Replacing letters with other letters.

[Draconi Redfir]

So for several years now I’ve noticed something funny about the English language. It seems there are a few letters in the alphabet that could theoretically be completely erased without sacrificing too much of anything, they could simply be replaced by a small group of different letters making the same sound. For example, take the letter "I" It makes the sounds "I" (It's name, as in "I went to the store") and "Ih" (as in "It was a little place). ef you treye hard enough and don't meyend a lettle language mutelateon, you can pretty much replecate the letter wethout too much trouble, the worst seyede effect of et beeng a strange soundeng accent.

Naturally however there are several letters such as "B" "P" and "T" to which this is all but impossible, but I’ve been wondering, what other letters can you completely replace? I’ve done some testing of my own and come up with the following results:

Completely replicable (To my knowledge)

F: Eff Fff = Eph Ph "my phunny phanboy was laphing his pants off aphter i told him my phavorite joke."
I: I Ih = Eye E "Eye don't know about you, but eye thenk thes one comes queyete easely don't you? >:)"
K: Kay Kuh = Cay, C (Cut) "i lice to thinc this one cind of worcs, is it ocay?"
O: Oh Oo (cool) Awe (On) = Uh Uuu awe (Maybe? Bit of a streatch perhaps) "Uh i'm nawt sure abuut this wan myself"
Q: Que Kwa (Quazi) = Kue Kwa "it is kwazi kuintessential, it's not like Kue is a common letter anyways."
X: Zzz Ex = Zzz Eks "Eksactly like Q, this is not eksactly a common eksample to come across...Zylophone."
Y: Why Ei Ie = Whie Ei Ie "Eiou would not believe how easie it is to tipe like this, reallie once eiou get the hang of it it's not that hard. eiou just sound kind of French".
Z: Zee Zzz = Xee(?)Xxx(?) "Yeah even i'm not sure about this one... Xebra, Xany, laxer... maybe not."

Partially replaceable (To my knowledge)

A: Aye Ah = Ey ??
C: See Kuh Chh(Change) = See Kuh/K ???
G: Gee Guh Juh = Jee ?? Juh
R: Are Rrr = Are ???
S: Sss Shh = ?? Chh (Soft c as in Change)
U You Uhh = ewe(?) ??

Completely irreplaceable (To my knowledge)

B: Bee Buh
D: Dee Duh
E: Eee Ehh
H: Ache Huh Hhh
J: Jay Juh
L: Ell Lul
M: Em Mm
N: En Nnn
P: Pee Puh
T: Tee Tuh
V: Vee Vuh
W: Wuh


What do you guys think? Was there something I’ve overlooked? Any ideas for how to add some more letters to that "completely replaceable" list? It doesn't matter how bad it sounds, just so long as it's passable and uses only English lettering.


Overall question in case it got confusing somewhere: What letters could be completely removed from the English language without too much sacrifice? How could you fill the void they left behind? Would you like to help me horribly murder the English language in every way possible?

[Brother Oni]

Aclaluty hmaun ptaertn rcieinogotn is scuh taht we can siltl raed wdors if the fsrit and lsat leertts are the smae and has the rhgit nbemur of leettrs.

Translation in case you didn't get it:
Actually human pattern recognition is such that we can still read words if the first and last letters are the same and has the right number of letters.

So therefore omitting letters and murdering the English language while retaining readability isn’t as hard as you think. I believe some of English's root languages have less letters in their alphabet (for example Latin doesn’t have the letter ‘J’) and the letter ‘Q’ is easily replaceable with ‘K’.

[Ravens_cry]

It'll be meihem in ce klasrum, I say (http://english-zone.com/index.php?page=1114&pid=81)!

[grimbold]

It'll be meihem in ce klasrum, I say (http://english-zone.com/index.php?page=1114&pid=81)!

tes awn point
et would cawz too manee changes to layt in the gaym inglish is too pawpular

[Rawhide]

F: Eff Fff = Eph Ph "my phunny phanboy was laphing his pants off aphter i told him my phavorite joke."

Why did you replace laughing with laphing? :smallconfused:


Aclaluty hmaun ptaertn rcieinogotn is scuh taht we can siltl raed wdors if the fsrit and lsat leertts are the smae and has the rhgit nbemur of leettrs.

Translation in case you didn't get it:
Actually human pattern recognition is such that we can still read words if the first and last letters are the same and has the right number of letters.

Not true. (http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/)

[Draconi Redfir]

Why did you replace laughing with laphing? :smallconfused:

While i am trying to murder the english languige, i have never said i was a good at spelling:smalltongue:

[Zeb The Troll]

K: Kay Kuh = Cay, C (Cut) "i lice to thinc this one cind of worcs, is it ocay?"Why would you replace a letter that makes one sound with one that can make multiple sounds? Wouldn't it make more sense to drop "C" and replace it with "K" and "S"?


X: Zzz Ex = Zzz Eks "Eksactly like Q, this is not eksactly a common eksample to come across...Zylophone."
Z: Zee Zzz = Xee(?)Xxx(?) "Yeah even i'm not sure about this one... Xebra, Xany, laxer... maybe not.":smallconfused:

(also, laser isn't spelled with a "z". It's an acronym and the 's' is for 'stimulated'.)


R: Are Rrr = Are ?????? indeed ...


Why did you replace laughing with laphing? :smallconfused: ... and not the f's in "off". :smalltongue:

[Brother Oni]

Not true. (http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/)

I'll amend my statment to "Human pattern recognition is generally good enough to recognise words in English that have been mis-sorted..." then. :smalltongue:

[Story Time]

...really, those who can not spell should not try to change the dictionary...

:smallbiggrin:

...and, no, I would not like to help the English language become worse in any way. That would run contrary to not only my education, but all of my role-play habits.

Please have a nice day, though! :smallsmile:

[Draconi Redfir]

Why would you replace a letter that makes one sound with one that can make multiple sounds? Wouldn't it make more sense to drop "C" and replace it with "K" and "S"?

If you can figure out a way to replicate all the C sounds without using C i'd love to hear it.


(also, laser isn't spelled with a "z". It's an acronym and the 's' is for 'stimulated'.)

Well it's not like it being spelled "lazer" is a rare thing, easy to get confused.



??? indeed ...
Derp, Can't believe i missed that.


... and not the f's in "off". :smalltongue:

oh sush you:smalltongue:

[Zeb The Troll]

If you can figure out a way to replicate all the C sounds without using C i'd love to hear it.'C' only makes two sounds, a hard one easily replaced by 'K' and a soft one easily replaced by 'S'. You list 'ch' as one of the sounds, but 'C' doesn't make that sound by itself. Even so, replacing 'ch' with 'sh' would be less aurally tragic than some of the other suggestions. :smalltongue:

[thubby]

the issue is that english is a mash-up of basically every other language. and since different languages use different letters for the same phonetics, we're stuck with lots of artifacts that make it more complicated than it needs to be.

i swear, if i hear "i before e" one more time im going to hurt someone.

[Rawhide]

i swear, if i hear "i before e" one more time im going to hurt someone.

I before E, except for all of the exceptions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0003-ibeforee.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duqlZXiIZqA

[thubby]

I before E, except for all of the exceptions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0003-ibeforee.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duqlZXiIZqA

or, better yet... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is)

[Dogmantra]

Aclaluty hmaun ptaertn rcieinogotn is scuh taht we can siltl raed wdors if the fsrit and lsat leertts are the smae and has the rhgit nbemur of leettrs.
Ooh, I have a response prepare-


I'll amend my statment to "Human pattern recognition is generally good enough to recognise words in English that have been mis-sorted..." then. :smalltongue:
Awwww :(
Can I still do my response? I'm going to do my response.

tihs is jsut wfhusil tknnihig and dn'esot atluclay wrok

(this is just wishful thinking and doesn't actually work)
Man, last time I did it I had much better words to mess up :(

[Ravens_cry]

It works, sort of, just not for the reasons said.

[Ashen Lilies]

It'll be meihem in ce klasrum, I say (http://english-zone.com/index.php?page=1114&pid=81)!

The point at which this one falls apart is when it suggests the letter 'y' as a substitute for the 'sh' sound, producing 'oyean' and 'mayin(e)' and 'yugar', but utterly forgets that 'y' already has a sound of its own. How will we now, I wonder, spell words such as 'yellow' or 'yonder' or 'yolk'?

Edit: Hell, it falls apart much earlier than that when it fails to realize that eliminating the double 's' from words creates confusion over whether a hard 's' sound (surprise) or a soft 's' sound (grass) or that removing the salient 'e' from words ending in 'g' transforms a soft 'g' into a hard 'g', thus mangling the pronunciation of words such as 'language' and 'signage'. Of course, this could be fixed by replacing the hard 's' with 'z' and the soft 'g' with 'j', but the article does not address this. In fact, the entire thing is a mess.


Ooh, I have a response prepare-


Awwww :(
Can I still do my response? I'm going to do my response.

tihs is jsut wfhusil tknnihig and dn'esot atluclay wrok

(this is just wishful thinking and doesn't actually work)
Man, last time I did it I had much better words to mess up :(

I read that just fine. :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

or, better yet... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is)

What could be better than an official dictionary/encylopedia/thesaurus editor reference (for official verification) or QI (for extreme humour)?

[Dogmantra]

The point at which this one falls apart is when it suggests the letter 'y' as a substitute for the 'sh' sound, producing 'oyean' and 'mayin(e)' and 'yugar', but utterly forgets that 'y' already has a sound of its own. How will we now, I wonder, spell words such as 'yellow' or 'yonder' or 'yolk'?

I think when I thought about letter substitution, I did this:
C is split into K and S (K for things like cat, S for things like
X is split into Z and KS (Z for things like Xenon, KS for things like box)
J becomes G (gelly, gaol)
Y is split into I and New J (I for things like happy, J for things like yacht)

But now we've lost CH, we can't use SH because that's already something, and we can't use KH because that looks really silly so:
CH is represented by C (children becomes cildren)
SH is represented by X (shoot becomes xoot)

If we wanted to go further and eliminate all the -H sounds, I guess we could do:
PH is represented by F (phlogiston becomes flogiston)
TH is represented by Y (a hark back to Thorn, therapy would become yerapy)

That said, it doesn't unambiguise sounds at all, there's still a hard G/soft G thing going on, and then you can argue that all sorts of things are inconsistent so I reply that I spent maybe ten minutes thinking about this once.

Perhaps a better way would be to relegate the same sounds to the same letter, then pop a little mark above them if they're voiced, so Z and S would be combined, T and D would be combined, P and B etc. Then again, that might be really weird and pointless.

Kid Kris: yeah you could read it well YOU SMELL or something? :(
I haven't had my tea yet, last time I did it I wrote a really long passage with lots of multisyllabic words. You'll have to take my word for it that it was impossible to read.

[Ashen Lilies]

Or... we could just stop thinking too hard and use IPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA) spellings instead.
Convenient, no? :smalltongue:

If we're using your system though, I'd fix it by melting soft 'g' into 'j', instead of the other way around (jenuine, languaje). The letter 'g' only makes the hard 'g' sound. The 'y' at the beginning of words is now an 'i' (yacht = iacht, yellow = iellow)

[Dr.Epic]

Aclaluty hmaun ptaertn rcieinogotn is scuh taht we can siltl raed wdors if the fsrit and lsat leertts are the smae and has the rhgit nbemur of leettrs.

Waht!? Taht is nwes to me. I had no ieda the hmaun mnid culod wrok taht way. Azmanig!

[Aedilred]

I'm always sceptical of suggestions to reform English spelling, whether by removing letters, abolition of diphthongs, standardising the spelling of each phoneme across the entire lexicon, or whatever. I'm aware that I am privileged in finding spelling easy, so I don't have to wrestle with the problems that English throws up on a daily basis, and that there are people who do find it a lot more difficult than I do.

But fundamentally the purpose of a standard spelling is to make it easy for the reader, and since the written word is a medium for communication between writer and reader, it's much more important for the reader to be able to understand easily than for the writer to write easily. This is why I think that basing spelling entirely on phonetics is a fundamental mistake, because it effectively requires the reader to read aloud, removing the shortcut of pattern recognition that allows you to scan whole sentences, phrases, etc. and process the information quickly. It's like adding a simple cipher to the text: it's still ultimately comprehensible, but reading takes longer for everyone, which is just a waste of time.

Moreover, phonetic spelling takes no account of future pronunciation changes. Our language looks the way it does now at least in part because pronunciations have altered previously, dissociating the words from their phonetic roots. That will happen again in the future, so phonetic spelling now is nothing like a permanent fix. It just makes the written word harder to interpret.

In any case, I certainly don't think the vowel list can be trimmed any further than it already has been (most continental languages have diacritics which effectively expand the number of available vowels; Commonwealth English has also retained a number of diphthongs that American English has removed).

The one letter in the English language I think could be removed without causing undue suffering is "c" (although I still wouldn't condone doing so). "k" and "s" fill in for most of its functions, and by some rejuggling of other letters the other functions can be replicated adequately. e.g:

hard c -> k
soft c -> s
hard s -> s
soft s -> z
sh/sch -> x
ch -> x
x -> ks

[Rawhide]

This seems relevant to your interests. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0034-mispron.htm)

[Ashen Lilies]

But fundamentally the purpose of a standard spelling is to make it easy for the reader, and since the written word is a medium for communication between writer and reader, it's much more important for the reader to be able to understand easily than for the writer to write easily. This is why I think that basing spelling entirely on phonetics is a fundamental mistake, because it effectively requires the reader to read aloud, removing the shortcut of pattern recognition that allows you to scan whole sentences, phrases, etc. and process the information quickly. It's like adding a simple cipher to the text: it's still ultimately comprehensible, but reading takes longer for everyone, which is just a waste of time.



Actual phonetic languages that exist, such as Thai or Spanish, seem to disagree with you here. Unless you wish to make the argument that average native reading speed in English is faster than that of Thai or Spanish?

[Tyndmyr]

Aclaluty hmaun ptaertn rcieinogotn is scuh taht we can siltl raed wdors if the fsrit and lsat leertts are the smae and has the rhgit nbemur of leettrs.

Translation in case you didn't get it:
Actually human pattern recognition is such that we can still read words if the first and last letters are the same and has the right number of letters.

So therefore omitting letters and murdering the English language while retaining readability isn’t as hard as you think. I believe some of English's root languages have less letters in their alphabet (for example Latin doesn’t have the letter ‘J’) and the letter ‘Q’ is easily replaceable with ‘K’.

Tops is...nit eoooooy cuuuuut. Yyr'tl neee twwt yqqr eaaaaae is mssssy lddddr tfffffffffffn. Ig's a let hhhhhr if tje lkkkkks ale ozzzzzzt wxxxg.

Translation:

This is...not entirely correct. You'll note that your example is merely letter transposition. It's a lot harder if the letters are outright wrong.

[Rawhide]

Tops is...nit eoooooy cuuuuut. Yyr'tl neee twwt yqqr eaaaaae is mssssy lddddr tfffffffffffn. Ig's a let hhhhhr if tje lkkkkks ale ozzzzzzt wxxxg.

Translation:

I decyphered all of that, bar transposition (duh, I should have known that, but it didn't immediately jump to mind), without looking at the translation.

[Eldan]

The point at which this one falls apart is when it suggests the letter 'y' as a substitute for the 'sh' sound, producing 'oyean' and 'mayin(e)' and 'yugar', but utterly forgets that 'y' already has a sound of its own. How will we now, I wonder, spell words such as 'yellow' or 'yonder' or 'yolk'?

That seems to come from the old Ye Olde Englishe, where the letter þ (Thorn, th) was printed as a "y". So, using "y" for "th" isn't such a horrible idea.
I'd think that "y" could be replaced by "i". That's how I'd spell it in German, anyway. Or as "j", but you English people don't do that.


I can just say that, as a native speaker of a language that is largely phonetic (German), it is very, very difficult to see an English word for the first time and having absolutely no idea how to pronounce it. Does this "ow" rhyme with "cow" or "know"? Is this "e" spoken as in "spoken" or as in "see"? What about "c"? And so on. It's even worse the other way round, if you hear a word and have to guess how to spell it. I could approximate, at least, every English word with German spelling easily, but for a beginner, English spelling involves a lot of guesswork. Just look at the word "guess". How many people, when they first hear it, would spell that "gess"?

[Telonius]

O: Oh Oo (cool) Awe (On) = Uh Uuu awe (Maybe? Bit of a streatch perhaps) "Uh i'm nawt sure abuut this wan myself"

The Northern Cities Vowel Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_cities_vowel_shift) will have something to say (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map2.html) about that one. :smallbiggrin:

[Brother Oni]

Tops is...nit eoooooy cuuuuut. Yyr'tl neee twwt yqqr eaaaaae is mssssy lddddr tfffffffffffn. Ig's a let hhhhhr if tje lkkkkks ale ozzzzzzt wxxxg.

Harder but as Rawhide the inhuman machine superlative cryptographer demonstrated, it's still possible. :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

Harder but as Rawhide the inhuman machine superlative cryptographer demonstrated, it's still possible. :smalltongue:

The ironic thing is that I just completed a university subject about cryptography (high distinction, no less) which showed that, until recently, every single cryptographic algorithm was based on substitution, transposition, or a combination of the two and I still didn't see that word as transposition. It was fresh on my mind and staring me in the face! I should have seen it.

Public key cryptography (such as RSA) is very recent and was an absolute revolution in cryptography, working in an entirely different way to transposition or substitution.

[Tyndmyr]

Harder, def not impossible. =)

I'm a fan of One Time Pads, myself.

[Rawhide]

Harder, def not impossible. =)

I'm a fan of One Time Pads, myself.

But they are just the key to a substitution and/or transposition based algorithm. The difference being that you use each key only once before trashing it. One time pads are the most secure form of keys, assuming you can exchange and store them securely.

(Though we've kinda gone off topic...)

[Tyndmyr]

But they are just the key to a substitution and/or transposition based algorithm. The difference being that you use each key only once before trashing it. One time pads are the most secure form of keys, assuming you can exchange and store them securely.

(Though we've kinda gone off topic...)

Yup. They're simple, and hella effective.

That said, encryption and language do kind of go back a ways. Not strictly the same topic...but it seems to be a fairly common need after use of the written word spreads. I'd agree that substitution is pretty common, though. Probably the most historically common one. I'm rather a fan of cryptography myself(some good museums in the area here, I definitely recommend them if you're ever nearby).

[Aedilred]

Actual phonetic languages that exist, such as Thai or Spanish, seem to disagree with you here.
Only up to a point. In Spanish, for instance, the letters x and j are pronounced completely differently depending where in Spain (or the rest of the world) you are. Not to mention that different characters have different sounds in different languages anyway. There's a reason the restaurant chain in London named after the town of Oaxaca is spelt "Wahaca". The same actually goes for English - I don't know where you're from but have you ever heard a Geordie speak? Or anyone from Devon? You couldn't find a system that actually reflected the way in which both of them pronounced words - certainly not if you were basing it on the RP British pronunciation. That's just within England; the Welsh accent adds a whole load of problems, and then you get outside the UK into Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, not to mention India... that's before you start trying to incorporate the American dialect too, or the Scots dialects or language.

Moreover, alphabets that aim for greater phonetic accuracy tend to use a wider variety of characters than the 26 in English. Spanish uses 27 plus diacritical marks. Thai has a whole lot more. You're not going to be able to achieve phonetic accuracy while removing letters from the English alphabet.

[Zeb The Troll]

Moreover, alphabets that aim for greater phonetic accuracy tend to use a wider variety of characters than the 26 in English. Spanish uses 27 plus diacritical marks. Thai has a whole lot more. You're not going to be able to achieve phonetic accuracy while removing letters from the English alphabet.Russian has 33, though two of them don't make any sounds by themselves, they just modify the sound of the previous letter, hardening or softening it. Each other letter makes exactly one sound and no other letters make the same sound.

[Draconi Redfir]

i think the initial topic has been lost in translation somewhere. I never said anything about jarbled up words still being readable because the first and last letters were still present, and i never said anything about trying to remove combinations of letters, or removing multiple letters. i was talking about removing one letter.


Assume for a second that you were being forced to choose one letter from the English alphabet permanently. After this, that one letter could never be spoken, or written ever again. What letters could you remove entirely without sacrificing the entire English language, as we know it? How would you fill the void left behind after that letter disappears using only the remaining 25 letters at your disposal?

Naturally you could not give up some of the more unique letters such as B, P or T without changing the entire English language as we know it, but there are others that still sound similar to other letters if used properly. (the letters "E" and "Y" can be combined to replace the letter "I" for example)

One letter. One letter must disappear for the rest of eternity, and the English language as we know it must stay relatively the same. What is the lineup of letters that can take the fall? We already know letters like "I" "Y" "Q" "X" and "C" can vanish off the face of the earth without being missed too much, but what if those letters were off limits? What other letters could take the fall? How would you fill the void they left behind?

[Capt Spanner]

While changing English spellings to be more phonetic would help with reading out loud, it would hurt comprehension.

For example, you don't have to have ever seen the word before to figure out what "somnabulatory" means.*

More to the point, the difference between Filosofy" and "Philosophy" is that the Greek roots are obvious in the former, and not in the latter giving further clues as to the words origin and meaning for those who have never seen it before.

Also, if we're going to spell English phonetically, we're going to have to decide on common pronunciations.

Would "girl" become:
- "gurl" - UK home counties
- "gal" - suburban London
- "gel" - Most of the North of England
- "goil" - Italian American

I'm sure you can add more.


*"somn-" from sleep, as in "insomnia"; ambulate - from walk

[Aedilred]

One letter. One letter must disappear for the rest of eternity, and the English language as we know it must stay relatively the same. What is the lineup of letters that can take the fall? We already know letters like "I" "Y" "Q" "X" and "C" can vanish off the face of the earth without being missed too much, but what if those letters were off limits? What other letters could take the fall? How would you fill the void they left behind?
This seems a little perverse. We can remove any one letter, but not any of those that can be replaced? Under what circumstances would/could this ever happen?!

It's still doable. "b" and "v" are pretty similar. In some Romance languages the relationship between them is much more obvious. "b" and "p" likewise. If one of those were to go it wouldn't be too hard to make do.

"f" could be replaced in all instances with "ph" without any tears being shed. The hard "g" could be replaced by "c" or "k" and the soft with "j".

"h" could be removed by expanding the function of "x" or "j". "k" could be replaced by "c" or "ch" with a bit of effort. "y" could take the place of "i" if necessary and vice versa. "i" could also fill in for "j" - Latin has already set a precedent for "hard 'i's" for us.

You could remove "z" and replace any instance with "s". Or you could remove "s" and replace any instance with c (preferably with a cedilla) or with z.

Taking a clue from German and American English, "u" might be dispensible. "oo", "oe", "o-e" and "o" would fill in for most of its functions. A "hard 'u'" (Latin again) would cover "v" and "w" if either of those went AWOL. "x" is trivially replaceable.

Obviously if we're allowed to use diacritical marks (which are still just about valid thanks to a small handful of words) then swapping out vowels becomes a lot easier.

I think it would be all but impossible to sub in for "a", "d" "e", "l", "m", "n", "o", "r" and "t" although you might be able to replace "r" with "w" in a pinch. Probably not surprisingly, most of these are very commonly used letters. Most/all of the others I think could be worked around if necessary.


Also, if we're going to spell English phonetically, we're going to have to decide on common pronunciations.
My favourite pronunciation is the West Country for "worm", "warm" and "wyrm". Given that this is an Old dialect, these are pronounced as spelt. But nobody else in the English-speaking world does, so it sounds pretty hilarious. Fortunately at least the opportunity for misunderstanding is minimal, even if I'm convinced in some villages down there they do actually believe in dragons.

[Draconi Redfir]

This seems a little perverse. We can remove any one letter, but not any of those that can be replaced?

i only said those ones were off limits because i'm looking for new letters that can be compleately replaced, i already know how to replace those letters and replicate their sounds.

[llamamushroom]

"W" is just a shorthand for the diphthong from "oo" to the following vowel. Therefore, you could remove it fairly easily by replacing it with a double "o", or something else - I'd actually suggest incorporating parentheses into spelling, with "water" rendered either "ooater", "oater" or "(o)ater".

"U" could be easily replaced with "v", or vice versa, so we can do it like the Romans. e.g. MENV: Sqvid Svshi, Svmatran Rice, Vnpronovnceable Svomi Stvff.

"J" is probably the most easily removed, as it's a fairly uncommon letter whose function is entirely covered by "g". E.g. "jelly" and "gel". So, swap it out. There are some examples where a "g" would be inappropriate ("Jamaica" for instance - "Gamaica" flies in the face of established phonetics), but an "i" offers a decent solution ("Iamaica"), and a combination of the two ("Giamaica") is even better.

Of course, that might lead to confusion with words like "gill", but seeing as that's already an alternative spelling of "Jill" there is confusion anyway.

[Draconi Redfir]

how does a V sound like a U? (Or an O sound like a W for that matter):smallconfused:

[Gnoman]

In the exact same way that Guinevere sounds exactly like Jennifer. In other words, not even a little bit, but because one evolved into the other, people insist that you can simply go the other way.

[llamamushroom]

You're right that an "O" doesn't sound like a "W", but that's because "W" is a diphthong. It's the change from one to the other that sounds like a "W". Seriously, just slow down your pronunciation of any word that starts with "W" ridiculously (like, slow-motion type thing), and you'll find yourself doing an extended "oo" and the start. So, slow-mo "water" sounds like "oooowaaaaaateeeeeerr", but when spoken at normal speed we cut all of the initial vowel and only include the change in mouth shape.

The "V" and "U" thing was a misunderstanding on my part - I thought it was just a "how can we make the English alphabet more compact" exercise, not just "which letters' sounds are completely covered by others".

Gnoman, are there people who claim that the two are interchangeable? Because the former is just a bit close to a Welsh slang term for prostitute for my liking.

[Draconi Redfir]

hmmm... now that i think about it that way, ooater kind of gives off a neat little pseudo-russian or something accent...

i oorote about ooater ooanting ooraiths ooishing for oords.

is REALLY difficult to translate from text, but sounds cool when spoken.

[irenicObserver]

The OP made me cry a little inside :frown:

[Eldan]

You're right that an "O" doesn't sound like a "W", but that's because "W" is a diphthong. It's the change from one to the other that sounds like a "W". Seriously, just slow down your pronunciation of any word that starts with "W" ridiculously (like, slow-motion type thing), and you'll find yourself doing an extended "oo" and the start. So, slow-mo "water" sounds like "oooowaaaaaateeeeeerr", but when spoken at normal speed we cut all of the initial vowel and only include the change in mouth shape.

Huh. Not even remotely, for me. "W" is a pretty distinct consonant for me, and one I can hold for any amount of time without it turning into anything vowel-like.

[The Durvin]

I'm fine with Y as a consonant; I know it's basically just "ee" said quickly, but it's simpler that way; same for W and "oo". The "th" sound should just be a theta, X should be "sh", and Q could be "ch", except that some languages still pronounce it correctly as a sort of moist cough in the back of the throat (see "qoppa" in Wikipedia). Theoretically, the standard English sound of the letter J can be replaced with 'dzh', but it dzhust looks awful. I could go on, but I won't.

The reason we can't spell everything phonetically is that people in different places pronounce things differently. Hell, I've been just around Yankees and Southerners, and now I can't figure out how I'm supposed to say pecan (PEEkan or p'KAHN), envelope (ENvelope or AHNvelope), and don't even get me started on New Orleans (Nyawlihnh? Noowohleenz? N'waaaalinss?), and that's only with a few accents in one country. IPA sounds like a good idea, but you just try to get a right Cockney bloke, a stone-cold brotha from Brooklyn, a Wellington Kiwi, a good ol' boy from down Alabama way, and a fellow from the Great White North to agree on what sounds you're trying to spell.

[Knaight]

Only up to a point. In Spanish, for instance, the letters x and j are pronounced completely differently depending where in Spain (or the rest of the world) you are.
It's still phonetic, it's just that what sounds are being coded into text vary some by location (For instance, the ceceo and seseo in Spain, which is commonly described as a lisp elsewhere). If one is looking for areas where Spanish isn't perfectly phonetic, they'd be better off combing the specifics of word emphasis and accent marks, which have a few oddities.

Moreover, alphabets that aim for greater phonetic accuracy tend to use a wider variety of characters than the 26 in English. Spanish uses 27 plus diacritical marks. Thai has a whole lot more. You're not going to be able to achieve phonetic accuracy while removing letters from the English alphabet.
Thai also has an unusually high number of sounds. Among other things, it effectively has five accents - rising, high, neutral, low, falling - and on top of that over twenty distinct vowel sounds and forty distinct consonant sounds. There are examples of languages with fewer sounds expressed phonetically. Japanese Hiragana only has 48 symbols, for instance, and is almost perfectly phonetic.