such as c and u, as words originated text speak and will, very likely, never gain wider acceptance in any fashion. I, for one, find it repulsive and consider you very lucky to have earned this response from me.
C'mon, if the Middle English pronoun "ich", still used in the 15th century, managed to replace its spelling to modern "I", it can happen to "you" as well. [:D]

Compare, also, with how the -n of Middle English verbal infinitives and plurals was dropped (to doon, they writen > to do, they write), much unlike a very similar change in nearby French (Old French parles, parlent [ˈparləs ˈparlə(n)θ], which are nowadays still spelled [tu] parles, [ils] parlent but pronounced [tyˈpaʁl i(l)ˈpaʁl]).

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 24 Oct 2019 10:42

qwed117 wrote:
24 Oct 2019 03:30
Hot take: English orthography reform is already happening, and you've probably engaged in it without noticing it. If you've ever spelled homogenous then yes, you're a part of the process. Just start with a few words, spelling them closer to your pronunciation. Just don't make it too obvius and you'll be fine.
Languages hav been reformd all the time, english is no exception - utherwize we'd stil be riting in olde aenglisc.

By the way, french and english had a much mor fonetic spelling in the Middle Ages. But wen national languages started replacing latin in the ritten language and printed books apeerd, scollars started adding letters from latin that wer misleeding for the reeder. The french scollars started spelling the word 'doi' (finger) as 'doigt', to remind peeple that the original word was latin 'digitus' (i guess most peeple stil didnt no that the latin word was digitus), 'doubter' for 'douter' - that one didnt cach in french but caut in english 'doubt'. Sum of them eeven ended up changing the pronunciation, as 'adventure' for french 'aventure' (wich was aventure in english too), wich got an extra D to sho the latin origin - and peeple ended up pronouncing a D that wasnt utterd in the old days. The scollars had the suport of printers, who wer very intrested in longer words, wich ment mor text and mor munny. And now we'r stuk with all those unnecessary letters, altho nobody has enny proffit of it ennymor. This happend in german too, and i guess in quite a few uther languages, altho altogether german ended up with a less ireggular spelling than english or french - french has a bad spelling too, but as bad as english, in french u cant no how to spel a word, but at leest u can reed it, wile english is complicated for the riter and for the reeder as wel.

svld
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 62
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 12:12

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by svld » 24 Oct 2019 13:25

Hir aim gouing tu teint iur ais uiz lis uosoguafi rifuom. Hau du iu laik it? Ai fink lis is srpuaisingli plisrnt (fuo uat it is) tu lr ais, lou it saunds rili sili.
Last edited by svld on 25 Oct 2019 12:01, edited 2 times in total.

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 24 Oct 2019 18:14

I guess the comment is about my posts...

But look at the difrence:

Hir aim gouing tu teint iur ais uiz lis orsoguafi rifuom. Hau du iu laik it? Ai fink lis is srpuaisingly plisrnt (fuo uat it is) tu lr ais, lou it saunds rili sili.
Heer i'm going to taint your eyes with this orthografy reform. How do u like it? I think this is surprinsingly plesant (for wat it is) to your eyes, tho it sounds realy silly.

Out of 34 words, u keep 5 unchanged. I change 6, and 28 ar kept unchanged. U hav 2 changes per word, i hav one change in evry 3 words. And i dont spel U for /r/ or L for /T/ (th), the changes ar acording to the domminant english spelling patterns. 'Hir' suggests a rime with 'sir', eeven traditional spelling has 'here', wich could suggest a rime with 'there', wile u can be quite sure that 'heer' is pronounced the way the word usualy is pronounced. 'Orthografy' suggests the rite pronunciation, wile 'orthography' could be pronounced with P, orthograpy, as in 'shepherd'. And orsoguafi, wel... Sum peeple dont like changes in the language, but it has changed a lot since the days wen homo sapiens left Africa (the ones who left), and it wil keep changing... Eeven the spelling, that moves sloer than the spoken language, has changed, Webster reformd quite a few words, sum of the respellings came thru, uthers didnt, Theodore Roosevelt and his Wite House used 300 simplified spellings, sum of them came thru, uthers didnt...

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 25 Oct 2019 00:35

Ser wrote:
24 Oct 2019 06:18
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
24 Oct 2019 03:19
Zé do Rock wrote:
22 Oct 2019 10:31
Wel, u can wate until sum peeple "in the frunt" start using mor logical spellings to start using it, or u can be one of those peeple in the frunt who start using it. I'm one of those peeple...
The problem here is that using letters, such as c and u, as words originated text speak and will, very likely, never gain wider acceptance in any fashion. I, for one, find it repulsive and consider you very lucky to have earned this response from me.
C'mon, if the Middle English pronoun "ich", still used in the 15th century, managed to replace its spelling to modern "I", it can happen to "you" as well. [:D]

Compare, also, with how the -n of Middle English verbal infinitives and plurals was dropped (to doon, they writen > to do, they write), much unlike a very similar change in nearby French (Old French parles, parlent [ˈparləs ˈparlə(n)θ], which are nowadays still spelled [tu] parles, [ils] parlent but pronounced [tyˈpaʁl i(l)ˈpaʁl]).
True about "ich." But, that's a bit different because "ich" may've been a holdover from German, where it's survived to this day.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 138
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: If English used diacritics

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 25 Oct 2019 03:20

Xonen wrote:
20 Oct 2019 21:34
Zé do Rock wrote:
20 Oct 2019 11:08
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
19 Oct 2019 23:25
I'd say <i y> should be spelled <ai ay> if they are pronounced /ai/, and <a> should be spelled <ea> or <ae> if pronounced /ei/.
Yea, sam piepel haev sajestid thaet wi spel inglish saunds with "cantinental" leter vaelius, olthou yu haev tu meik sam impravizeishen, for the saunds thaet igzist ounli in inglish. Ai laik the aidia, bat ai dount think it staends a chaens, aes the spaenish wudnt laik ther laengwij biing speld with an inglish sistem (eg umeegoez for 'amigos'?)... aend af corse meni internaeshanal wörds wudnt bi imiediatli recagnaizabal, laik 'neishan' for 'nation', etc...
Let's face it: no reform actually stands much of a chance. Some informal spellings like "thru" or "nite" might gradually gain more ground, so that at some point, they'll start replacing the traditional spellings even in more formal contexts... but I wouldn't bet on it, especially not in the reasonably near future. More ambitious reform plans are about as realistic as auxlangs; designing them might be interesting as a thought exercise, but you can't really expect that many people (or indeed, anyone but their creator, in most cases) to start actually using them.


Ser wrote:
20 Oct 2019 19:31
Xonen wrote:
18 Oct 2019 22:21
Topic merged.
I'm sad you or some other mod deleted thevietguy's esoteric post
Seems it was the admin, actually. He appears to have a fairly low tolerance for nonsense these days, I'm afraid.
Also, <u> becomes <iu> if pronounced /jʉ/

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zekoslav » 25 Oct 2019 10:19

Do you think reforming English spelling to be both accurately etymological (e.g. stone becomes stoan because it derives from Old English stān and the silent e isn't etymological) and regular enough to be able to make out a word's pronunciation from it's spelling (so there's no more things such as beak, break and bread) is possible at all? Or there have been too many irregular sound changes, so that making pronunciation predictable from spelling must be done by sacrificing etymological accuracy?
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 25 Oct 2019 10:47

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
25 Oct 2019 00:35
True about "ich." But, that's a bit different because "ich" may've been a holdover from German, where it's survived to this day.
Evry germanic word in english is a holdover from german sumhow, after all the angloes came from the area between Germany and Denmark, and the saxons came from Germany (or the Netherlands, ware they speek a northern german dialect calld dutch). And english kept changing, as dutch, lo german and hi german kept changing...

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 25 Oct 2019 12:07

Zekoslav wrote:
25 Oct 2019 10:19
Do you think reforming English spelling to be both accurately etymological (e.g. stone becomes stoan because it derives from Old English stān and the silent e isn't etymological) and regular enough to be able to make out a word's pronunciation from it's spelling (so there's no more things such as beak, break and bread) is possible at all? Or there have been too many irregular sound changes, so that making pronunciation predictable from spelling must be done by sacrificing etymological accuracy?
English has a very unfoneemic spelling with the excuse that it is etymological, but it is not etymological either. It spels the sound /f/ with PH to sho that the word is greek, but 'shepherd' or 'nephew' arnt greek. It spels 'debt' to sho that the word cums from latin, but the word came from french as 'dette' and was speld like that, until sumbody thaut that they should ad a D to sho the latin origin. But wat is etymological in it, if the word is neither 'dette' as in french nor 'debitum' as in latin? As for germanic words, if english had an etymological spelling it would be stil speld as olde aenglisc.

If we had a foneemic or fonetic spelling, sum words would get farther away from the words in uther languages, like 'werd' for 'word', ware uther germanic languages hav an O (ord, wort, woord). But 'werld' for 'world' would get us neerer to them, since they hav E (wereld, welt, verden). 'Orthography' keeps english neer to french, but not neerer to greek, ware PH would be pronounced /ri/. And 'orthografy' streemlines english with all uther european languages with roman alfabet, since they all hav F and not PH.

svld
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 62
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 12:12

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by svld » 25 Oct 2019 12:40

Zé do Rock wrote:
24 Oct 2019 18:14
Well, the "iur (your)" there is second person plural.

That spelling is basically IPA with <sh ng ...> and <r> for both schwa and rhotic and not distinguishing semivowels from vowels. And what it transcribed is heavy mandarin accent minus epenthetic vowels, tones, and coda consonant dropping, so :

'sir' => 'sr'
'there' => 'ler'
'shepherd' => 'sheprd'
by the way, '-tion' will become '-shyn' /cyn/, with a front rounded vowel!

Just for fun [:D]

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 146
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Zé do Rock » 25 Oct 2019 15:29

svld wrote:
25 Oct 2019 12:40
Zé do Rock wrote:
24 Oct 2019 18:14
Well, the "iur (your)" there is second person plural.

That spelling is basically IPA with <sh ng ...> and <r> for both schwa and rhotic and not distinguishing semivowels from vowels. And what it transcribed is heavy mandarin accent minus epenthetic vowels, tones, and coda consonant dropping, so :

'sir' => 'sr'
'there' => 'ler'
'shepherd' => 'sheprd'
by the way, '-tion' will become '-shyn' /cyn/, with a front rounded vowel!

Just for fun [:D]
Reformd english spelling for a hevvy mandarin accent - i wouldnt no how to call that... conlang-pidjin??? Ennyway if u do it for fun, i wish u fun!

U mite be intrested in seeing this post i got from a spelling group, it's a text in 12 difrent scheems. Note that sum of them hav aa for short american O's (naalidj), i dont no how peeple could convince the english and the rest of the world outside North America to adopt it. Maybe they think of it as sumthing for North America only, but we once made a pole amung peeple, very few would like to hav difrent versions of english in the world.


TRADITIONAL SPELLING (TS)


Knowledge is the wealth of nations, and language is the main social technology by which knowledge is communicated. An efficient orthography is therefore of great importance. English, as the principal international language of the early twenty‐first century, has much to offer the world, but its spelling is archaic and dysfunctional. Technically, the reform of English spelling would not be difficult, but there are very major political obstacles in the way. The benefits of spelling reform would greatly exceed the costs, and a 'Big Bang' approach to reform is required. The present article outlines a technical solution and the way in which reform could be implemented.


105 words, 671 characters.


IPA (for reference)


/ˈnɒlɪd͡ʒ ɪz ðə wɛlθ ɒv ˈneɪʃənz ænd ˈlæŋɡwɪd͡ʒ ɪz ðə meɪn ˈsoʊʃəl tɛkˈnɒləd͡ʒiː baɪ wɪt͡ʃ ˈnɒlɪd͡ʒ ɪz kəˈmjuːnɪkeɪtɪd ən ɪˈfɪʃənt ɔ˞ˈθɒgɹəfiː ɪz ˈðɛə˞fɔ˞ ɒv ɡɹeɪt ɪmˈpɔ˞təns ˈɪŋglɪʃ æz ðə ˈpɹɪnsəpəl ˌɪntə˞ˈnæʃənəl ˈlæŋɡwɪd͡ʒ ɒv ðiː ˈɜ˞liː ˈtwɛntiːfɜ˞st ˈsɛnt͡ʃə˞(ɹ)iː hæz mʌt͡ʃ tuː ˈɒfə˞ ðə wɜ˞ld bʌt ɪts ˈspɛlɪŋ ɪz ɑ˞ˈkeɪ.ɪk ænd dɪsˈfʌŋkʃənəl ˈtɛknɪkliː ðə ɹɪˈfɔ˞m ɒv ˈɪŋglɪʃ ˈspɛlɪŋ wʊd nɒt biː ˈdɪfɪkəlt bʌt ðɛə˞ ɑ˞ ˈvɛɹiː ˈmeɪd͡ʒə˞ pəˈlɪtɪkəl ˈɒbstəkəlz ɪn ðə weɪ ðə ˈbɛnɪfɪts ɒv ˈspɛlɪŋ ɹɪˈfɔ˞m wʊd ˈɡɹeɪtliː ɪkˈsiːd ðə kɒsts ænd ə bɪɡ bæŋ əˈpɹoʊt͡ʃ tuː ɹɪˈfɔ˞m ɪz ɹɪˈkwaɪə˞d ðə ˈpɹɛzənt ˈɑ˞tɪkəl ˈaʊtlaɪnz ə ˈtɛknɪkəl səˈluːʃən ænd ðə weɪ ɪn wɪt͡ʃ ɹɪˈfɔ˞m kʊd biː ˈɪmplɪmɛntɪd/


NÚ COED - pràpoezd bi Martín Botero


Nollij iz dhà welth ov neishonz, and langguij iz dhà mein soeshal tecnollogy bi wich nollij iz comuenikeitid. Àn ifishent orthografy iz dheirfor ov greit importans. Ingglish, az dhà principal internashonal langguij ov dhe erly twenty-ferst cenchùry, haz much tou offer dhà werld, but its spelling iz arkeyic and disfuncshonal. Tecnicaly, dhà riform ov Ingglish spelling wood not be difficult, but dheir ar verry meijor polittical obstakelz in dhà wey. Dhà bennifits ov spelling riform wood greitly ixcied dhà còsts, and a 'Big Bang' aproech tou riform iz riquaierd. Dhà prezzent artikel owtlainz à tecnical soloushon and dhà wey in wich riform cood be implementid.


105 werdz, 664 carracterz.


POLIYGLOT'S STAENDARDSPEL (PSS) - prapouzd bai Philip Johnson-Smith


Nolij iz dha welth ov neishanz, aend laenggwij iz dha mein soushal teknolaji bai wic nolij iz kamyuwnikeitid. An ifishant oorthografi iz dhearfoor ov greit impoortans. Ingglish, aez dha prinsapal intarnaeshanal laenggwij ov dhi eerli twenti‐feerst sencarri, haez mac tu ofar dha weerld, bat its speling iz aarkeyik aend disfankshanal. Teknikli, dha rifoorm ov Ingglish speling wud not bi difikalt, bat dhear aar veri meijar palitikal obstakalz in dha wei. Dha benifits ov speling rifoorm wud greitli iksiyd dha kosts, aend a 'Big Baeng' aprouc tu rifoorm iz rikwayard. Dha prezant aartikal autlainz a teknikal saluwshan aend dha wei in wic rifoorm kud bi implimentid.


105 weerdz, 667 kaeraktarz.


RISTORD LÆTINØT SPELIÑ (RLS) - prøpouzd bai Gregory H. Bontrager


Nolij iz ðø welþ ov neiçønz, ænd længwij iz ðø mein souçøl teknoløji bai wic nolij iz kømyúnikeitid. Øn ifiçønt orþogrøfi iz ðeørfor ov greit importøns. Ingliç, æz ðø prinsøpøl intørnæçønøl længwij ov ði érli twenti‐férst sencørri, hæz mac tu ofør ðø wérld, bat its speliñ iz arkeyik ænd disfankçønøl. Teknikli, ðø riform ov Ingliç speliñ wud not bi difikølt, bat ðeør ar veri meijør pølitikøl obstøkølz in ðø wei. Ðø benifits ov speliñ riform wud greitli iksíd ðø kosts, ænd ø 'Big Bæñ' øprouc tu riform iz rikwayørd. Ðø prezønt artikøl autlainz ø teknikøl sølúçøn ænd ðø wei in wic riform kud bi implimentid.


105 wérdz, 610 kærøktørz.



MODARN OARTHOGRAFI FOAR MODARN IN'GLISH (MOFMI)

– prapouzd bay Gregory H. Bontrager


Nolij iz dha welth ov neishanz, ànd làngwij iz dha mein soushal teknolaji bay wic nolij iz kamyuenikeitid. An ifishant oarthografi iz dhearfoar ov greit impoartans. In'glish, àz dha prinsipal intarnàshanal làngwij ov dhi eurli 21st sencarri, hàz mùc tu ofar dha weurld, bùt its speling iz aarkeyik ànd disfùnkshanal. Teknikli, dha rifoarm ov In'glish speling wud not bi difikalt, bùt dhear aar veri meijar palitikal obstakalz in dha wey. Dha benifits ov speling rifoarm wud greitli iksied dha kosts, ànd a 'Big Bàng' aprouc tu rifoarm iz rikwayard. Dha prezant aartikal autlainz a teknikal salueshan ànd dha wey in wic rifoarm kud bi implimentid.


- 105 weurdz, 540 kàriktarz (see MOFMI in the file section for details)



SPELRAIT - propouzd bai Jim Carter


Nolij iz the welth ov neishonz, ænd længgwij iz the mein soushal tecnoloji bai wich nolij iz comiuniceitid. An ifishent oorthografi iz theerfoor ov greit impoortans. Ingglish, æz the prinsipal internæshonal længgwij ov thi œrli twenti-fœrst senchuri, hæz mach tu ofer the wœrld, bat its speling iz aarceiic ænd disfancshonal. Tecnicali, the rifoorm ov Ingglish speling wud not bi dificult, bat theer aar veri meijor political obstacelz in the wei. The benifits ov speling rifoorm wud greitli ixiid the costs, ænd a 'Big Bæng' aprouch tu rifoorm iz ricwaird. The prezent aarticel autlainz a tecnical soluushon ænd the wei in wich rifoorm cud bi implimentid.


105 wœrdz, 656 cæracterz.


NU ENGLISH


(converter) by Bob Cleckler


Noluj iz thu weltt uv nāshunz, and langgwuj iz thu mān sōshul tekn*olujē bī hwich noluj iz kum*yūnikātud. An ef*ishunt ōrtt*ogrufē iz ther-fōr uv grāt imp*ōrtuns. Ingglish, az thu prinsipul intur-nashunul langgwuj uv thē urlē 20‐1st senchurē, haz much tu aufur thu wurld, but its speling iz ork*āik and dis-funkshunul. Tekniklē, thu ref*ōrm uv Ingglish speling wood not bē difikult, but ther or verē mājur pul*itikul obstukulz in thu wā. Thu benefits uv speling ref*ōrm wood grātlē ex*ēd thu kausts, and u 'Big Bang' upr*ōch tu ref*ōrm iz req*īrd. Thu prezunt ortikul out-līnz u teknikul sōl*ūshun and thu wā in hwich ref*ōrm kood bē implumentud.




SB: Not sure how we get from ˈlæŋɡwɪd͡ʒ to langgwuj

stress is regular so no external marks are required. When unstressed, u = schwa. If unstressed,

any short vowel would become a schwa so why not langgwij? receive = ri*sév or re*sév or ru*sév?



ALC Soundspel


(similar to New Spelling) from the Better Spell converter at americanliteracy.org.


Nolej is th welth of naeshuns, and langgwej is th maen soeshal tecnolojy bi which nolej is comuenicaeted. An efishent orthografy is thairfor of graet importans. English, as th prinsipal internashunal langgwej of th erly twenty‐ferst senchery, has much to offer th werld, but its speling is arkaeic and dysfunctional. Technically, th reform of English speling wuud not be dificult, but thair ar verry maejor political obstacls in th wae. Th benefits of speling reform wuud graetly exseed th costs, and a 'big Bang' aproech to reform is reqierd. Th prezent articl outliens a tecnical solooshun and th wae in which reform cuud be implemented.



Truespel /V=u/ schwa=not standardized. Irregular stress marked.


Naalij iz thu welthh uv naeshinz, and laengwij iz thu maen soeshool teknnaalujee bie wich naalij iz kimyyuenikaetid. An iffishint ortthhaagrufee iz thairfor uv graet impportints. Eenglish, az thu printsipool internnashinool laengwij uv thee erlee twentyfirst sencheree, haz much tue aufer thu werld, but its speleeng iz aarkkaeyik and dysfunctional. Tekniklee, thu rifform uv Eenglish speleeng wood naat bee difikult, but thair aar vairee maejer pullitikool aabstikoolz in thu wae. Thu benifits uv speleeng rifform wood graetlee eksseed thu kausts, and a'Big Baeng' uprroech tue rifform iz rikwwierd. Thu prizzent aartikool outlienz a teknikool sullueshin and thu wae in wich rifform kood bee implimentid.


https://www.englishforums.com


Simpel-Fonetik spelling: Allan Kiisk.


Nolidsh is the wealth of neishons, änd längwidsh is the mein soushal teknolodshi bai witsh nolidsh is komjunikeited. Än efishent orthoografi is therfor of greit impoortans. Inglish, äs the prinsipal internäshonal längwidsh of the öörli twentiföörst sentshöri, häs matsh tu offer the wöörld, bat its spelling is arkeik änd disfankshonal.





Lytspel – pro’poasd by Christian Siefkes (Crischen Zeefkess)


Nolij is dhe welth ov naitions, and langgwij is dhe main soashel tec’noleji by wich nolij is co’miunicaited. An i’fishent or’thogrefi is dhairfoar ov grait im’poartenss. Ingglish, as dhe prinsipl inter’nationel langgwij ov dhe urli twenti‐furst sencheri, has much tu ofer dhe wurld, but its speling is ar’cayic and dis’functionel. Tecniclli, dhe ri’form ov Ingglish speling wood not bee dificult, but dhair ar verri maijer po’liticl obstecls in dhe way. Dhe benefits ov speling ri’form wood graitli i’xeed dhe costs, and a 'Big Bang' a’proach tu ri’form is ri’quyrd. Dhe present articl outlyns a tecnicl so’luution and dhe way in wich ri’form cood bee implemented.


105 wurds, 664 carricters.


Spellable: (from DRKP) a=schwa, axe=æks,


Naalaj iz dha welth av neishanz, aend laengwaj iz dha mein soshal teknaalaji baai wich naalaj iz kamyunakeitid. An ifishant awrthaagrafi iz dherfawr av greit impawrtans. Inglish, aez dha prinsapal intarnaeshanal laengwaj av dhi arli twenti‐farst senchari, haez mach tu awfar dha warld, bat its speling iz aarkeiik aend disfankshanal. Teknikali, dha rifawrm av inglish speling wud naat bi difakalt, bat dher aar veri meijar palitakal aabstakalz in dha wei. Dha benafits av speling rifawrm wud greitli iksid dha kawsts, aend a big baeng aproch tu rifawrm iz rikwaaiard. Dha prezant aartikal aautlaainz a teknikal salushan aend dha wei in wich rifawrm kud bi implamentad.


Diacritic

Nälàj iz dhà welth àv neishànz, ănd lăngwàj iz dhà mein soshàl teknälàji bäi wich nälàj iz kàmyunàkeitid. àn ifishànt ŏrthägràfi iz dherfŏr àv greit impŏrtàns. Inglish, ăz dhà prinsàpàl intàrnăshànàl lăngwàj àv dhi àrli twenti‐fàrst senchàri, hăz màch tu ŏfàr dhà wàrld, bàt its speling iz ärkeïk ănd disfànxànàl. Teknikàli, dhà rifŏrm àv Inglish speling wud nät bi difàkàlt, bàt dher är veri meijàr pàlitàkàl äbstàkàlz in dhà wei. Dhà benàfits àv speling rifŏrm wud greitli ixid dhà kŏsts, ănd à big băng àproch tu rifŏrm iz riqäiàrd. Dhà prezànt ärtikàl äutläinz à teknikàl sàlushàn ănd dhà wei in wich rifŏrm kud bi implàmentàd.


And heer 2 colectiv sistems ware i participated (HS had much mor peeple than RITE (Redusing Iregularitys in Tradicional English - dont spell right, spel RITE!

HS (House Stile)

Nollege is the welth of nations, and language is the mane social tecnology by wich nollege is comunicated. An eficient orthografy is tharefor of grate importance. English, as the principal international language of the erly twenty‐first century, has much to offer the world, but its spelling is arcaic and dysfunctional. Tecnicly, the reform of English spelling would not be dificult, but thare ar very major political obstacles in the way. The bennefits of spelling reform would grately exceed the costs, and a 'big bang' aproach to reform is required. The present article outlines a tecnical solution and the way in wich reform could be implemented.

651 caracters


RITE

Nollej is the welth of nations, and languaj is the mane social tecnolojy bi wich nollej is comunicated. An eficient orthografy is tharefor of grate importanse. English, as the prinsipal international languaj of the erly twenty‐ferst sentury, has much tu offer the werld, but its spelling is arcaic and disfunctional. Tecnicly, the reform of English spelling wud not be dificult, but thare ar very major political obstacles in the way. The bennefits of spelling reform wud grately exceed the costs, and a 'big bang' aproach tu reform is required. The prezzent article outlines a tecnical solution and the way in wich reform cud be implemented.

642 caracters

Judging by your sistem, u'd considder the 2 last ones rather boring... but we wanted sumthing that stil looks english...

Post Reply