Is pronunciation reform the key to a fully phonetic alphabet?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of achieving a fully phonetic alphabet through pronunciation reform versus spelling reform. Participants explore the complexities of dialects, pronunciation variations, and the challenges associated with standardizing language in English.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a fully phonetic alphabet is impossible due to differing pronunciations across dialects, suggesting that pronunciation reform could be a more viable approach.
  • Others question the practicality of eradicating dialects, asking who would decide which pronunciation to standardize.
  • One participant notes that while dialects may change, there is a rough agreement on letter sounds, and that pronunciation reform could simplify spelling.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of teaching standardized pronunciations, especially given regional variations and idiosyncrasies in speech.
  • Some participants highlight personal experiences with pronunciation differences, illustrating the challenges of standardizing language.
  • A suggestion is made for a new simplified English alongside the existing unphonetic written language, proposing changes to spelling to align more closely with pronunciation.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the feasibility of both pronunciation and spelling reforms, arguing that changing pronunciation is much more difficult than altering spelling.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether pronunciation reform is more feasible than spelling reform, with multiple competing views and significant disagreement on the practicality of standardizing pronunciation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their proposals, including the deep-rooted nature of dialects, the complexity of pronunciation, and the potential resistance to changing established language norms.

  • #31
TeethWhitener said:
Americans don't even consider directives from Washington to be authoritative :DD
'Dont EVEN consider Washington?' I have to protest a little bit here. Washington DC was founded in 1790.
English Literature can go back further than that and if we rewrote the rule book I would expect a seat at the table.
The end one.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Writing the rules should be based on representation of the speakers, so Washington, New Delhi, Lagos and Manila each get more votes than London
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Algr
  • #33
f95toli said:
Local dialects are for many people a very important part of their identity.
Yes, exactly this. Humans are fundamentally tribal. We don't actually want to be part of a single big homogenous group; we don't want to agree on everything, look the same, or sound the same. In fact people will go out of their way to invent distinctions and advertise their tribal allegiances. You need look no further than bumper stickers on cars, which are nearly all advertising some allegiance to a social group of some sort.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
  • #34
pinball1970 said:
if we rewrote the rule book I would expect a seat at the table.
You had a seat at the table the last time (the only seat) and look how that turned out :-p
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
  • #35
f95toli said:
Local dialects are for many people a very important part of their identity.
On the other side, 'international English' (in which native speakers of any dialect has just small minority!) has a very important part of the wallet of many.

It'll be .. interesting o0)
 
  • #36
atyy said:



Those politicians are being quite rude. I'm an American and I got most of what he was saying the first time, and fully understood by the second. If those guys want Scotland to be part of the UK, the least they could do is learn to understand how their own countrymen speak.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
  • #37
Algr said:
If those guys want Scotland to be part of the UK, the least they could do is learn to understand how their own countrymen speak.
The SNP -which is the party currently in power in Scotland- is the Scottish National Party.
They don't want Scotland to be part of the UK...Leaving the union is their main goal and I don't think they care at all if someone from England can understand what they are saying.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
  • #38
f95toli said:
The SNP -which is the party currently in power in Scotland- is the Scottish National Party.
They don't want Scotland to be part of the UK...Leaving the union is their main goal and I don't think they care at all if someone from England can understand what they are saying.
I was faulting the other politicians for not understanding Scottish as well as an American, and seemingly laughing at this guy's accent. That would promote disunity. If it was just some ordinary Joe, that would be different. But in the halls of government, more responsibility is needed.
 
  • #39
While Prez Teddy Roosevelt issued an executive order that spelling should be phonetic. The order was ignored. Teddy followed this practice but no one else did.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K