Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Streamlining the alphabet.

  1. Nov 25, 2005 #1

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Our alphabet is in need of an overhaul. I propose the following changes.
    Any corrections or suggestions of your own are appreciated.
    Firstly: The letter C is redundant. Its use can be easily eliminated by:
    • Substitution with the letter K, eg kan, klimb, kombustable.
    • Re-structuring of word, eg Rice becomes Reis, accent becomes aksent.
    • Ck becomes K, eg Kik, Flik.
    • Replacement of Ch with Kh, or accented K.
    Secondly: The letter Q currently cannot be used without preceeding U. This gives a character that by itself is obsolete. This requires attention.
    Options include:
    • Not including the U. Queen becomes Qeen
    • Qu is replaced by an accented Q
    • Q is eliminated entirely, and replaced by appropriate letters, eg Queen = Kween, Queue = Kyue (note elimination of extra E)
    Thirdly: the letter X adds nothing to the language. Eliminating it would be of no loss, and make scrabble a heck of a lot easier.
    • Texas becomes Teksas.
    • Xerox becomee zerocks.

    :tongue:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2005 #2

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Great ideas! Do you think we could also quit using Y as a vowel?
     
  4. Nov 25, 2005 #3

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: Well, unless you're from Texas, then it should be spelled something like Tayeksas. :biggrin:
     
  5. Nov 25, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I used to think that lmno was one letter - pronounced ellemmenno - and perhaps it should be.
     
  6. Nov 25, 2005 #5

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Replace the soft G with J.

    George -- Jorje (dropping the first e)
    Gorge -- Gorje

    Ph replaced by f

    Physics = fisiks
     
  7. Nov 25, 2005 #6

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Careful, lad. Roentgen will start spinning in his crypt if you use the term 'eks-rays'.
     
  8. Nov 25, 2005 #7

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Better yet, replace all long i's with y.
    long e always as ee (no silent e's at the end of words)

    Then

    phycology = fykolojee

    phosphide = fosfyd.
     
  9. Nov 25, 2005 #8

    JamesU

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    kool, y lyk thys. maby wee cood mäk Smylee fayce a lettr. pronouncd 'sf' as in fosforys
     
  10. Nov 25, 2005 #9
    Write Awn Dood!

    R alfabet iz in neade ov n ovirhall. Eye propoz tha fallowing chainjez.
    Ennee korrektshunz oar sugjestshunz ov uoar oan r uppreeshee8ed.
    :cool: Furstlee: Tha letter See iz redonedant. Its yoos kan b ezilee elimin8ed bi:
    Substi2shun widf tha letter K, e.jee. kan, klimb, kombustable.
    Re-strukshuring ov ward, e.jee. Ryss bkumz Reis, accent beekumz aksent.
    Ck beekumz K, e.jee. Kik, Flik.
    Replaisment ov Ch with Kh, oar aksented K.
    :cool: Sekundlee: Tha letter Q kerrentlee kannot b yoozd withowlt preeseeding Ewe. This givz a karakter that bi itsailf iz obsouleet. This rekwirz a10shun.
    Opshunz inklood:
    Nawt inklooding tha Ewe. Queen beekumz Qeen
    Qu iz replaist bi n aksented Q
    Q iz elimin8ed ntirelee, and replaist bi appropreit letterz, e.jee Queen = Kween, Queue = Kyue (noat eliminashun ov xtra E)
    :cool: Thurdlee: tha letter Eks addz zr0 2 tha langwidj. Elimin8ing it wood b ov zr0 los, + maik skrabowl a hek ov a lawt ezyer.
    Texas beekumz Teksas.
    Xerox beekumz zerokz.
     
  11. Nov 25, 2005 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I always though kids these days were just void any english abilities. I guess they're just very progressive!
     
  12. Nov 25, 2005 #11
    I don't know. Somehow I don't find this topic particularly humorous.
     
  13. Nov 26, 2005 #12

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'd propose actually spelling the change of sound when consonants are used at the end of words and consistency with vowel sounds, like "uv" instead of "of" and "wordz" instead of "words." Of course, the language snobs will hate this because it reeks of teen IM-speak, but generally speaking, phonetic spelling certainly makes things easier, especially for people learning the language. The education of immigrants would likely become more effective.
     
  14. Nov 26, 2005 #13

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why don't y'all just pick up Czech. It is a existing completely consistent alphabet. To be able to say the Czech alphabet is equivalent to reading. Of course the trick is to be able to speak the alphabet. There is one letter (r hat) which my ex-grandfather-inlaw claimed was impossible for any American to ever say correctly!
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2005
  15. Nov 26, 2005 #14
    I think this is a double plus ungood idea.
     
  16. Nov 26, 2005 #15

    dduardo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus

    Forget the latin alphabet, we need more practical characters. Here are a couple rules that I think should be followed:

    1) Writing should be as foward moving as possible. No looping allowed. The only motion allowed is up, down and the direction the words go.
    2) No extraneous markings. No Dots over the i and j. No dashes in the middle of A's. No crosses in X's. No double bars like I's.

    What is the minimum number of characters wanted? Is ten enough? One for each finger?

    What direction do you want to write? Left to Right or Right to Left?

    In terms of what the characters should sound like would you want a hard sounding language like hebrew or soft like french.
     
  17. Nov 26, 2005 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yikes ! You don't think we already have too many people using 'of' when they should use 'have' ?
     
  18. Nov 27, 2005 #17
    That's just because they aren't thinking. That mix up probably comes from contractions like "Should've" and "Would've".
     
  19. Nov 27, 2005 #18
    HAHAHA mark twain already beat you to it! :tongue:

    http://www.i18nguy.com/twain.html

    on link off that page there's also europe's plan for improving english spelling, which i don't think is as good.
     
  20. Nov 29, 2005 #19

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Woot! I've been saying this forever. Well, I've been saying it for more than a month, at least. Heh. Adults may resist. That's one of the drawbacks of letting people think for themselves. You have to go after the jʌŋənz. And why reinvent the wheel? Check out the http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/ipa/index.html [Broken]'s system (just for fun, their alphabet is also abbreviated to IPA). Bonus: You can probably use the same alphabet for every language. :biggrin:

    The problem is that "the same words" can be pronounced differently, so you still might want a standard, which presumably wouldn't make things better unless your standards took advantage of rules better than the current system does (e.g., instead of having to learn how to spell a single word, you could learn a rule that applied in a certain situation). I'm still hoping that it will catch on eventually.

    Either way, u kan "brake" uh laught uv roolz & stil bee under stood, sew cevler r r minds -- cooperative too. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  21. Nov 29, 2005 #20

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess the only real drawback of this (aside from having to learn it all, and admit txt talkrz were right all along) is that everyone would to some degree have to adopt the regional accent and pronunciations of the person who set these new rules, as this will affect the new spellings.
     
  22. Nov 29, 2005 #21

    fuzzyfelt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have a concern, but I suspect I might be alone:smile: - I worry that whenever I hear this, I hear quick fix solutions, like get rid of the 'c', without due consideration as to the historic relationships, and to what it all looks like. Sure both the c and k have been around a long time and both have good claims on the hard K sound - c originally being pronounced as a g by phonecians and greeks, with k laying original claims to the k sound, but the Romans, not troubling themselves too much with g sounds used c for k, borrowing from the Etruscans. Then when they added the g sound they invented g by putting a line on the c - 'G', showing their close phonetic relationship, which can be helpful. Also, I think c is a whole lot better looking and is a more fluid shape to write than k. As well, how could anyone suggest that the word crescent not begin with a c? Others may well think the k better looking, whatever, I just think it is worth considering all options and with the above example in mind, consider getting rid of the k and making c indicate only hard c sounds.
     
  23. Nov 29, 2005 #22
    Oops. You appear to be having difficulty with your own new alphabet. :rofl:
     
  24. Nov 29, 2005 #23

    fuzzyfelt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oo, just had another thought too, hard to explain though.
    Take the relationship between Physics and Physicist, the c, although pronounced differently, helps show the relationship between the words. Would that be as readily apparent if it were fisiks and fisisist?
    On second thoughts, 'fisisist' looks pretty good!
     
  25. Nov 29, 2005 #24

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thats a really good point- I hadn't thought of that.
     
  26. Nov 29, 2005 #25

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hm, I guess I'll look at the last discussion to see what came out of it. But starting with the alphabet... English has, depending on dialect and how you slice things, around 40 crucial sounds, or phonemes, and 26 letters to represent them. Does anyone want to defend that? Why 26? Because 26 is best for English?

    I wouldn't lose but add letters, letting each letter represent one phoneme and each phoneme be represented by one letter. I suspect that deviating from that is just asking for trouble. For instance, say you use a sequence of letters to represent a phoneme -- say th for the first phoneme of think. Now when speakers combine the phrase flat head into one word, flathead, you get an accidental th sequence. Does the pronunciation change too, or do you add this as an exception to the th rule? Changing the pronunciation is not inconsequential; flat and head, the two huge clues to the compound's meaning (and spelling, notice), are lost.
    Say you let one letter (or sequence of letters) represent more than one phoneme -- say th again, for the first phonemes in think and the. Now you either have more options for flathead or more rules to remember -- rules which can have the same accidents that the th sequence did. Hah, I forgot where this was going... whatever... it's GD; I'll just let it fizzle out...
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook