Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
- Aurora Rossa
- Smeric
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
- Location: The vendée of America
- Contact:
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
If ever I take part in a successful revolution, I will make spelling reform one of my goals. Now perhaps I should write one of my novels set in a future where spelling reform has taken place and as a result the whole thing is written in the reformed spelling.
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."
- roninbodhisattva
- Avisaru
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:50 pm
- Location: California
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Good luck getting anyone to read that.Eddy wrote:If ever I take part in a successful revolution, I will make spelling reform one of my goals. Now perhaps I should write one of my novels set in a future where spelling reform has taken place and as a result the whole thing is written in the reformed spelling.
- Aurora Rossa
- Smeric
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
- Location: The vendée of America
- Contact:
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Wail wi wer bizzi daying and kutting fabrik intu red flags, aur uther kamrads wer essembling floots, inkluding a rufli hyuun effejji uv the dred akter Ronald Reegen tu set ebleez at the end uv the perreed.
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
HȺ, HU WEDNT WONT TE RID E FYU HENJRID PȺJIS EF ŦIS? FECN LITRÁRI JINYES RÍT ŦÁR! ITL BI MUR POPYELER ŦEN HÁRI POTR!! ISPEŚELI IF ŦERS SEM COMYENIST PROPEGANDE MICST IN ŦER OLSU!!!!! FEC YA MEŦRFECRSSSS~~`
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- roninbodhisattva
- Avisaru
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:50 pm
- Location: California
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
I like Nort's better.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
English spelling reform will only ever be truly successful in a novel but I think you would have to write the novel in current English and have your hero navigate the future world by trying to figure out what the signs mean.Eddy wrote:If ever I take part in a successful revolution, I will make spelling reform one of my goals. Now perhaps I should write one of my novels set in a future where spelling reform has taken place and as a result the whole thing is written in the reformed spelling.
I have in mind a similar idea for introducing my IAL proposal (which is basically a ruthlessly purged version of English) via a novel or a short story.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
No, if only one person uses it in one novel, it's called a "private orthography", and it's kind of pretentious unless it's justified by the work itself, e.g. like that one post-apocalyptic novel that's entirely written in a deliberately degraded form of English as a kind of local color. If all major newspapers willingly (unlike in Germany with its cursèd spelling reform) switch to the new system, though, I guess acceptance might be greater. From personal experience, people are very conservative about things like spelling, which makes radical spelling reforms difficult. It's probably only successful if the majority of people demands and accepts it. Or you'll have a situation where the spelling dictated to a younger generation – and reluctantly implemented by publishers – will gradually replace the old spelling simply due to the fact that people who've grown up with the old spelling will retire and die, to put it bluntly.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Yeah! Gratuitous diacritics rule!XinuX wrote:It even has the lower-case s for the third-person singular ending. It's genius!Nortaneous wrote:HȺ GÍZ LEȾ RÍT IṈLIŚ WIŦ EN ECSTENĆEN EV ŦE SENĆOŦEN URŦAGREFI
W̲ET E FECIṈ GRȺT ÍDIYE
U GOD W̲ET HEV Í DEN
At, casteda dus des ometh coisen at tusta o diédem thum čisbugan. Ai, thiosa če sane búem mos sil, ne?
Also, I broke all your metal ropes and used them to feed the cheeseburgers. Yes, today just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Also, I broke all your metal ropes and used them to feed the cheeseburgers. Yes, today just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Well, OK, but Newspeak got a fair start from being in 1984. I was thinking of doing something similar in my literary project. In the novel, the spelling reform would appear as an IAL used by robots to communicate with humans. A bit of future colour as it were. (Artistically justified IMHO.)Guitarplayer wrote:No, if only one person uses it in one novel, it's called a "private orthography", and it's kind of pretentious unless it's justified by the work itself, e.g. like that one post-apocalyptic novel that's entirely written in a deliberately degraded form of English as a kind of local color. If all major newspapers willingly (unlike in Germany with its cursèd spelling reform) switch to the new system, though, I guess acceptance might be greater. From personal experience, people are very conservative about things like spelling, which makes radical spelling reforms difficult. It's probably only successful if the majority of people demands and accepts it. Or you'll have a situation where the spelling dictated to a younger generation – and reluctantly implemented by publishers – will gradually replace the old spelling simply due to the fact that people who've grown up with the old spelling will retire and die, to put it bluntly.
I have zero optimism of getting an English spelling reform up in the real world. There is simply not enough political demand for English spelling reform. I used to write speeches for a Federal Politician in Australia. His mailbox was not filled with complaints about English spelling, let me tell you. When politicians' mailboxes do get filled with such complaints in all the Anglophone nations something may happen.
Until then, I won't be holding my breath
As far as I know, historically the major changes to national charactersets and languages, have been driven by governments (e.g. Vietnam, Korea, China, Indonesia). I am not sure about the politics in these nations but I imagine the government in each case was driven by lobby groups of some sort (e.g. teacher's unions, nationalists or whatever).
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
In my opinion, it would kind of take away from English to reform its spelling and make it regular. Apart from that, there are too many English speakers for there to be one uniform, reformed spelling system.
Not gonna lie, though. It'd be pretty neat if we re-adapted þ and ð.
Not gonna lie, though. It'd be pretty neat if we re-adapted þ and ð.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
I support yogh for /ŋ/. Mostly because my handwriting already collapses <ng> into something that looks a lot like yogh.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
It has rules, as Zompist proved.lctrgzmn wrote:In my opinion, it would kind of take away from English to reform its spelling and make it regular.
That's because it's a chicken's scrawl : 'Nortaneous wrote:I support yogh for /ŋ/. Mostly because my handwriting already collapses <ng> into something that looks a lot like yogh.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Maybe I should have worded that. A great deal of English spelling has rules, but due to the borrowing of many words, the rules might as well be invalidated. Apart from that, those rules of Latinate words are much different than rules of native English words (consider the "hard" and "soft" g, a rule brought from French -- and is commonly seen in all Romance languages -- as said letter, along with c, becomes soft before e an i; generally, a g before an i and/or e would merit a [d͡ʒ], while in words such as give or get it doesn't change at all.Guitarplayer wrote:It has rules, as Zompist proved.lctrgzmn wrote:In my opinion, it would kind of take away from English to reform its spelling and make it regular.
English's spelling rules aren't nonexistent, but they tend to split up according to etymology and follow the borrowed language's rules, rather than its own, at times.
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:36 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Indeed. The 26 character alphabet is quite simply inadequete: <th> is the prime example of an ambiguous diagraph (I support the motion to re-instate <þ> and <ð> for the voiced and unvoiced "th"), <c> and <g> too are ambiguous graphemes and <x> is nearly useless. In the same vein, semivowels like <y> are obvious oddities. That is all without mentioning the "-tion" word ending or the digraphs <gh>, <gn> and <ph>. Silent letters are not terribly problematic, but the paupacy of graphemes for vowels is definately troubling. Marking stress orthographically is not important, but would be massively helpful.lctrgzmn wrote:Maybe I should have worded that. A great deal of English spelling has rules, but due to the borrowing of many words, the rules might as well be invalidated. Apart from that, those rules of Latinate words are much different than rules of native English words (consider the "hard" and "soft" g, a rule brought from French -- and is commonly seen in all Romance languages -- as said letter, along with c, becomes soft before e an i; generally, a g before an i and/or e would merit a [d͡ʒ], while in words such as give or get it doesn't change at all.Guitarplayer wrote:It has rules, as Zompist proved.lctrgzmn wrote:In my opinion, it would kind of take away from English to reform its spelling and make it regular.
English's spelling rules aren't nonexistent, but they tend to split up according to etymology and follow the borrowed language's rules, rather than its own, at times.
Having stated my position, I must also state that it is my conviction that "True Americans (TM)" will never accept any changes to spelling or any dictation of the same regardless whether it is instigated in the US or not, because it will be rejected as "foreign, against the traditon, etc." and thus "unAmerican". I suspect that is will be similarly rejected throughout the Anglosphere, but perhaps for reasons relating to convienience and similar concerns.
[quote="brandrinn"]A right without necessary provisions for its observance is just a cruel joke.
[/quote]
http://rpusa.info/platform.htm
http://www.stardestroyer.net/
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
[/quote]
http://rpusa.info/platform.htm
http://www.stardestroyer.net/
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
- Aurora Rossa
- Smeric
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:46 am
- Location: The vendée of America
- Contact:
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
I have actually sketched some ideas for a reformed spelling that almost satisfies me. The main problems lie in how to handle that pesky schwa. I have not yet found a way of writing it that really clicks for me. One the one hand, I have tried assigning the sound to an existing vowel letter (either "e" or "u") but that results in some very ambiguous and unæsthetic spellings. On the other I have considered adding diacritics to one of the vowel letters to indicate the schwa, although given how frequently it occurs, that gets rather taxing. I am also debating whether to use digraphs or single letters (perhaps with diacritics) for certain sounds. For instance, should I retain the spelling of /tS/ as <ch> when I've eliminated all other instances of <c> in the orthography?
"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:36 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
I'd retain <c>, but eliminate <k> (which will fuck my given name, but I can deal). If you are using digraphs for schwa, then you should use them for diphthongs as well. Diacritics should be used sparingly and reflect stress and where applicable to distinguish front vowels from back (vowels which are neither should not be so marked). And so long as a silent letter- especially if it is a consonant- occurs in the middle of a word, count it as a syllable break; silent letters at the end of words should be eliminated.Eddy wrote:I have actually sketched some ideas for a reformed spelling that almost satisfies me. The main problems lie in how to handle that pesky schwa. I have not yet found a way of writing it that really clicks for me. One the one hand, I have tried assigning the sound to an existing vowel letter (either "e" or "u") but that results in some very ambiguous and unæsthetic spellings. On the other I have considered adding diacritics to one of the vowel letters to indicate the schwa, although given how frequently it occurs, that gets rather taxing. I am also debating whether to use digraphs or single letters (perhaps with diacritics) for certain sounds. For instance, should I retain the spelling of /tS/ as <ch> when I've eliminated all other instances of <c> in the orthography?
One cannot get rid of all ambiguity in spelling; naturalism in speech and writing will not allow it (see Esperanto for proof of this), but the bulk of the anomalies can and should be removed.
[quote="brandrinn"]A right without necessary provisions for its observance is just a cruel joke.
[/quote]
http://rpusa.info/platform.htm
http://www.stardestroyer.net/
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
[/quote]
http://rpusa.info/platform.htm
http://www.stardestroyer.net/
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Why is everyone so keen on replacing <th> with <þ> and <ð>? I think what's more confusing is the pronunciation of <g>. Also, <-ough> should be replaced with something less ambiguous. And pseudo-Latin spellings.
- Thomas Winwood
- Lebom
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:47 am
- Contact:
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Because the two sounds are almost phonemic, and (more so for þorn than eð) they were discarded from the language for reasons which are no longer relevant.Guitarplayer wrote:Why is everyone so keen on replacing <th> with <þ> and <ð>?
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Yes, this thread is dead, but I have a respelling for English, so why not post it here?
I read the very interesting blogpost by Geoff Lindsey where he reanalysed the British vowel inventory. So I had to make a spelling system based on that analysis.
The vowels:
/ɪj/ <iy> miyt (meat and meet)
/ɛj/ <ey> keyk (cake)
/ɑj/ <ay> taym (time)
/ɔj/ <oy> toy (toy)
/əː/ <yr> thyrst (thirst)
/ɑː/ <ar> kar (car), farst (fast)
/ɔː/ <or> mor (more)
/ɛː/ <er> ster (stair)
/aw/ <aw> mawth (mouth)
/əw/ <yw> gryw (grow)
/ɵw/ <uw> duw (do)
/ɪ/ <i> fit (fit)
/ɛ/ <e> pet (pet)
/a/ <a> pat (pat)
/ə/ <y> lyk (luck)
/ɵ/ <u> buk (book)
/ɔ/ <o> bot (bot)
The consonants
As is, but:
/ʃ/ <c> cip (ship)
/ʒ/ <j> mejy (measure)
/tʃ/ <tc> tcip (chip)
/dʒ/ <dj> Djon (John)
The North Wind and the Sun:
Thy North Wind and thy syn wyr dispyuwting witc woz thy strongy, wen y travly keym ylong in y worm klywk.
They ygriyd that thy wyn huw fyrst syksiydid in meyking thy travly teyk hiz klywk of cud (=should) biy kynsidyd strongy than thiy othy.
Then thy North Wind bluw az hard az hiy kud, byt thy mor hiy bluw thy mor klywzliy did thy travly fywld his klywk yrawnd him;
and at larst thy North Wind geyv yp thiy ytempt. Then thy Syn cajnd awt wormliy, and imiydiyytliy thy travly tuk of his klywk.
And syw the North Wind woz ywblaydjd ty kynfes that thy Syn woz the stronger ov thy tuw.
I read the very interesting blogpost by Geoff Lindsey where he reanalysed the British vowel inventory. So I had to make a spelling system based on that analysis.
The vowels:
/ɪj/ <iy> miyt (meat and meet)
/ɛj/ <ey> keyk (cake)
/ɑj/ <ay> taym (time)
/ɔj/ <oy> toy (toy)
/əː/ <yr> thyrst (thirst)
/ɑː/ <ar> kar (car), farst (fast)
/ɔː/ <or> mor (more)
/ɛː/ <er> ster (stair)
/aw/ <aw> mawth (mouth)
/əw/ <yw> gryw (grow)
/ɵw/ <uw> duw (do)
/ɪ/ <i> fit (fit)
/ɛ/ <e> pet (pet)
/a/ <a> pat (pat)
/ə/ <y> lyk (luck)
/ɵ/ <u> buk (book)
/ɔ/ <o> bot (bot)
The consonants
As is, but:
/ʃ/ <c> cip (ship)
/ʒ/ <j> mejy (measure)
/tʃ/ <tc> tcip (chip)
/dʒ/ <dj> Djon (John)
The North Wind and the Sun:
Thy North Wind and thy syn wyr dispyuwting witc woz thy strongy, wen y travly keym ylong in y worm klywk.
They ygriyd that thy wyn huw fyrst syksiydid in meyking thy travly teyk hiz klywk of cud (=should) biy kynsidyd strongy than thiy othy.
Then thy North Wind bluw az hard az hiy kud, byt thy mor hiy bluw thy mor klywzliy did thy travly fywld his klywk yrawnd him;
and at larst thy North Wind geyv yp thiy ytempt. Then thy Syn cajnd awt wormliy, and imiydiyytliy thy travly tuk of his klywk.
And syw the North Wind woz ywblaydjd ty kynfes that thy Syn woz the stronger ov thy tuw.
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
The problem with spelling reforms that tie a letter to schwa is that it's never used consistently (perhaps because phonologically, unstressed schwa in English varies with stressed full vowels, usually) – so you've got a few places there like 'as' or 'was' that I think should be spelt with a schwa rather than a full vowel.
This particular one also suffers because you use y for two or three different things: you've got the offglide in the diphthongs, as well as schwa, and /ʌ/, which at least for me is not a schwa. And is certainly nothing like [j].
also i guess it doesn't help when I really don't have a diphthong for /i/ or /u/ and I find renditions that group them with diphthongs hard to read. or really anything that groups rhotics and non-rhotics together. RP, not British.
This particular one also suffers because you use y for two or three different things: you've got the offglide in the diphthongs, as well as schwa, and /ʌ/, which at least for me is not a schwa. And is certainly nothing like [j].
also i guess it doesn't help when I really don't have a diphthong for /i/ or /u/ and I find renditions that group them with diphthongs hard to read. or really anything that groups rhotics and non-rhotics together. RP, not British.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
As a non-native I kind of merge /ʌ/ and /a/, since to my ears, /ʌ/ has an a-like quality to it (German /a/ is low-central). In a tonuge-in-cheek-ish spelling reform I made once based on my own pronunciation of English, I ended up using <a> for /ə/, which was mostly no problem for unstressed syllables. So, in my opinion, much ugliness might could* be avoided by taking unstressed syllables into account, since those will rather likely be much more restricted in terms of population size phontactics.
--
*) Formal English really has a gap there.
--
*) Formal English really has a gap there.
Last edited by Jipí on Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Yes, it's sometimes a bit arbitrary. Using schwa or not. I'm aware of that, and of the pronounciations of as and was. But if ever people decide to change English spelling, they will have to make such arbitrary dicisions, or decide that both spellings are considered to be right.finlay wrote:The problem with spelling reforms that tie a letter to schwa is that it's never used consistently (perhaps because phonologically, unstressed schwa in English varies with stressed full vowels, usually) – so you've got a few places there like 'as' or 'was' that I think should be spelt with a schwa rather than a full vowel.
True, even I myself, as a foreign speaker, don't pronounce /@/ and /V/ identically. But as I indicate, I based this spelling on the analysis of Geoff Lindsay, and he analyses the two as one phoneme (well, he's a bit ambiguous on that point). As for using <y> for both the [j]-offglide and for schwa, that doesn't bother me personally, as it won't result in ambiguous situations. But I can see why you would object to it.finlay wrote: This particular one also suffers because you use y for two or three different things: you've got the offglide in the diphthongs, as well as schwa, and /ʌ/, which at least for me is not a schwa. And is certainly nothing like [j].
Well, the analysis that I based this spelling on has this grouping, and that's an important reason I made this spelling. I'm not proposing this should be used in any real context. It's just an exercise to develop a spelling for a specific (variant of a) language.finlay wrote:also i guess it doesn't help when I really don't have a diphthong for /i/ or /u/ and I find renditions that group them with diphthongs hard to read. or really anything that groups rhotics and non-rhotics together. RP, not British.
Thanks for your response!
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Does it? I genuinely don't know what "might could" could possibly mean that isn't covered by "could". I mean I know it exists in some dialects but for me it's like nonsense talk.Jipí wrote:As a non-native I kind of merge /ʌ/ and /a/, since to my ears, /ʌ/ has an a-like quality to it (German /a/ is low-central). In a tonuge-in-cheek-ish spelling reform I made once based on my own pronunciation of English, I ended up using <a> for /ə/, which was mostly no problem for unstressed syllables. So, in my opinion, much ugliness might could* be avoided by taking unstressed syllables into account, since those will rather likely be much more restricted in terms ofpopulation sizephontactics.
--
*) Formal English really has a gap there.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
Hm OK, I maybe had a bit of a big mouth about unstressed vowels in English. The stressed ones are bad enough already. Finlay will probably say that this proposal is untenable anyway because dialects.
The North Wind änd the Sann wer dispiuting wich wase the stronger, wenn e träveler keem along räped in a worm klok. Thee agrid thät the wann hu ferst seksided in meeking the träveler teek his klok off shud bi konsiderd stronger thän thi ather. Thenn the North Wind blu as hard as hi kud, batt the mor hi blu the mor kloseli didd the träveler fold his klok araund him; änd at läst the North Wind geev app thi attemt. Thenn the Sann shaind aut wormli, änd immidiatli the träveler tuck af his klok. Änd so the North Wind wase oblaijd tu konfess thät the Sann wase the stronger off the tu.
The North Wind and the Sann wer dispiuting wich wase the stronger, wenn e traveler keem along raped in a worm klok. Thee agrid that the wann hu ferst seksided in meeking the traveler teek his klok off shud bi konsiderd stronger than thi ather. Thenn the North Wind blu as hard as hi kud, batt the mor hi blu the mor kloseli didd the traveler fold his klok araund him; and at last the North Wind geev app thi attemt. Thenn the Sann shaind aut wormli, and immidiatli the traveler tuck af his klok. And so the North Wind wase oblaijd tu konfess that the Sann wase the stronger off the tu.
The North Wind and the Sann wer dispiuting wich wase the stronger, wenn e traveler ceem along raped in a worm clok. Thee agrid that the wann hu ferst secsided in meeking the traveler teek his clok off shud bi considerd stronger than thi ather. Thenn the North Wind blu as hard as hi cud, batt the mor hi blu the mor closeli didd the traveler fold his clok araund him; and at last the North Wind geev app thi attemt. Thenn the Sann shaind aut wormli, and immidiatli the traveler tuck af his clok. And so the North Wind wase oblaijd tu confess that the Sann wase the stronger off the tu.
If you merge the TRAP~BATH vowel in BrE, you can even go completely without <ä>. Also, if you prefer <c> over <k>, use that. I was just adding <k> for Germanicness. Also, I kept <se> for /z#/, because I find <z> an ugly letter. I also see no reason in distinguishing /θ/ and /ð/, since /ð/ is very limited anyway. Where it matters word-finally (e.g. in breath : breathe), you could make an analogy from <se> and write <the>, breth : brithe. However, as Vlad points out on IRC, the pair either : ether is problematic, since both would become ither, provided you pronounce either as /ˈiːðər/, not /ˈaɪðər/.
Code: Select all
KIT iCC/iC kitt, shipp, ripp, dimm, spirrit
DRESS eCC dress, stepp, ebb, hemm, terrer
TRAP ä träp, bäd, käb, häm, äro
LOT oCC/a lott, stopp, robb, swonn; stap, rab, swan
STRUT aCC stratt, kabb, rabb, hamm
FOOT uCC/uC futt, full, luck, kud
BATH aC/ä bath, staf, klasp, dans; bäth, stäf, kläsp, däns
CLOTH oCC kloth, koff, long, lorrel, orrijin
NURSE er nerse, hert, term, werk
FLEECE i flis, sid, ki, sise
FACE ee fees, weet, reen, steek
PALM a pam, kam, bra, father
THOUGHT oo thoot, toot, hook, brood
GOAT o got, sop, sol, hom
GOOSE u guse, hu, grup, fiu
PRICE ai prais, raip, traib, ail, quaier
CHOICE oi chois, boi, void, koin
MOUTH au mauth, pauch, naun, kraud, flauer
NEAR i nir, bir, pir, firs, siries
SQUARE er squer, ker, er, wer, Meri
START ar start, far, sharp, farm, sefari
NORTH or north, wor, storm, for, orel
FORCE or fors, flor, korse, or, orrel
CURE ur kiur, pur, tur, fiuri
LETTER er letter
COMMA e/a komma, the
The North Wind and the Sann wer dispiuting wich wase the stronger, wenn e traveler keem along raped in a worm klok. Thee agrid that the wann hu ferst seksided in meeking the traveler teek his klok off shud bi konsiderd stronger than thi ather. Thenn the North Wind blu as hard as hi kud, batt the mor hi blu the mor kloseli didd the traveler fold his klok araund him; and at last the North Wind geev app thi attemt. Thenn the Sann shaind aut wormli, and immidiatli the traveler tuck af his klok. And so the North Wind wase oblaijd tu konfess that the Sann wase the stronger off the tu.
The North Wind and the Sann wer dispiuting wich wase the stronger, wenn e traveler ceem along raped in a worm clok. Thee agrid that the wann hu ferst secsided in meeking the traveler teek his clok off shud bi considerd stronger than thi ather. Thenn the North Wind blu as hard as hi cud, batt the mor hi blu the mor closeli didd the traveler fold his clok araund him; and at last the North Wind geev app thi attemt. Thenn the Sann shaind aut wormli, and immidiatli the traveler tuck af his clok. And so the North Wind wase oblaijd tu confess that the Sann wase the stronger off the tu.
If you merge the TRAP~BATH vowel in BrE, you can even go completely without <ä>. Also, if you prefer <c> over <k>, use that. I was just adding <k> for Germanicness. Also, I kept <se> for /z#/, because I find <z> an ugly letter. I also see no reason in distinguishing /θ/ and /ð/, since /ð/ is very limited anyway. Where it matters word-finally (e.g. in breath : breathe), you could make an analogy from <se> and write <the>, breth : brithe. However, as Vlad points out on IRC, the pair either : ether is problematic, since both would become ither, provided you pronounce either as /ˈiːðər/, not /ˈaɪðər/.
Last edited by Jipí on Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:56 am, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Yet Another English Spelling Reform Thread
*might be able to be avoided That is, uncertain possibility of accomplishment, but passivized.finlay wrote:I genuinely don't know what "might could" could possibly mean that isn't covered by "could".
Last edited by Jipí on Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:45 am, edited 3 times in total.