A kweschun abaut a fohnetic speling sistem.

[Maximum Zersk]

I wonder. I've heard the "It'll never work" argument, but I wonder. How exactly would a phonetic spelling system work? Like the title of the thread? Or different?

[Crimmy]

First off:
Spanish. Phonetics til the very end.

We don't speak letters in groups, or with various sounds, like "A", or "E"

We speak letters one by one. If you see "Hospital" or "Chocolate", you don't say "Chokoleeit" or "Jospitel"

[Maximum Zersk]

First off:
Spanish. Phonetics til the very end.

We don't speak letters in groups, or with various sounds, like "A", or "E"

We speak letters one by one. If you see "Hospital" or "Chocolate", you don't say "Chokoleeit" or "Jospitel"

Oh, I know that other languages have phonetic spelling. I'm talking about an English system, though.

[Flickerdart]

First off:
Spanish. Phonetics til the very end.

We don't speak letters in groups, or with various sounds, like "A", or "E"

We speak letters one by one. If you see "Hospital" or "Chocolate", you don't say "Chokoleeit" or "Jospitel"
Russian is very similar in that sense. There are two letters that modify the way other letters sound, but they don't have sounds themselves so it's cool. You might say that means they're punctuation, but that just means you're not cool enough. :smallwink:

[Cyrion]

I think you'd have to work on such a system from two directions at once- standardizing spelling and standardizing pronunciation. I knew a guy from Massachussetts whose mother was from Tennessee. By the time the two accents were mixed, his first name had three syllables when spoken.

His name was Troy.

[Dogmantra]

Trubul iz, wē hav fīv vowlz and lots mor vowl sowndz. Wē hav tu resort tu yusing thingz līk "ī".

Also dipthongs, like "th".

[Asta Kask]

First off:
Spanish. Phonetics til the very end.

We don't speak letters in groups, or with various sounds, like "A", or "E"

We speak letters one by one. If you see "Hospital" or "Chocolate", you don't say "Chokoleeit" or "Jospitel"

So... do you have no dialects, or do people from different parts of the country spell things differently?

[Rothen]

I'm not sure why it couldn't work. You'd only have to add a couple more letters to the alphabet, but that's all.

The only real reason it could be a problem is that occasionally words and expressions from other languages are added to the English vocabulary, and their pronunciation can sometimes contain sounds that are alien to the English language.

[Manga Shoggoth]

There was such a system used in some "progressive" schools. It was called ITA, and used a couple of symbols to express some of the sounds that were not easily represented with letters.

Of course, the victim then has to learn how to read properly afterwards...

I don't think it is used any more. From a family point of view it is thought to have made my godmother's son dyslexic - he went to school already able to read normally, and was the forced to learn ITA because the school refused to make allowances. That screwed up his reading abilities quite nicely.

[13_CBS]

I wonder. I've heard the "It'll never work" argument, but I wonder. How exactly would a phonetic spelling system work? Like the title of the thread? Or different?

"It'll never work" seems much more like a question of practicality than physical possibility. The (modified) Latin alphabet that modern English uses today is, as Dogmantra mentions, is insufficient for English. IIRC, the "standard" American English dialect has roughly...16? different vowel noises, while there are only 5 vowel letters (a-e-i-o-u). We get more out of those letters by making rules about their placement within a word changing how they sound (and so the "u" in "rule" sounds different from the one in "rust"). For the wonkier sounds, we may need additional symbols. (And I personally think that C should be removed, and be replaced in all instances with K or S, where appropriate :smallannoyed:)

However, to convert the current English spelling system into a more sensible one we'll first have to come up with one that everyone can agree upon for a standard dialect (What do a, e, i, o, and u sound like? What symbol or combination of letters do we use to represent "th" and dipthongs (two vowels back to back, like "eye" (a-ee) or "boy" (o-ee))?. After that, we'll have to teach everyone the new system, and possible convert most or all existing examples of the old spelling system. That takes too much work for what will be very little gain.

[Ashen Lilies]

I think you'd have to work on such a system from two directions at once- standardizing spelling and standardizing pronunciation. I knew a guy from Massachussetts whose mother was from Tennessee. By the time the two accents were mixed, his first name had three syllables when spoken.

His name was Troy.

Indeed, I pronounce the word phonetic itself as 'fuhnetic' as opposed to 'fohnetic' as the title. :smalltongue:

[Xallace]

I'm not sure why it couldn't work. You'd only have to add a couple more letters to the alphabet, but that's all.

And we could change some that don't make unique sounds, like C, Q, or X.

[Yarram]

Trubul iz, wē hav fīv vowlz and lots mor vowl sowndz. Wē hav tu resort tu yusing thingz līk "ī".

Also dipthongs, like "th".


"Th" isn't a dip-thong. A dip-thong is a sound like, "I" from "pie" or "Side."
It contains two vowel sounds "ah-ee."
The pure vowel sounds are "ah," "eh," "i" (i as in pin), "o" as in bottle and "oo" as in shoe.
A dipthong is a combination of these.

[Asta Kask]

Also, we systematically slur our sounds to make them easier to pronounce. For example, the 'N' in 'NPR' is pronounced as an 'M' by most people. So, for a phonetic system, we would have National Public Radio have the enigmatic abbreviation MPR. Not good.

[Winter_Wolf]

There's no way a phonetic system would work in the English language unless you stripped out all regional dialects and made one national standard. That being the case,we already have "standard English" for writing, so why fix it if it isn't broken? Besides I think phonetic English as a written system is just laziness on the part of people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell properly. You know, the same people who would insist that "their way" was the "right way" to spell phonetically, because they would expect others to learn their way rather than take the time to learn another way.

[Totally Guy]

Language is something that works better the more people use it.

To change that you'd need to usurp the existing status quo. That's really difficult to do.

Compatibility trumps quality. You are suggesting what you believe to be an improvement in quality but at the cost of compatibility with the current english speaking and reading population.

That's a bit like having DRM screw you out of you old music collection when the platform becomes obsolete. Only with language.

On paper you can hypothesise all kinds of fixes and they may well work. But actually implementing them would take a whole lot of influence, maybe on a "rule the world" scale.

This has got to be the worst motivation for wanting to conquer the universe I have ever seen.

[Dogmantra]

"Th" isn't a dip-thong. A dip-thong is a sound like, "I" from "pie" or "Side."
It contains two vowel sounds "ah-ee."
The pure vowel sounds are "ah," "eh," "i" (i as in pin), "o" as in bottle and "oo" as in shoe.
A dipthong is a combination of these.

I realise that now but I wasn't thinking when I posted. I was searching for the word for thingies like "th" and according to my brain, it was "dipthong". Also I like the word dipthong.

[Capt Spanner]

Bill Bryson argues admirably well against phonetic spelling in Mother Tongue


How, for example, would we decide to spell "girl"?

"Gurl" in some part ofthe south of England and "gull" in others, "Gal" in the north, "Goiyl" in one of the New York accents. Standardised spelling is just about the only thing that holds the English language together as a language, and if you don't believe me, find a Yorkshireman.

[mrpitchfork]

Bill Bryson argues admirably well against phonetic spelling in Mother Tongue


How, for example, would we decide to spell "girl"?

"Gurl" in some part ofthe south of England and "gull" in others, "Gal" in the north, "Goiyl" in one of the New York accents. Standardised spelling is just about the only thing that holds the English language together as a language, and if you don't believe me, find a Yorkshireman.

People would spell things how they say them. It's not that hard.


There's no way a phonetic system would work in the English language unless you stripped out all regional dialects and made one national standard. That being the case,we already have "standard English" for writing, so why fix it if it isn't broken? Besides I think phonetic English as a written system is just laziness on the part of people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell properly. You know, the same people who would insist that "their way" was the "right way" to spell phonetically, because they would expect others to learn their way rather than take the time to learn another way.

There's no way a standardized non-phonetic system would work in the English language unless you want English speakers all over the world to get caught up in a silly baseless concept like "proper spelling". That being the case, we don't need a standardized spelling system because everybody can understand everybody else just fine, and everybody spells however they damn well please. Besides, I think standardized non-phonetic English as a written system is just laziness on the part of people who don't want to be creative or interesting with their writing. You know, the same people who would insist that "their way" is the "right way" to spell non-phonetically, because they would expect others to learn their way rather than just spelling however they want and people understanding them.

- From a writer before the printing press was invented

[Capt Spanner]

People would spell things how they say them. It's not that hard.

Yes it is. Ever read Trainspotting?

Or try this, from a local here:

"Eyupsonee. Yezdunniwanna beedoint fiweroo."

That is how he speaks...

[mrpitchfork]

I'm having trouble reading that because I don't know whether you're using a phonetic system, what phonetic system it is, or whether it actually works.

EDIT: If you spell how you sound, the same people who can't understand you when they're listening to you also won't be able to understand you when they read your writing. People who can understand you when they listen to you will be able to read your writing. I don't see any new problems here.

[Zevox]

People would spell things how they say them. It's not that hard.
And when people who say them differently try to read them and can't? Just as a brief example, two of the spellings Capt Spanner gave for phonetic uses of "girl" I would not recognize as meaning "girl:" "gull" and "goiyl." The former I would assume referred to the bird type (i.e. seagulls), the latter would just cause me to go "what the ****?" A written language is kind of useless if people cannot understand it, and with no standardized spellings of words, you will run into problems with understanding if there become many different ways to spell the same word.

Zevox

[Quincunx]

(stares at the phonetic spellings)

Is it dyslexia in reverse if those don't parse as words? Those are not sequences of symbols with meaning. Are they shapes without meaning? At any rate, I can't read 'em.

[mrpitchfork]

And when people who say them differently try to read them and can't? Just as a brief example, two of the spellings Capt Spanner gave for phonetic uses of "girl" I would not recognize as meaning "girl:" "gull" and "goiyl." The former I would assume referred to the bird type (i.e. seagulls), the latter would just cause me to go "what the ****?" A written language is kind of useless if people cannot understand it, and with no standardized spellings of words, you will run into problems with understanding if there become many different ways to spell the same word.

Zevox

I've already addressed this.

[Mystic Muse]

(And I personally think that C should be removed, and be replaced in all instances with K or S, where appropriate :smallannoyed:)


But I like the C in my name!

Also, my last name wouldn't really sound right with an S or K

Also, my brother's name would completely change if it used either a K or an S

[Innis Cabal]

Also, we systematically slur our sounds to make them easier to pronounce. For example, the 'N' in 'NPR' is pronounced as an 'M' by most people. So, for a phonetic system, we would have National Public Radio have the enigmatic abbreviation MPR. Not good.

Um.....what? I've never in my 20 years of listening to NPR ever once heard it refered to with an M sound. Not by the company. Not by anyone living in my region...never by anyone actually. Not only that, but the N sound dosn't readily slur to an M.

[Zevox]

I've already addressed this.
No you haven't. You acknowledged it, then just said "I don't see any new problems here." Which implies you're missing the point - since standardized spellings do exist, phonetic ones would create a new problem where none now exists. At the moment, whether or not your dialect or accent would cause problems for understanding when speaking to one another is irrelevant to understanding the written word - anyone who speaks the language in any dialect or accent can understand the written version of the language. Under a phonetic system, this would no longer be the case. Ergo, new problem.

Zevox

[Recaiden]

IIRC, the "standard" American English dialect has roughly...16? different vowel noises, while there are only 5 vowel letters (a-e-i-o-u).

There are twenty of them.


(And I personally think that C should be removed, and be replaced in all instances with K or S, where appropriate :smallannoyed:)


I do agree here, but then what represents the "ch" sound?

[Castaras]

I've already addressed this.

No you haven't. For instance - your title, I would pronounce it "A kweschun abowt a fohnetic spel-ling sistum". Not much different, considering I don't speak with that strong an accent. But it's enough to be different.

Plus it would mean we would have to be reading out loud all the time, or mouthing as we read. Which is silly. :smallfrown:

[Dogmantra]

I do agree here, but then what represents the "ch" sound?

C = "ch"
Q = "th"

[Recaiden]

C = "ch"
Q = "th"

? = "sh" A schwa?
And apparently English has two different ways to pronounce 'th', dependent on voicing. Do we distinguish between them using letters?
Plus the 'ng' and http://www.antimoon.com/images/zh.gif sounds.

[Dogmantra]

? = "sh" A schwa?
And apparently English has two different ways to pronounce 'th', dependent on voicing. Do we distinguish between them using letters?
Plus the 'ng' and http://www.antimoon.com/images/zh.gif sounds.

X = sh
KS/Z = x
Ñ = ng

SIMPLE :smalltongue:

Or xud Ī sā "simpull"?

[Recaiden]

X = sh
KS/Z = x
Ñ = ng

SIMPLE :smalltongue:

Or xud Ī sā "simpull"?

Yes, you should.

And how about unvoiced "th" = http://www.runes.info/pieces/images/07thorn.gif?:smalltongue:

[Dogmantra]

Presumably a Q with some sort of accent or diaeresis. I can't seem to find one of those though. Or H. H always seemed kinda redundant to me. It just seems to add an unvoiced version of whatever vowel it's in front of. Could turn that into an accent and use H for unvoiced TH.

[Eloi]

Why not just use the IPA alphabet with variant English pronunciations in parenthesis? Or alternatively just have the General American accentuation and then a slash, then the Received Pronunciation accentuation, all transcribed in IPA.

[Dogmantra]

That would be too easy.

[Eloi]

That would be too easy.

oʊ/əʊ ˈɹɪəli? ɪts moʊst/məʊst ˈstændɚd fəˈnɛtɪk ˈsɪstəm aɪ noʊ/nəʊ.

[Recaiden]

Presumably a Q with some sort of accent or diaeresis.

Do you mean Diacritic, or do you want to make this even more confusing than it already was?

[Dogmantra]

Yes really!
Where's the ingenuity? I mean, anyone can copy a system that actually already works and is in place, but that's no fun. That's like going to the cinema and watching a film rather than inventing photography and then film and then projectors and making your own film. It's booooring.


Do you mean Diacritic, or do you want to make this even more confusing than it already was?
Oh man I am not on the ball with my linguistics terms today. I was under the impression diaeresis referred to both the mark and the two vowels construction. :smallwink:

[Eloi]

Do you mean Diacritic, or do you want to make this even more confusing than it already was?

ðɪs wʊd bi/bi: 'dʌn ɪf ju/ju: ʤʌst jus/ju:s ði/ði: ˌɪn.tɚˈnæ.ʃən.əl fɔnˈɛt.ɪk ˈæl.fəˌbɛt!

[AstralFire]

Yes really!
Where's the ingenuity? I mean, anyone can copy a system that actually already works and is in place, but that's no fun. That's like going to the cinema and watching a film rather than inventing photography and then film and then projectors and making your own film. It's booooring.


Oh man I am not on the ball with my linguistics terms today. I was under the impression diaeresis referred to both the mark and the two vowels construction. :smallwink:

The problem is essentially that there are more sounds than letters in the english language, and even after you rearrange sounds to minimize the duplicates, you won't actually be able to grab every single slightly different sound with accents. Because compound letters will only confuse people.

[Dogmantra]

The problem is essentially that there are more sounds than letters in the english language, and even after you rearrange sounds to minimize the duplicates, you won't actually be able to grab every single slightly different sound with accents. Because compound letters will only confuse people.

Then we invent new letters! Or we could "invent" the Greek alphabet and use it as a starting point because it seems to be a lot better about having no duplicate sounds and some for "th" and what have you. This, of course, doesn't change the fact that I still think it's a silly idea. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

[Eloi]

The problem is essentially that there are more sounds than letters in the english language, and even after you rearrange sounds to minimize the duplicates, you won't actually be able to grab every single slightly different sound with accents. Because compound letters will only confuse people.

ði/ði:ˌɪn.tɚˈnæ.ʃən.əl fɔnˈɛt.ɪk ˈæl.fəˌbɛt hæz noʊ/nəʊ sʌʧ pɹɒbləm.

[mrpitchfork]

No you haven't. You acknowledged it, then just said "I don't see any new problems here." Which implies you're missing the point - since standardized spellings do exist, phonetic ones would create a new problem where none now exists. At the moment, whether or not your dialect or accent would cause problems for understanding when speaking to one another is irrelevant to understanding the written word - anyone who speaks the language in any dialect or accent can understand the written version of the language. Under a phonetic system, this would no longer be the case. Ergo, new problem.

Zevox

Inelegance isn't a problem? Difficulty learning to read isn't a problem? Tons of communication confusions isn't a problem? Total inefficiency isn't a problem?

Writing came after speaking. If the distinction between writing and speaking is blurred to the point where letters do represent sounds and words are actually spelled how they sound, then the only problems that exist are problems with speech. It substitutes the problems of an inelegant, difficult, inefficient writing system with the problems of an inelegant, difficult, inefficient speaking system. That way there are fewer different problems and everything is made easier in the long run.


No you haven't. For instance - your title, I would pronounce it "A kweschun abowt a fohnetic spel-ling sistum". Not much different, considering I don't speak with that strong an accent. But it's enough to be different.

Plus it would mean we would have to be reading out loud all the time, or mouthing as we read. Which is silly. :smallfrown:

This is not my thread, but I'd be happy to take credit for it if the discussion turns out fruitful.

[Zuki]

ði/ði:ˌɪn.tɚˈnæ.ʃən.əl fɔnˈɛt.ɪk ˈæl.fəˌbɛt hæz noʊ/nəʊ sʌʧ pɹɒbləm.

Right, but how many people know how to read the international phonetic alphabet that aren't, say, linguists or anthropologists? It's true that we have a symbol to represent every sound, but people aren't taught them.

Now, if we did teach the IPA in schools and associated each sound in english with it's IPA symbol, well....English doesn't use the entire IPA, no language does. It's a bit inefficient, I think. Sometimes the difference in pronunciation is regional, or is modified by the words around it. "ði" and "ðə" are two different ways to IPA-ize the word 'the,' and while I think eth and thorn are pretty cool letters, I'm just fine with representing them as 'th' instead.

No language uses all the sounds humans make when communicating with eachother; they all use a subset.

It'd be a bit like making sure you knew all the kanji or chinese characters; you learn the stuff that comes up most often and don't get taught the esoteric stuff.

[Zevox]

Inelegance isn't a problem?
Explain. I haven't the foggiest clue what you mean by inelegance here, much less why you'd think that a phonetic system would alter whatever you're referring to.


Difficulty learning to read isn't a problem?
And how would people have fewer difficulties learning to read under a phonetic system?


Tons of communication confusions isn't a problem?
Explain. What communication confusions do you think exist with writing that do not with speaking which could be resolved with a phonetic system? All the confusions with writing I can think of come from the lack of a tone of voice to carry with it, which will not be altered by a phonetic system.


Total inefficiency isn't a problem?
Considering the problems a phonetic system would introduce which I already outlined, I sincerely doubt that whatever inefficiencies you think exist at present are likely to be worse than the problems of introducing difficulties comprehending accents and dialects into writing. Quite the contrary, I count it a big benefit that standardized writing allows the difficulties of comprehending variations in the spoken word to be overcome via written communication.

Zevox

[mrpitchfork]

Explain. I haven't the foggiest clue what you mean by inelegance here, much less why you'd think that a phonetic system would alter whatever you're referring to.

Look at Latin vs English and tell me Latin isn't prettier. English, in spelling and in speech, is clumsy and ugly.


And how would people have fewer difficulties learning to read under a phonetic system?

The same skills used to listen to people speak would also be used to read, and the same skills used to speak would also be used to write.


Explain. What communication confusions do you think exist with writing that do not with speaking which could be resolved with a phonetic system? All the confusions with writing I can think of come from the lack of a tone of voice to carry with it, which will not be altered by a phonetic system.

There are no spelling errors in speaking, and most people, no matter how thick their accent, can be understood.

And yes, voice tones do exist in many phonetic alphabets.


Considering the problems a phonetic system would introduce which I already outlined, I sincerely doubt that whatever inefficiencies you think exist at present are likely to be worse than the problems of introducing difficulties comprehending accents and dialects into writing. Quite the contrary, I count it a big benefit that standardized writing allows the difficulties of comprehending variations in the spoken word to be overcome via written communication.

The difficulties comprehending accents and dialects in speech would be the same as in writing. There would be no difference. It would be the same skill set. Any inefficiencies caused by a phonetic alphabet are the fault of the language speakers.

[Capt Spanner]

Assuming we adopt phonetic spellings, which accent do we use? I vote for BBC English (RP). :-P (Because other pronounciations are WRONG, of course.) :-P And let the flame war begin.
In any case, one beautiful thing about English is that we can figure out the meanings of unusual words with etymology.

This means I know what photometry (fotomatrey if spelt phonetically) means without looking it up. Similiarly somnambulance (sonambyewlanss), polygamous (puligamus) and misogyny (misojinnee).

[mrpitchfork]

I was actually about to say that a friend mentioned that it's harder to trace etymology if we all adopt a phonetic alphabet.

[Cyrion]

This discussion reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw complaint about the English language, its spelling and pronunciation:

How do you pronounce the word ghoti?

The same way you do fish.

It's the gh from enough, the o from women and the ti from nation.

[Zen Monkey]

Assuming we adopt phonetic spellings, which accent do we use? I vote for BBC English (RP).


This American doesn't have any problems with British English, so long as I can get an Englishman to admit that there is not a secret hidden syllable in 'aluminum' and that there is no 'f' in 'lieutenant.' Londoners should also admit that the three syllables in 'secretary' are not sec-uh-tree. Other than that, it's mostly spot-on, governor.

I think we'll both agree that there is no 'r' in 'colonel' but it shows up uninvited whenever the word is spoken.

[Eloi]

Right, but how many people know how to read the international phonetic alphabet that aren't, say, linguists or anthropologists? It's true that we have a symbol to represent every sound, but people aren't taught them.

Now, if we did teach the IPA in schools and associated each sound in english with it's IPA symbol, well....English doesn't use the entire IPA, no language does. It's a bit inefficient, I think. Sometimes the difference in pronunciation is regional, or is modified by the words around it. "ði" and "ðə" are two different ways to IPA-ize the word 'the,' and while I think eth and thorn are pretty cool letters, I'm just fine with representing them as 'th' instead.

No language uses all the sounds humans make when communicating with eachother; they all use a subset.

It'd be a bit like making sure you knew all the kanji or chinese characters; you learn the stuff that comes up most often and don't get taught the esoteric stuff.

IPA symbols for the uninformed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English_dialects

aɪm eɪ lɪŋˈɡwɪst nɑt/nɒt eɪ ˈdɑk.tɚ/ˈdɒk.tə.

Star Trek references aside, no those were two different pronunciations of the word 'the'. American English/Received Pronunciation is what the slashes mean.

As well, people not knowing them would be good for possible mispronunciations of a phonetic system. You'd have to establish the difference between normal letters and diphthongs.

Indeed, the IPA is probably the most reliable system of phonetic transcription we have.

[Zevox]

Look at Latin vs English and tell me Latin isn't prettier. English, in spelling and in speech, is clumsy and ugly.
First, I don't speak Latin, so it would be rather hard for me to give you an opinion on that. Second, "pretty," "clumsy," and "ugly" are subjective concepts, and completely irrelevant to a discussion of the practical matters of using the current standardized spelling system vs a phonetic one.


The same skills used to listen to people speak would also be used to read, and the same skills used to speak would also be used to write.
I don't follow. Obviously learning the sounds letters are supposed to make, and what combination of letters add up to what words, are not the same as learning to speak those words or understand the spoken language. Nor would that change under a phonetic system - the meaning of each letter, what they add up to, and how to write them down would still have to be learned distinctly from the meaning of the sounds that make up spoken language and how to create those sounds themselves. So I do not see any sense to your argument there.


There are no spelling errors in speaking, and most people, no matter how thick their accent, can be understood.
The former is corrected simply by teaching people to spell correctly - and it's not as if most typos and spelling errors actually prevent comprehension, as they're usually minor. Hlel, as I rcelal, it's psosbile to flluy udnretsnad any witretn wrod as lnog as the frist and lsat lteters are in pacle and all lteters are persent, because the way our minds wrok is that we raed the entire word at ocne, not each letter individaully.

And the latter is an unsupported assertion which isn't relevant, since I wasn't claiming that most people couldn't understand any small accent, but rather that phonetically rendering those accents or dialects in writing will cause more problems with understanding in writing.


And yes, voice tones do exist in many phonetic alphabets.
How? I can think of no way outside of context clues for such a thing to be conveyed by writing myself, and context clues are plenty extant in the current writing system.


The difficulties comprehending accents and dialects in speech would be the same as in writing. There would be no difference. It would be the same skill set. Any inefficiencies caused by a phonetic alphabet are the fault of the language speakers.
...and that makes the problems those would introduce better how?

Edit: And actually, no, I do not think you are correct that the same skill set would be needed to decipher different accents and dialects in writing as when hearing them. I could probably figure out what someone with a New York accent was saying if they said "goiyl," but seeing it written I would still have no idea what it meant, not without saying it aloud several times and taking multiple guesses - because I myself do not possess that accent, so even when trying to say it aloud to understand the written version it will not come out the way it would when someone with that accent says it, rendering it all the more confusing and difficult for me to decipher. Now there's inefficient for you.

Zevox

[Eloi]

This discussion reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw complaint about the English language, its spelling and pronunciation:

How do you pronounce the word ghoti?

The same way you do fish.

It's the gh from enough, the o from women and the ti from nation.

Yes but the complaint isn't leveled very well. 'Gh' usually appears at the beginning of the word, so we interpret XXXgh as XXXf because thats the contexts in which it usually appears such as in 'tough' or 'rough'. 'Ti' does not usually end a word, but instead appears in the middle XXtiX such in 'nation' 'creation' 'revolution'. Thus, his complaints were flawed by not recognizing the context-based slot recognition system already in affect for use in English biletteral representations of monophonemes.

[Cealocanth]

Hebrew also spells phonetically. The letters merge with the vowels. That's why it's so easy to read aloud and why kids can read it without understanding a single word of it.

With an english system though? There's a problem. english is such a diverse language that a phonetic system adapted for this would make one english speaker in america unable to understand the writings of an Austrailian english speaker. It's even a problem with accents between different sections of a country. For example, I would spell the title of this thread "Ey kweshtin abaoot Ey fohnetik speleeng sistim"

[Eloi]

Look at Latin vs English and tell me Latin isn't prettier. English, in spelling and in speech, is clumsy and ugly.
I personally find Greek prettier because its older. No wait, I like Sanskrit. No wait, I like Proto-Germanic. No wait, I think Proto-Indo-European is the prettiest. Everyone thinks older things are better, its just nostaliga in application of languages. Heck, even Romans complained about Latin being fractured (as compared to earlier Latin, classical Latin is considerably eroded), nonsensical (ever seen the multiple declension system and how cluttered it is?), and flawed.



The same skills used to listen to people speak would also be used to read, and the same skills used to speak would also be used to write.



There are no spelling errors in speaking, and most people, no matter how thick their accent, can be understood.


Yes but writing itself, is symbolic. No matter what phonetic transcription you use, our minds will condense the word into one symbolic unit, no matter what. So there is no more efficiency, just difference in what aspect is represented. I could make the argument that logo-graphic writing systems are better because they are direct-concepts, just like our thinking, but the point is, its all symbolic no matter what and no system is more efficient.



The difficulties comprehending accents and dialects in speech would be the same as in writing. There would be no difference. It would be the same skill set. Any inefficiencies caused by a phonetic alphabet are the fault of the language speakers.
If the phonetic alphabet is inefficient, its because it doesn't represent the language well.

[Capt Spanner]

This American doesn't have any problems with British English, so long as I can get an Englishman to admit that there is not a secret hidden syllable in 'aluminum'...

It's spelt "aluminium" over here.

This makes it fit with other elements, such as sodium, lithium, helium, rubidium, potassium, magnesium and at least 70 others. Of the first 118 elements, 76 end with "ium" - 64%.

[Recaiden]

Look at Latin vs English and tell me Latin isn't prettier. English, in spelling and in speech, is clumsy and ugly.


Latin isn't prettier. It's fairly ugly. All a matter of opinion.

[Eloi]

Latin isn't prettier. It's fairly ugly. All a matter of opinion.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

That isn't my opinion, but its the common census.

[Sereg]

This post describes my attempt.

[Dogmantra]

This post describes my attempt.

It suffers from one flaw. You can't capitalise things! That's one of the best bits of grammar, too!

[golentan]

Won't work so much. Too many syllables and noises which require conventions not implicit in the Roman Alphabet, and too many people who already have a standardized system of conventions.

I.E. you'd need to rebuild the entirety of written english save the grammar structure and definitions and then convince everybody to make the switchover at about the same time.

Even ignoring accents, which seems to be it's own thing in this thread.

[Aedilred]

Inelegance isn't a problem? Difficulty learning to read isn't a problem? Tons of communication confusions isn't a problem? Total inefficiency isn't a problem?
No, they're all problems, but phonetic spelling solves none of them and makes most of them worse.

I'd wonder if this was in part a transatlantic issue, because American accents are less diverse than English ones, and there isn't the same problem with total incomprehensibility... but then there are loads of Americans here saying it's a bad idea too, so it can't just be me.

It doesn't make anything easier to read- it just makes everything equally difficult to read for everyone. There might be a degree of equality, but it's the worst kind of equality. It's the same mentality that says that calculus is too difficult to understand, so we won't teach it. It's breaking everyone's legs so that paraplegics aren't unfairly disadvantaged. The future is not in handicapping our non-disabled readers, it's in assisting our dyslexic (etc) population to use the system we have.

It doesn't make anything easier to understand, either. At the moment, I can barely understand a word a Glaswegian says, but we share a common writing system, and can communicate effectively through text. If we're both spelling phonetically, then he might as well be typing in Dutch. A standardised spelling system enables the billion plus English speakers worldwide to communicate in a manner which is mutually intelligible. If people were to start spelling in the same way they speak, it makes it much more difficult to understand anyone who has a thick accent.

It would make it much more difficult for foreigners to learn the language. At present it's much easier to read a foreign language than it is to listen to it, because you don't have to deal with the vagaries of individual pronunciation. Phonetic spelling reintroduces that problem.

As for inelegance... really? Surely phonetic spelling, by definition, would be less regular, and thus less elegant, than the standardized spelling we already have?

The only way in which phonetic spelling would make reading easier is if pronunciation were standardized, but that's a much more difficult task than standardizing spelling. I don't think it's even possible unless everyone on the planet speaks the same language, because people import the accents from their own tongue when they learn a new one.

You're right that it wouldn't create any new problems. It would recreate a load of old problems that were solved by Messrs. Johnson and Webster a couple of hundred years ago. It's an interesting idea as an intellectual exercise, but it has no practical application.

[Dragonrider]

No, there is significant regional variance in the US as well (though not as greatly as in the UK). Here in the Northwest, for example, our i and e often sound exactly the same - thus, "since" and "sense" because indistinguishable, as do "pin" and "pen" and "let" and "lit".


This discussion reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw complaint about the English language, its spelling and pronunciation:

How do you pronounce the word ghoti?

The same way you do fish.

It's the gh from enough, the o from women and the ti from nation.

An argument for why English spelling actually makes quite a bit of sense quite a bit of the time. Also, why that ghoti thing doesn't work. (http://www.zompist.com/spell.html)



For me, a phonetic alphabet doesn't make sense because I CAN'T SPELL PHONETICALLY. When I read, I am not capable of sounding words out. It's not like I haven't tried; when my mum was teaching me to read, I learned phonics and stuff.

But my brain just doesn't work that way. If I come across a word I don't know in a book, I can't sound it out.

This is because when I read, I just memorize word blocks. If I don't know a word, I read the first and last letter and approximate. If I really try, I can force myself to go back and look at every single one, but most of the time it's not worth it to me. Spelling phonetically would, for me, be a huge pain because I would just memorize spellings anyway, and it would ultimately make no difference in my ease or comprehension.

[Zuki]

Come to think of it, aren't there, or weren't there historically, scads and scads of different dialects and sub-languages in Chinese, such that the ideographic system of writing that was used by all of them in common was extremely useful in bringing unity, etc, etc.

I remember something like this being discussed in a Chinese literature or history class.

[golentan]

Come to think of it, aren't there, or weren't there historically, scads and scads of different dialects and sub-languages in Chinese, such that the ideographic system of writing that was used by all of them in common was extremely useful in bringing unity, etc, etc.

I remember something like this being discussed in a Chinese literature or history class.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_dialects)

[Maximum Zersk]

*Ahem*

I've noticed a lot of arguments against are ones that have been mentioned in some places. (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html) :smalltongue:

Note. I know it wouldn't work. I just wanted to know how it would look like and what letters would be used.

Also, ðe Þorn and Eð shall last forever wiþ me. I always wondered why we got rid of þe two letters.

[Eloi]

*Ahem*

I've noticed a lot of arguments against are ones that have been mentioned in some places. (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html) :smalltongue:

Note. I know it wouldn't work. I just wanted to know how it would look like and what letters would be used.

Also, ðe Þorn and Eð shall last forever wiþ me. I always wondered why we got rid of þe two letters.

A suggestion, perhaps why. Because "ðe Þorn" looks like some sort of 1337 coding for "de porn". Kidding, they probably dropped them because of the mass latinization of the alphabet, and those characters are not Latin-derivative, and thus were considered 'lowly' and left out.

[Cealocanth]

*Ahem*

I've noticed a lot of arguments against are ones that have been mentioned in some places. (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html) :smalltongue:

Note. I know it wouldn't work. I just wanted to know how it would look like and what letters would be used.

Also, ðe Þorn and Eð shall last forever wiþ me. I always wondered why we got rid of þe two letters.
:smallconfused: What did you just say? How on earth did you type that? Sorry, I don't speak dictionary.

[Eloi]

:smallconfused: What did you just say? How on earth did you type that? Sorry, I don't speak dictionary.

ð/Þ= th

Now re-read and go "Oooooh" for added effect.

[mangosta71]

So... do you have no dialects, or do people from different parts of the country spell things differently?

There are different accents and slang, but the pronunciation is the same, with two minor exceptions - ll/y and soft c/z. Ll/y might sound like an English y, ly (ll only), jh, zh, or sh, depending on where the speaker is from. Soft c/z are pronounced like an s anywhere but Spain, where they're pronounced th (I discovered this after listening to a Spanish singer and wondered why she was lisping until I figured out the difference).

[Sereg]

It suffers from one flaw. You can't capitalise things! That's one of the best bits of grammar, too!

I fail to see the problem with that. Over time capitilisation has decreased anyways. For a while, small letters didn't even exist. Klingon also treats capitals as different letters and e. e. cummings didn't have a problem with writing without capitals (of course, poetry has a bit more lee-way).

@Golentan: That's the point of the table. As for accents, it's meant to allow leniancy for such things.

Of course, the reason that I did it was not to replace English spelling, but to allow for a better way of writing pronounciation guides which are usually ambiguous or can only be understood by those versed in IPA.

[CurlyKitGirl]

Trubul iz, wē hav fīv vowlz and lots mor vowl sowndz. Wē hav tu resort tu yusing thingz līk "ī".

Also dipthongs, like "th".

Phonetics!
Dipthongs are vowels!

And this sound "ī" is a dipthong. You write it thus: /ai/
'th' can have two different sounds! If it's a voiced dental fricative it's /ð/ as in 'that'. If it's a voiceless dental fricative it's /ɵ/ as in 'thing'.

>.>
<.<
No, I haven't been doing my best to memorise the IPA because 50% of one of my exams is based on IPA transcription (and that can go up to 100%) and it's an interesting thing to do.

@OP: the reason people say 'it'll never work' is because the IPA is designed specifically to try a get a symbol to mean one sound and one sound only. Across all languages.
It was done this way in order to help create a 'standard' pronunciation; but in actuality every single person in the world as their own ideolect (way of speaking) which includes pronunciation. i.e. my mum, no matter how hard she tries can't say 'statistics' as /stətɪstɪks/ ('ste-tiss-tiks') because she's had major dental work due to an illness. She can only say 'statistics' as /sɵʌtɪs:tɪsɵɪks/ ('sthu-tissss-thiks').
A phonetic spelling system wouldn't exist. Every person would have their own aplphabet. Don't even get me started on dialects.
Sucky as the English aplphabet is in no way equipped to deal with all the possible sounds our voice and articulators can make, but c'est la vie.

. . .
I have a feeling I should probably read the rest of the thread while I'm at it.

Welp!, that's what the edit button's for.

[Aedilred]

I believe thorn and eth ceased to exist in any meaningful way with the arrival of the printing press. As the press was invented for printing in Latin, and the thorn/eth were exclusively English letters, they weren't included in early sets of type and those wanting to print in English had to find other ways around it.

For a long time "y" was used as a substitute for thorn. All those signs that say "ye olde pubbe" and the like- yeah, that "y" is actually a thorn, and so it's still (properly) pronounced "the old pub".

[CurlyKitGirl]

There are twenty of them.

And each one of them has their own IPA symbol. And one of them (the 'schwa' (upside 'e') /ə/) is any vowel that isn't stressed.
Any vowel!
So f'r'instance, you can write 'them' as either /ðɛm/ (RP 'them'), /ðʌm/ (best way I can think to represent this is 'thum', but it's kind of a semi-stressed 'u') or /ðəm/ (th'm). 'to' has in 'have to' would be /tə/ ('tuh') and so on.


I do agree here, but then what represents the "ch" sound?

With the IPA? It's /ʧ/ (t+sh. More or less).


IPA symbols for the uninformed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English_dialects

aɪm eɪ lɪŋˈɡwɪst nɑt/nɒt eɪ ˈdɑk.tɚ/ˈdɒk.tə.



*waves*

/haɪ aɪ ɪz lɪŋˈɡwɪst tu:/

Been studying linguistics all term. And language.


How? I can think of no way outside of context clues for such a thing to be conveyed by writing myself, and context clues are plenty extant in the current writing system.

There are tonal languages such as Chinese. However, I think what mrpitchfork was getting at is what are normally called intonation markers.
They tell you which syllables are stressed, how much; they can even tell you whether your /l/ is 'dark' or not.
And even then you probably won't get many intonation markers and such on anything but a narrow transcription.


I personally find Greek prettier because its older. No wait, I like Sanskrit. No wait, I like Proto-Germanic. No wait, I think Proto-Indo-European is the prettiest. Everyone thinks older things are better, its just nostaliga in application of languages. Heck, even Romans complained about Latin being fractured (as compared to earlier Latin, classical Latin is considerably eroded), nonsensical (ever seen the multiple declension system and how cluttered it is?), and flawed.

. . .

Yes but writing itself, is symbolic. No matter what phonetic transcription you use, our minds will condense the word into one symbolic unit, no matter what. So there is no more efficiency, just difference in what aspect is represented. I could make the argument that logo-graphic writing systems are better because they are direct-concepts, just like our thinking, but the point is, its all symbolic no matter what and no system is more efficient.

. . .

If the phonetic alphabet is inefficient, its because it doesn't represent the language well.
(and your post before this)
. . .

I'm in love.
Tell me, how do you feel about diachronic change?
That'll open up a whole new can of worms.


Also, ðe Þorn and Eð shall last forever wiþ me. I always wondered why we got rid of þe two letters.

No love for the yog /ȝ/?
Or the long-ess /ʃ/?
All those four were in fairly common usage (especially /ʃ/) right up to the beginning of the seventeenth century.
With thorn, eth and yog they were all derived from the runic alphabet the Anglo-Saxons used, and because there weren't any corresponding Latinate letters to represent the sounds those runes stood for.
They eventually died out because our speech began to change (woo, phonolgy!) and through push chains, splits, mergers and so on we eventually didn't need the yog. THe /ʃ/, /ð/ and /Þ/ probably became obselete because of the prestige associated with Latin and French, and then the printing press involved hand carving the letters into blocks. Especially with the /ʃ/ they were more fragile than 'g' and so were used instead.
There's some other stuff too, but I forget. And can't be bothered to check my books.

[Dogmantra]

Phonetics!
Dipthongs are vowels!

I think you will find reading the rest of the thread turns up a post of mine explaining that my linguistics terminology was really off that day. I knew a dipthong was a vowel, but I just... used the term anyway?

[Recaiden]

With the IPA? It's /ʧ/ (t+sh. More or less).


You should get back to that 'reading the rest of the thread' thing, maybe? :smalltongue: I didn't want to bring up the IPA, because it didn't go with what dogmantra was doing.

[Dogmantra]

I didn't want to bring up the IPA, because it didn't go with what dogmantra was doing.

Oh don't stop having fun because of me. If I had any motivational skills at all I'd have learnt the IPA by the age of eight and would be joining in with all this stuff right now.

[Eloi]

And each one of them has their own IPA symbol. And one of them (the 'schwa' (upside 'e') /ə/) is any vowel that isn't stressed.
Any vowel!
So f'r'instance, you can write 'them' as either /ðɛm/ (RP 'them'), /ðʌm/ (best way I can think to represent this is 'thum', but it's kind of a semi-stressed 'u') or /ðəm/ (th'm). 'to' has in 'have to' would be /tə/ ('tuh') and so on.



With the IPA? It's /ʧ/ (t+sh. More or less).



*waves*

/haɪ aɪ ɪz lɪŋˈɡwɪst tu:/

Been studying linguistics all term. And language.

ˈɔːsəm! wɪθ/wɪð aʊɚ/aʊə(ɹ) paʊɚz/paʊə(ɹ) kəm'baɪnd wi/wiː ɑɹ/ɑː(ɹ) ˈkæp.tɪn læŋgwɪʤ!





. . .

I'm in love.
Tell me, how do you feel about diachronic change?
That'll open up a whole new can of worms.
Without diachronic change none of our beautiful languages would exist. Because change isn't just a negative force, its a positive one that creates new things. The complex trilateral root system of Semetic languages is a complex curiosity created by the forces of change, and what a marvelous system it is. So I view diachronic change as a positive force creating new languages and grammars.




No love for the yog /ȝ/?
Or the long-ess /ʃ/?
All those four were in fairly common usage (especially /ʃ/) right up to the beginning of the seventeenth century.
With thorn, eth and yog they were all derived from the runic alphabet the Anglo-Saxons used, and because there weren't any corresponding Latinate letters to represent the sounds those runes stood for.
They eventually died out because our speech began to change (woo, phonolgy!) and through push chains, splits, mergers and so on we eventually didn't need the yog. THe /ʃ/, /ð/ and /Þ/ probably became obselete because of the prestige associated with Latin and French, and then the printing press involved hand carving the letters into blocks. Especially with the /ʃ/ they were more fragile than 'g' and so were used instead.
There's some other stuff too, but I forget. And can't be bothered to check my books.
I think I covered all of the 'Latinazation via prestige' thing, but the printing press probably factored in too. Which is sad, because Rune-derived letters are awesome.

[Dvandemon]

Not, sure if this is relevant, or has been mentioned before but, there are people protesting the Spelling Bee trying to get the words spell like this. There few in number but are entirely serious. Honestly, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. They're trying to not only get the words spelled easier (which would throwing off the contestants) but also get the harder words taken out. The main protester (someone named Mahoney) suggest "using a different dictionary for the people that disagree . I was just a little :smallfurious: at this spark of human err[hr]Phew, never been that mad before *slinks away*

[Maximum Zersk]

I think you will find reading the rest of the thread turns up a post of mine explaining that my linguistics terminology was really off that day. I knew a dipthong was a vowel, but I just... used the term anyway?

I believe you're thinking of a digraph. :smallwink:

[Zevox]

Not, sure if this is relevant, or has been mentioned before but, there are people protesting the Spelling Bee trying to get the words spell like this. There few in number but are entirely serious. Honestly, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. They're trying to not only get the words spelled easier (which would throwing off the contestants) but also get the harder words taken out. The main protester (someone named Mahoney) suggest "using a different dictionary for the people that disagree . I was just a little :smallfurious: at this spark of human err<hr>Phew, never been that mad before *slinks away*
...wow, that is stupid. The entire existence of a spelling bee is based on the concept of a single, standardized way to spell words. The whole premise and purpose of it ceases to exist without that.

Not that I've ever considered there to be much purpose to spelling bees, mind you, but that's still an incredibly idiotic thing to protest.

Zevox

[Raging Gene Ray]

The main protester (someone named Mahoney) suggest "using a different dictionary for the people that disagree . I was just a little :smallfurious: at this spark of human err<hr>Phew, never been that mad before *slinks away*

Did this Mahoney lose a spelling bee or get points taken off a term paper years ago and decide to take it out on the Linguistic Establishment?

Seriously, this very debate proves that spoken and written language themselves are just an inelegant mess that as fostered only misunderstanding in any and all attempts at communication. People should simply point to an object when they mean to refer to it. To this end, everyone should carry a book with pictures of every object that they may refer to in speech.

This solution, I know, is incomplete. It only encapsulates nouns. Therefore, we must all become versed in the great, ancient art of pantomime to perform any verbs we wish to add to our sentences.

Not only would such a system clear up the many misunderstandings that have clearly made it impossible to learn, speak, and read English, but our overall health would improve as a result of having to act out any and all actions we "spoke" of, to say nothing of our artistic and creative capabilities as a result of producing the Nounbooks.

[Zevox]

Seriously, this very debate proves that spoken and written language themselves are just an inelegant mess that as fostered only misunderstanding in any and all attempts at communication. People should simply point to an object when they mean to refer to it. To this end, everyone should carry a book with pictures of every object that they may refer to in speech.

This solution, I know, is incomplete. It only encapsulates nouns. Therefore, we must all become versed in the great, ancient art of pantomime to perform any verbs we wish to add to our sentences.

Not only would such a system clear up the many misunderstandings that have clearly made it impossible to learn, speak, and read English, but our overall health would improve as a result of having to act out any and all actions we "spoke" of, to say nothing of our artistic and creative capabilities as a result of producing the Nounbooks.
May I inquire as to whether this is a deliberate reference to Gulliver's Travels or if it was something you came up with completely on your own? I'm curious - it's just similar enough to be the former but just different enough to be the latter.

Zevox

[Raging Gene Ray]

May I inquire as to whether this is a deliberate reference to Gulliver's Travels or if it was something you came up with completely on your own? I'm curious - it's just similar enough to be the former but just different enough to be the latter.

Zevox

Inspired by Gulliver's Travels. At first, I was merely going to repeat it, but realized that you couldn't carry a cart with the actual, physical objects you wanted to refer to across the internet. JPEGS and GIFS will be the alphabet of the truly global community. Language itself will fall as this Utopia of perfect communication, 4chan arises! Who knows what new philosophical breakthroughs will be attained when their mastery of images lets them communicate flawlessly?