Streamlining the alphabet.

  • Thread starter matthyaouw
  • Start date
  • #1
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,153
5
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Secondly: The letter Q currently cannot be used without preceeding U. This gives a character that by itself is obsolete.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:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,527
29
Great ideas! Do you think we could also quit using Y as a vowel?
 
  • #3
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
matthyaouw said:
Texas becomes Teksas.
:rofl: Well, unless you're from Texas, then it should be spelled something like Tayeksas. :biggrin:
 
  • #4
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
310
I used to think that lmno was one letter - pronounced ellemmenno - and perhaps it should be.
 
  • #5
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,662
1,586
Replace the soft G with J.

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

Ph replaced by f

Physics = fisiks
 
  • #6
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
249
matthyaouw said:
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.
Careful, lad. Roentgen will start spinning in his crypt if you use the term 'eks-rays'.
 
  • #7
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,662
1,586
Math Is Hard said:
Great ideas! Do you think we could also quit using Y as a vowel?

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.
 
  • #8
JamesU
Gold Member
750
3
kool, y lyk thys. maby wee cood mäk Smylee fayce a lettr. pronouncd 'sf' as in fosforys
 
  • #9
192
1
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.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
I always though kids these days were just void any english abilities. I guess they're just very progressive!
 
  • #11
I don't know. Somehow I don't find this topic particularly humorous.
 
  • #12
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
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.
 
  • #13
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,201
56
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:
  • #14
I think this is a double plus ungood idea.
 
  • #15
dduardo
Staff Emeritus
1,890
3
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.
 
  • #16
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
loseyourname said:
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.
Yikes ! You don't think we already have too many people using 'of' when they should use 'have' ?
 
  • #17
Gokul43201 said:
Yikes ! You don't think we already have too many people using 'of' when they should use 'have' ?
That's just because they aren't thinking. That mix up probably comes from contractions like "Should've" and "Would've".
 
  • #18
740
13
matthyaouw said:
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:

HAHAHA mark twain already beat you to it! :tongue:

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain


For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
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.
 
  • #19
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
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:
  • #20
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,153
5
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.
 
  • #21
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
751
4
matthyaouw said:
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.
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.
 
  • #22
matthyaouw said:
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.
Oops. You appear to be having difficulty with your own new alphabet. :rofl:
 
  • #23
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
751
4
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!
 
  • #24
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,153
5
fi said:
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!

Thats a really good point- I hadn't thought of that.
 
  • #25
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
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:

Related Threads on Streamlining the alphabet.

  • Last Post
8
Replies
188
Views
31K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
954
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
27K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Top