Spelling-Reform

[Oak Hills]

I'v becum intrested in spelling-reform propozals lately, and now that I'v thot about it, the illogical standard spellings ar driving me crazy.  So I'v decided tu start using sum nonstandard spellings.  Anywun els intrested in spelling-reform?

[All Along The Watchtower]

jao

[Hatman 🍁]

Deerəst cretʃer in creaʃən,
Studdy Eŋgliʃ prənownceaʃən.
I wil tetʃe U in my verss
Sownds like corpce core horce and werss.
I wil kepe U, Soozy bizzy,
Make yore hed wiθ hete gro dizzy.
Tere in i, yore dress wil tair.
So ʃal I! O here my prair.

Pray, kənsole yore luvviŋ poət,
Make my cote louc noo, dere so it!
Just kəmpair hart, berde, and herd,
Dise and diət, lorde and werd,
Sorde and sward, rətane and Brittən.
(Minde ðə ladder, how it'ss rittən.)
Made has not ðə sownd uv bad,
Say-ced, pay-pade, lade, but plad.

Now I ʃerly wil not plage U
Wiθ sutʃ werds as vage and aggu.
But be cairfəl how U speke:
Say brake and stake, but bleke and streke;
Preveəss, preʃəss, fuʃa, vea; clovən uvvən, how and lo,
Script, rəcete, ʃo, poəm, and to.

Here mee sae, dəvoid uv tʃrikkery,
Dotter, laffter, and Terpcikkery,
Tifoid, mezəls, toppsales, iles.
Eggziles, cimməlese, and rəviles;
Scoller, vikker, and ciggar,
Soler, mica, wore and far;
Wun, ənemməny, Ballmorəl,
Kittʃən, likən, lonndry, lorəl;
Gertʃrood, Jermən, wind and minde,
Cene, Mellpommeny, mannkinde.

Billət dus not rime wiθ ballay,
Bocay, wollət, mallət, ʃallay.
Blud and flud ar not like food,
Nore is molde like ʃoud and woud.
Visskəss, vicownt, lode and brod,
Təworde, to forwerd, to rəworde.
And yore  prənownceaʃən's ocay
Wen U kərecctly say crocay,
Rowndəd, woondəd, greve and civ,
Frend and fende, əlive and liv.

Ivy, privvy, faməs; clammer
And ənammer rime wiθ hammer.
Rivver, rivəl, toom, bom, come,
Dol and role and sum and home.
Stʃranjer dus not rime wiθ aŋŋger,
Neðer dus dəvowr wiθ claŋŋer. 
Soles but fowl, hont but ant,
Font, frunt, wonte, wont, grand, and grant,
Ʃoos, gose, dus. Now ferst sae fiŋŋger,
And ðen ciŋŋer, jinnjer, liŋŋger,
Real, zele, move, gos, gowj and gaje,
Mairəj, foleəj, meeroʒ, and aje.

Queery dus not rime wiθ vairy,
Nor dus fury sownd like bairy.
Dust, lost, poste and duθ, cloθ, loθe.
Jobe, nob, bouzəm, trannsəm, oθe.
Ðo ðə diffrinnsəs ceme liddəl,
We say acctʃwoul but viddəl.
Rəfer dus not rime wiθ deffer.
Feffer dus, and zeffer, heffer.
Mint, pinte, cenət and sədate;
Dul, boul, and Jorje ate late.
Cenic, Airəbic, Pəciffic,
Ciəntss, conntʃəss, ciəntiffic.

Libberty, librairy, heve and hevvən,
Ratʃəl, ake, məstaʃ, əlevvən.
We say hallode, but əlowd,
Pepəl, lepperd, tode, but vowd.
Marc ðə diffrəntsəs, morover,
Bətwene moover, cuvver, clover;
Letʃəs, brittʃəs, wise, prəcice,
Tʃalləs, but polece and lice;
Camməl, connstəbəl, unnstabəl,
Prinntsəpəl, dəcipəl, labəl.

Peddəl, pannəl, and kənal,
Wate, cerprise, plat, promməss, pal.
Werm, and storme, ʃase, caoss, tʃair,
Cennəder, specctater, mair.
Toor, but ar, sukker, fore.
Gass, əlass, and Arkənsaw.
Cee, idea, Corea, airea,
Som, Mərea, but məlairea.
Uθe, sowθ, sowðern, clens and clene.
Docctʃrən, terpəntine, mərene.

Kəmpair aleən wiθ Ətalleən,
Danndəliən and bətalleən.
Sally, wiθ alli, yay, ye,
I, I, ay, i, way, and ke.
Say əvair, but evver, fever,
Neðer, leʒer, scane, dəcever.
Hairən, grannery, kənairy.
Crevvəss and dəvice and eery.

Face, but preffəss, not əface,
Flem, fleggmaddəc, ass, glass, bace.
Larj, but targət, jin, giv, verjiŋ.
Ot, owt, jowst and scowr, skerjiŋ.
Ere, but ern and wair and tair
Doo not rime wiθ here but air.
Cevvən is rite, but so is evən,
Hifən, ruffən, neffu Stevən,
Muŋŋky, doŋŋky, Terc and jerc,
Asc, grasp, wosp, and corke and werc.

Prənownceaʃən – θinc uv ciky!
Is ə paliŋ stowt and spiky?
Won'te it make U loos yore witss,
Ritiŋ grotce and sayiŋ gritss?
It'ss ə darc əbiss or tunnəl:
Stʃroon wiθ stones, stode, soləss, gunnəl,
Izzliŋŋtən and Ile uv Wite,
Howswife, verdict and inndite.

Finəly, witʃ rimes wiθ ənuf -
Ðo, θroo, plow, or do, or cof?
Hiccup has ðə sownd uv cup.
My ədvice is too giv it up!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm in favour of literature, so no.

[Lief 🗽]

Why are spelling reform and literature incompatible?

[7,052,770]

Why are spelling reform and literature incompatible?

Yeah, most of the great literature from Shakespeare's era and before was written without standard spellings

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, I strongly dislike the idea of future generations finding it hard to get to grips with their cultural inheritance because of the meddling of utopian nitwits. Additionally, I don't think there's anything wrong with English as it currently is. I like its oddness and its fundamentally illogical nature and I don't see the benefit of trying to alter that. Particularly as there is no standard English dialect.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well, I strongly dislike the idea of future generations finding it hard to get to grips with their cultural inheritance because of the meddling of utopian nitwits. Additionally, I don't think there's anything wrong with English as it currently is. I like its oddness and its fundamentally illogical nature and I don't see the benefit of trying to alter that. Particularly as there is no standard English dialect.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't no abowt yu, but I cud du withowt thuh silly silent letters.


But seriously, it's legible enough as long as the first and last letters are the same:

For eamlxpe tihs snteence, utetlry out of odrer...and you porbblay siltl ustndernad it, croecrt?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I already do engage in some modest spelling reform tho I doubt the utility of more extensive efforts such as: Ay allredy due engaej in sum mahdest spelling reeform tho Ay doubt dh' yuetility uv mor extensiv efforts such az dhis.

[NewYorkExpress]

I just want to kill the wabbit, okay?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I just want to kill the wabbit, okay?

¿Due yue hav a speer and majik helmut?

[NewYorkExpress]

I just want to kill the wabbit, okay?

¿Due yue hav a speer and majik helmut?

Sadly, no.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well, I strongly dislike the idea of future generations finding it hard to get to grips with their cultural inheritance because of the meddling of utopian nitwits. Additionally, I don't think there's anything wrong with English as it currently is. I like its oddness and its fundamentally illogical nature and I don't see the benefit of trying to alter that. Particularly as there is no standard English dialect.

     It's silly, because pretty much every language has illogical constructions that are slightly inconvenient. Languages are organic structures that don't always make sense, but are always functional. Trying to correct their little foibles is a waste of time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just no.

[politicus]

For a radical spelling reform to make sense you would need to break the uniformity of the English language (even more than today) and change it into a group of closely related languages. I could see a reformed American with a spelling closer to modern American pronunciation work, but it would mean a profound break with British English. The same goes for Caribbean and Australian English etc. There are too many differences in pronunciation for one radical spelling reform to work in all Anglophone countries.

Minor pragmatic changes could of course be implemented, but you lack an "English Academy" to do it.

The last big and comprehensive spelling reform of Portuguese was hard to agree on, because Brazilians obviously wanted a major say in this and the Portuguese considered their version the correct one by definition. English would have this problem to an even larger degree and you lack the institutional framework to solve it.

[Barnes]

Well, I strongly dislike the idea of future generations finding it hard to get to grips with their cultural inheritance because of the meddling of utopian nitwits. Additionally, I don't think there's anything wrong with English as it currently is. I like its oddness and its fundamentally illogical nature and I don't see the benefit of trying to alter that. Particularly as there is no standard English dialect.

Hear, hear! 

[Associate Justice PiT]

For a radical spelling reform to make sense you would need to break the uniformity of the English language (even more than today) and change it into a group of closely related languages. I could see a reformed American with a spelling closer to modern American pronunciation work, but it would mean a profound break with British English. The same goes for Caribbean and Australian English etc. There are too many differences in pronunciation for one radical spelling reform to work in all Anglophone countries.

Minor pragmatic changes could of course be implemented, but you lack an "English Academy" to do it.

The last big and comprehensive spelling reform of Portuguese was hard to agree on, because Brazilians obviously wanted a major say in this and the Portuguese considered their version the correct one by definition. English would have this problem to an even larger degree and you lack the institutional framework to solve it.

     British English and American English will probably split into different languages eventually as they maintain separate spheres of influence. While I don't see the need to accelerate it for some utopian project, splitting the language might in fact be a pragmatic change.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Two OP: Ii her wut ure saiyan, butt Ii dun theenk it-uh wud bee feezible @alle

[ilikeverin]

Yess, uvv corse, like most lingwists.  Fore wunn, itt woodd deecrees dhuh prevulens uvv dislekkseea.

No, but really, dyslexia is much more rare of a diagnosis in countries that have a sensible orthography.  There's no reason why English should have to struggle with a terrible system that we've perpetuated for no apparent reason when we could at the very least get rid of "ough" and disambiguate the two types of "th"

[Mr. Smith]

But ralely, Eglnsih has bcemoe so attribrray  in its selipnlg it's cmaciol

[Sol]

Yess, uvv corse, like most lingwists.  Fore wunn, itt woodd deecrees dhuh prevulens uvv dislekkseea.

No, but really, dyslexia is much more rare of a diagnosis in countries that have a sensible orthography.  There's no reason why English should have to struggle with a terrible system that we've perpetuated for no apparent reason when we could at the very least get rid of "ough" and disambiguate the two types of "th"

Really? I thought it was the other way around--I know many dyslexics have a much easier time reading Chinese characters than the Latin Alphabet at least.

Anyway, yeah, English spelling reform is a pretty dumb idea. However, that being said, people should be at least taught basic IPA. There's nothing I hate more than the horrible crap you see in dictionaries that try to spell out things using some awful "spelling pronounciation" crap.

Also, even ignoring dialectical variation, reformed English vowels would be extremely unaesthetic--either you'd have lots of digraphs (which should probably be avoided considering English's love of diphthongs) or a bucket-load of diacritics like Vietnamese, which is, IMO, very ugly. The Latin Alphabet hates big vowel systems.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't think a complete reform is feasible, but like verin I think we should at least get rid of/fix some of the straightforward things, like the fact that "ough" still exists which is ridiculous.

[RFayette]

This reminds me of how some professors argue against redneck/ghetto children having to learn proper English because that's "their" dialect, yet their argument is written in perfectly precise, pedantic, academic English.

The reality is that people take you more seriously if you use standard English.  End of story.

[Sol]

This reminds me of how some professors argue against redneck/ghetto children having to learn proper English because that's "their" dialect, yet their argument is written in perfectly precise, pedantic, academic English.

The reality is that people take you more seriously if you use standard English.  End of story.

Did it perhaps occur to you that that may be the profs' native dialect?