[net.nlang] More Rational English Spelling

rte@houxl.UUCP (R.EDWARDS) (04/04/85)

Here are some comments and suggestions on the previous two suggestions for
reforming English spelling.  Of course the whole enterprise is hopeless,
but it's fun to consider how we'd do it anyway.  The assumption I work
from is that the goal is spelling that allows for dialect differences,
aims for brevity, tolerates a little ambiguity, and doesn't look too ugly.
>          lab l/d dnt alv ret vel phr
>vd.stop    b           d       g
>vl.stop    p           t       k
>vd.affr                    j
>vl.affr                    c
>vd.spir        v   dh  z   zh
>vl.spir        f   th  s   sh      h
>vd.nas     m           n       ng	(-ng- in finger is (ngg))
>vd.smiv                l   r
>
Yet another possibility is to use c for sh, j for zh, tc for ch and dj for j.
This has the advantage of logical digraphs over random digraphs, as well as
using a single letter for the most common of these sounds (sh).
special->/specl/, azure->/aejr/, match->/maetc/, adjust->/adjast/

Q and X ought to be used for something, the most common digraphs left are
the two th s.  We could use q for one and x for the other.  In fact there
are almost no minimal pairs for the two th s (minimal pair is a pair of words
identical except for the phonemes in question), the only ones I know about
are (ether,either), (thin,then).  Many speakers lack even these.
So why not use x for both and use q for ng?  This sweeps the consonants
clean of arbitrary digraphs.
>semivowel   y	`yet'                w   `wet'
>st.high     iy  `beet'               uw  `boot'
>wk.high     i   `bit'                u   `put'
>st.mid      ey  `bait'               ow  `boat'
>wk.mid      e   `bet'                o   `bought'
>low.diph    ay  `bite'               aw  `bout'
>low         ae  `bat'                ao  `pot' 
>                         aa  `but'
>diph                     oy  `boy'
>schwa			 a   (first syllable in about)

All these a s! Baard is a fairly ugly spelling for bird.
Why distinguish the two vowels in abut?  I'd write both as a.
>
>I'd write (syllabic m n l r) as (am) (an) (al) (ar) unaccented or (aar) accented.
>
Why not just write them m n l r?  The only problem occurs when they stack up
(Funeral->/fyuwnrl/?), but even then its not clear that the ambiguity matters.
Another good problem word is rural->/rrl/?/rarl/?/raral/?
Can anyone find examples where the ambiguity as to whether one of these is syll-
abic matters?  A hidden question is whether you are after a spelling system, or
a phonetic representation.  A spelling system does not need to resolve all
ambiguities, only the important ones.

Also ao is much more common than o, why not use o for not and oo for naught.
A small class of words needs a symbol to be pronounced ah in all dialects,
father, bra, mama etc. I suggest /aa/ for this class.

>1) In many cases, english dialects preserve phonemic distinctions even
>where there are differences in pronunciation. For example, British
>speakers usually drop (r) following vowels, but preserve the lost sound
>via compensatory vowel lengthening. British speakers would have the rule
>VOWEL+(r) =>  LONG VOWEL 
>
Actually the rule is r not before a vowel goes to a (as in about) and low
vowel plus a goes to long low vowel. Hear, hair, and poor are clearly still
diphthongs in dialects that have lost r s.
>2) Unfortunately, many dialects contain distinctions that are nonexistent
>in others. Words like `new', `dew', `tune', `sewer' (Br= nyuw dyuw tyuwn
>syuwar, Am= nuw duw tuwn suwar) would be viewed  as containing `silent 
>letters' by American speakers, following the rule (y) => 0 /(t,d,n,s) _ VOWEL
>
>3) Some dialectical discrepencies require the addition of extra symbols to
>account words having different phonemes in different dialects.  The most
>obvious phonemic shift I know of occurs in the vowels in (path) and
>(ox).  I believe that at least two extra vowels will be required (here
>called (a') and (o')) to handle the words below:
>
>	British		American	Common
>        -------         --------        ------
>cat	kaet		kaet		kaet
>path	paoth		paeth		pa'th
>ox	oks		aoks		o'ks
>bought	bot		bot		bot
>
In the spirit of the previous solution (americans regard y as silent in dyuw
etc.), the rule here should be that /ae/ plus /f s x(th) nt ns/ will be
pronounced differently by those with this shift.  The /ae/ pronunciation is
the older.
Also I think the short o is a non problem, just use o, Americans say ah,
British say aw.  Incidentally, many British speakers distinquish between
cot and caught, using a longer closer vowel for the latter, just as
many Americans do, its just that both are shifted relative to the ah aw pair.
I'd keep or for words like for, lord, and ar for cart, card.
(Incidently these words are not distinguished in local Jersey Shore dialect,
you haven't lived till you've heard of the Gorden State Porkway)

>Another example is the (d)-like sound in American `pretty', `little'.
>Some British dialects make this a glottal stop, others pronounce it
>as an ordinary (t). Shall we call this (t') ?
>
Here again, just write t, no ambiguity results.
>Here's how I'd have spelt your examples:
>
>>
>>Some samples using this spelling system:
>>Su~m sa^mpl^z yu^zin~ d~is spelin~ sistm^:
> Saam saempalz yuwzing dhis speling sistam: [.. yuwz1ng .. spel1ng..]
Sam saemplz yuwziq xis speliq sistm.  (Note, it's shorter)
>>
>>	Old		Nu^		Yet anaadhar sistam  Stil anaxr sistm
>>	---		---		--- ------- ------
>>	cat		ka^t		kaet               kaet
>>	cot		kat		kaot              kot
>>	caught		kot		kot               koot
>>	coat		ko^t		kowt
>>	curt		     kr^t		kaart         krt
>>	coot		ku^t		kuwt
>>	word		wr^d		waard [wurd]         wrd
>>	weird		wird		wird
>>	ward		ward		word
>>	warred		ward 		word
>[Du~z eni^wu~n pronawns d^i^z difrentli^?]
>[Daaz eniwan pranawns dhiyz difrantli ?] [..en1wan..difrantl1?]
Daz eniwan pranawns xiyz difrantli?
Again most of my suggestions hinge on whether the goal is a phonetic system
or a reasonable spelling system.  If the latter even more simplifications
are possible, yuw->yu, iy,ey,ow,uw at the end of a word spelled i,e,o,u,
that way many common words are shortened, with no ambiguity introduced.
they->xe, be->bi etc.

One issue not discussed is whether or not to distinguish unaccented short i
from a in about.  Many Americans don't, except when final, in which case
we pronounce it like /iy/ anyway.
The answer should be to maintain the distinction, since many speakers do,
in the spirit of the ah aw distinction above.

Best wiciz for betr speliq.
Lest eniwan xiqk aym a driymr, let mi aed, speliq wil nevr bi riformd for
sevrl riyzns.
1. Xer iz no orgnizeycn tu du so.
2. Mowst piypl downt andrstaend xi iynormas hyumn kost av raendm speliq.
3. Piypl ar snobz abawt speliq, xowz hu no haw layk tu lord it ovr xa
rest av as.

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/06/85)

>3. Piypl ar snobz abawt speliq, xowz hu no haw layk tu lord it ovr xa
>rest av as.

For the same reason, the civil service (mandarins?) at King SeiJong's
court fought hard against the adoption of Hangul in Korea.  The King's
reason for developing this rational alphabet was to make it possible
for the common people to communicate with him, rather than having to
go through the intermediary of someone literate in Chinese character
writing.  After his death, they more or less scuttled Hangul, which
was revived only since WWII (it formed a kind of underground writing
during the Japanese occupation, but was hardly used in Korea between
the 15th century and the 20th).

But in respect of modified spelling and snobbery, a bigger problem is
that it is hard for people to learn new things, and those that do know
something about current spelling practices would be in difficulties
with a new system, no matter how rational it might seem.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

gilbert@hwcs.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) (05/22/85)

In article <298@rlvd.UUCP> drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) writes:
>
>Written language is just a representation of the spoken word, which came
>first anyway. The difficulty arises that whoever put pen to paper, or stylus
>to wax surface all those years ago took a snapshot of the spoken language as
>it existed then, at that particular place. 

 No, not just.

   Written and spoken languages are separate systems which tend
 to overlap. Socially comfortable and successfully educated (thus
 many members of our English county sets are excluded) English(wo)men 
 are fortunate in the close correspondence of written English to
 their spoken dialect. Greeks, on the other hand, used to labour
 under the constraints of the `clear speech' official written language 
 which was only recently `disestablished'. Written Arabic is so
 different to the regional dialects that even well educated Arab
 boys generally cannot correctly form all their plurals until their 
 mid-teens.
   Writing is far more of a problem solving exercise than speaking.
 Formations exist in the written language which never appear in
 everyday conversation (in some senses, public speaking is a form of 
 `reading aloud'). The French aorist (passe' simple) is an obvious
 example. Poetic language of course is a further linguistic system
 with conventions and a vocabularily that appear in neither written
 or spoken language. Some features of written language systems may
 have their origins in earlier spoken forms. However still more
 features can only be ascribed to the evolution of a language
 within a historical community of literati.
   I could never have said the above without going `em', nor could I
 have uttered such complex sentences impromptu. I wouldn't attempt
 to say the above, as written, in the part of Tyneside where I grew up. 
 It would neither be fully understood or well received, but I could get 
 the same message across in dialect.

  `Nivor in the world man. Taakin n writins gorra be different,
  why anyone can taak, but yiv gorra be lornt te write. An
  when yer arh lornt, thi winnat let yer write as ye taak, well
  nor unless yer aal lardida aalready like. Mind you, its a lot
  worse fera lorra them foreigners like, cos how they write n
  taaks even more different, ye knaa deed hard wiv aal these
  extra things to gan remembrin. The reckon it was bad in Greece,
  but them Arabs have it the worst. Thiv nee chance iv writin
  proper wi how theyve gorra lorn it.'
  
  `Look man, yiv gorra think te write. This more rules, ye knaa
  what ye can n cannit write, n more words. Why thi lornt us
  bitsa French at school that thi Froggies nivva even say. An
  as for them poems that thi tekkas used to read oot, ye canna
  make head ner tail iv em wivout them explaining every other
  line. Ah reckon folk should say as thi mean n not gan been
  cleva n lossin ye. Aye, ah knaa some iv its from the olden days
  like, burra lorriv its just been made up to look cleva.'

 `Noo if me college tutor could hear is now, 'e'd reckon 'e'd
 wasted all ees time on is. Cos 'e'd spend aal ees day gerrin
 is te taak n write proper.'