Would you support a new writing system for English?

Would you support a new (better) writing system for English?

  • Yes, major changes

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Yes, but only minor changes

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • No, it's too much trouble

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • No, it's fine how it is

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Don't care/don't know

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
"No, it's fine" and "no, it's too much trouble" do not complete the space of "no"s.

For instance, I might want to say "no, it's simple but stupid", or "no, it's not fine, but it's the best there is", and others such. Guess I'm just being @n@!, eh ?

I like to have an "other reason" option to catch the ones that fall outside.
 

Chi Meson

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,767
10
In 1876, the American Philological Association adopted 11 new spellings, and began promoting their use: ar, catalog, definit, gard, giv, hav, infinit, liv, tho, thru, and wisht. In 1898, the (American) National Education Association began promoting a list of 12 spellings. They were tho, altho, thru, thruout, thoro, thoroly, thorofare, program, prolog, catalog, pedagog, and decalog.
The neatest thing about this is "catalog" caught on while "prolog" didn't. Funny how it's the NEA members (strict English teachers) that have prevented these very natural changes from occurring. I think that the "gh" has had far too long a ride.

honestrosewater said:
...

I'm talking about a real phonetic alphabet and real phonetic spelling. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English
It's simple: You spell it exactly as it sounds. Is there a long [e] sound? Write i. Is there a [z] sound? Write z. Another long [e] sound? Write i. It's izi!
This would cause the various dialects of the english language to be written differently. A car would be a "ka" in Boston, a "kah" in London, a "ker" in Wiskahnsin, etc.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
I hate learning new things :( especially when i already have a fairly good way of doing it now.
 

brewnog

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,701
7
Chi Meson said:
This would cause the various dialects of the english language to be written differently. A car would be a "ka" in Boston, a "kah" in London, a "ker" in Wiskahnsin, etc.
An excellent point.

It's hard enough to understand what people from various parts of the UK and world are saying, without complicating the issue with phonetic spelling. Written forms of communication need to be capable of transmitting ideas with absolute clarity. Phonetic spelling would merely diversify written language, not consolidate it.
 
honestrosewater said:
The s is normal at the end of a word, smartafs. :tongue2:
forry for upfetting you. HE made me do it------> :devil: TAG! You're it.

But really folks, bear-bare, comb-womb, have-halve, sheer-shear.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Evo said:
I would pronounce "izi" as "is zee" because the first "i" would have a short [ i ] sound and the "i" at the end would have a long [e] sound. There would need to be rules, the letter "i" can't always have a long [e] sound, if it did, "it" would be pronounced "eet".
There are rules. Every symbol always represents the same sound. I was just taking the IPA as an example - the short i sound in the English word it is represented with a symbol looking something like I. i is the long [e] sound. Using the IPA alphabet, it would be pronounced as [eat], bi is [bee], ti is [tee, tea], pis is [peace, piece], piz is [peas], fit is [feet], etc.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Gokul43201 said:
"No, it's fine" and "no, it's too much trouble" do not complete the space of "no"s.

For instance, I might want to say "no, it's simple but stupid", or "no, it's not fine, but it's the best there is", and others such. Guess I'm just being @n@!, eh ?

I like to have an "other reason" option to catch the ones that fall outside.
Okay, I'll remember next time to include other options. Feel free to add them to this one if you can. :smile:
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
brewnog said:
An excellent point.

It's hard enough to understand what people from various parts of the UK and world are saying, without complicating the issue with phonetic spelling. Written forms of communication need to be capable of transmitting ideas with absolute clarity. Phonetic spelling would merely diversify written language, not consolidate it.
Yes, Chi Meson raised a good point - but weren't you just complaining about liter and litre?
We would still have standard spellings and dictionaries. And people would still be taught the writing system, the alphabet, words, how to pronounce them, spell them, correct grammar, punctuation, etc. (remember learning how to read and write in school?), so worries of this sort could be taken care of as they are now. You still have all the formality of a writing system.
And I think being able to support different dialects and speech patterns is an advantage.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Echo 6 Sierra said:
forry for upfetting you. HE made me do it------> :devil: TAG! You're it.
(I was just joking, in case that didn't come across. :smile:)
 
854
16
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.
 
337
2
jimmysnyder said:
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Sonds logikl enuf to me, touh I wuld haf to jit usd to tis drmatik knge ov pasng. I hve a kuastin, sould xe Inglish speeking werld rplake "s" wif "f"? Fhs wud mak Inglish fomwhat mor lojikl, fuld ve want fuch refom.

Wat fuld b xe kors of aktion?
 
854
16
motai said:
sould xe Inglish speeking werld rplake "s" wif "f"?
No.

Anyway, that so-called 'f' in old style documents is actually a long s. Comparison with an actual f in the same document will expose the difference.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Yikes ! Twain was a monster ! How could he possibly write "replased" and then go on living his happy life as if everything was right with the world ?
 
854
16
Gokul43201 said:
Yikes ! Twain was a monster ! How could he possibly write "replased" and then go on living his happy life as if everything was right with the world ?
After he wrote that, he died.
 

Galileo

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,989
6
English spelling is uber-illogical. Let's take the word "ghoti", we want to find out how to pronounce it. If we take the letters from other words and use their pronunciation, let's see what we can come up with:

"gh" sounds like "f" in 'laugh'
"o" sounds like "i" as in "women"
"ti" sounds like "sh" as in "motion".
Hence we can logically conclude "ghoti" can be pronounced as "fish". Or the other way, we can spell 'fish' as 'ghoti'.
This absurd example is from Bernard Shaw, but the point remains that English spelling is not easy.
-----------
My Spell Checker

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plainly marques for my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid,
It nose bee fore two long,
And eye can put the error rite.
It's rarely ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it.
I am shore your pleased two no.
Its letter perfect in every weigh --
My chequer tolled me sew.

-source unknown
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
jimmysnyder said:
After he wrote that, he died.
Phew ! There is justice in the world, after all.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Evo said:
I would pronounce "izi" as "is zee" because the first "i" would have a short sound and the "i" at the end would have a long [e] sound. There would need to be rules, the letter "i" can't always have a long [e] sound, if it did, "it" would be pronounced "eet".

That's exactly what I was thinking too. "Izi" would rhyme with "dizzy." Or else you'd pronounce it eye-zeye. Neither a short nor long I sounds anything like a short or long e. Perhaps we just need to correct people's pronunciation so they can spell words correctly rather than changing the spelling? You all apparently needed my first grade teacher who made sure we pronounced every letter perfectly before worrying about how to spell whole words. After the first month of first grade, the rest of our primary school years were spent learning things like diphthongs and exceptions to the rules.
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Moonbear said:
That's exactly what I was thinking too. "Izi" would rhyme with "dizzy." Or else you'd pronounce it eye-zeye. Neither a short nor long I sounds anything like a short or long e.
Okay, I know you guys are smart, so what's the problem - am I not making it clear enough?
I'm talking about a real phonetic alphabet and real phonetic spelling. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English
It's simple: You spell it exactly as it sounds. Is there a long [e] sound? Write i. Is there a [z] sound? Write z. Another long [e] sound? Write i. It's izi!
The symbol i just happens to be the symbol in the IPA for the long [e] sound (as in bee and tea). Of course you'll be confused if you ignore the simple point that izi is written using the IPA alphabet and rules. Stresses aside, there's no doubt about how to pronouce izi using the IPA alphabet and rules. i is the long [e] sound and z is the [z] sound (as in zoo and zip). izi is pronounced just like the English word easy.
This isn't something that I just made up yesterday. Linguists use the IPA for English and all other spoken languages, hence the International Phonetic Alphabet. It's a perfectly good system. I've used it and think it's much easier than the English system - that's why I suggested it.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
honestrosewater said:
Okay, I know you guys are smart, so what's the problem - am I not making it clear enough?
The symbol i just happens to be the symbol in the IPA for the long [e] sound (as in bee and tea). Of course you'll be confused if you ignore the simple point that izi is written using the IPA alphabet and rules. Stresses aside, there's no doubt about how to pronouce izi using the IPA alphabet and rules. i is the long [e] sound and z is the [z] sound (as in zoo and zip). izi is pronounced just like the English word easy.
This isn't something that I just made up yesterday. Linguists use the IPA for English and all other spoken languages, hence the International Phonetic Alphabet. It's a perfectly good system. I've used it and think it's much easier than the English system - that's why I suggested it.
OH DEAR GOD!! I just looked at that "Phonetic Alphabet". :surprised Are they kidding??? That would make spelling a nightmare!!!! :bugeye: We might as well all learn Chinese!!

According to this "city" would be spelled "sIti". :surprised :surprised :surprised

queen would be kwin? :confused:

kitten would be kI7(backwards E)n :yuck:
 
Last edited:
337
2
Moonbear said:
You all apparently needed my first grade teacher who made sure we pronounced every letter perfectly before worrying about how to spell whole words. After the first month of first grade, the rest of our primary school years were spent learning things like diphthongs and exceptions to the rules.
Which of course is one of the advantages of phonetic spelling. Unfortunately the English language is more of a hodge-podge language, and oftentimes it seems that there are more exceptions to laws than there are laws itself, and irregulars bound. It seems to be more of a language that is "heard," and "felt," so that it makes it that much more difficult to learn.

After time and experience it seems like one can distinguish what sort of grammar is correct just by hearing it, and if it doesn't "sound right," then it can be corrected without conscientiously knowing the grammatical rules behind it, by just hearing it. This deficiency, as Galileo pointed out, tends to make some written English words completely different than how they are actually enunciated.

For more information, a quick Wiki can provide some insight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_orthography
 

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Evo said:
OH DEAR GOD!! I just looked at that "Phonetic Alphabet". :surprised Are they kidding??? That would make spelling a nightmare!!!! :bugeye: We might as well all learn Chinese!!

According to this "city" would be spelled "sIti". :surprised :surprised :surprised

queen would be kwin? :confused:

kitten would be kI7(backwards E)n :yuck:
But look at how easily you picked it up. :biggrin:
The symbols on that chart aren't very clear. http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/images/ipachart.gif (English doesn't use all of these sounds, so don't have a hernia. :wink:)
Most of the work is memorizing which symbols go with which sounds. Spelling is then mostly just sounding out a word.
There are some new symbols (along with familiar ones), but gee whiz, kindergarteners manage to learn alphabets, and people continue to learn new symbols all the time (think of the new symbols you learn for math, physics, chemistry, etc.).
And I'm only suggesting the IPA as an example. It could be customized for English.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
310
2
??? The Poll is EXACTLY how I would've predicted..

I think it'd be too much bother to change the language without having complete co-operation from the (international) education system. However I think it would be great to create an 'international' language. Latin alphabet of course, but all the rules and grammar would be based on logical connections.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
honestrosewater said:
But look at how easily you picked it up. :biggrin:
The symbols on that chart aren't very clear. http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/images/ipachart.gif (English doesn't use all of these sounds, so don't have a hernia. :wink:)
Most of the work is memorizing which symbols go with which sounds. Spelling is then mostly just sounding out a word.
There are some new symbols (along with familiar ones), but gee whiz, kindergarteners manage to learn alphabets, and people continue to learn new symbols all the time (think of the new symbols you learn for math, physics, chemistry, etc.).
And I'm only suggesting the IPA as an example. It could be customized for English.
(I'm having fun with this BTW :wink:)

Ok, thanks to your new link, my new word of the day is "fricative". :biggrin: I'm going to see how many times I can work that into a sentence tomorrow.

The problem I see with spelling a word the way it sounds is the variations in pronunciation. In Texas, "oil" would be "all". (I don't even see a replacement for "oi"). Or maybe I am too "stjupId". :biggrin:

TSM, aren't the dialects in Chinese quite challenging? Mandarin as opposed to Cantonese, etc... and I'm not talking lunch menus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

honestrosewater

Gold Member
2,071
5
Evo said:
(I'm having fun with this BTW :wink:)
kuɫ. :cool:
Ok, thanks to your new link, my new word of the day is "fricative". :biggrin: I'm going to see how many times I can work that into a sentence tomorrow.
That could actually work. With a fricative, air is forced through a narrow channel, which is formed by positioning two articulators (lips, teeth, tongue, etc.) close together, causing turbulent airflow (frication), as in (upper & lower teeth - with further direction by tongue)) and [f] (lower lip & upper teeth). So when someone is causing turbulence by forcing something through a narrow channel (or too narrow of a channel), you could call that a fricative situation. :approve:
The problem I see with spelling a word the way it sounds is the variations in pronunciation. In Texas, "oil" would be "all". (I don't even see a replacement for "oi"). Or maybe I am too "stjupId". :biggrin:
I think it's helpful (and fun) to be able to easily and clearly include those special, 'deviant' pronunciations. [oi] is a diphthong; it's listed in the bottom right table on wiki. I can't get the address of their homepage to come up, but here's a fabulous site: http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html [Broken]
They list all of the symbols and sounds, with explanation, animation, and audio. Click on vowels > diphthongs. [oi] is (backwards c)I. Check out the 'step-by-step descriptions' for each sound for more detail.
The solution to different pronunciations would be to have standard spellings, which people could learn when they learn the rest of the system. We already have to learn how to spell; this would just make it a lot easier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Would you support a new writing system for English?

  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
504
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top