Wʊd ˈꟾŋɡlɪʃ bi ˈbɛtər ɔf wɪθ fəˈnɛtɪk ˈspɛlɪŋ? - Would English be better off with phonetic spelling?

[Joan Nyan]

Ɔn wʌn hænd, ɪt wʌd bi ˈiziər tu lɛrn, bʌt ɔn ði ɔðər hænd ju wʌd luz ði ˌɛtəˈmɔlədʒi ʌv ˈsɜrtən wɜrdz. Fɔr ˈɪnstəns, "criticism" ɪz ˈklirli "critic" + "ism" ˈwɛræz "ˈkrɪtɪk" ænd "ˈkrɪtɪsɪzəm" doʊnt lʌk æz ˈsɪmɪlər.

Spoiler: normal english

On one hand, it would be easier to learn, but on the other hand you would lose the etymology of certain words. For instance, "criticism" is clearly "critic" + "ism" whereas "ˈkrɪtɪk" and "ˈkrɪtɪsɪzəm" don't look as similar.

 

[Golly]

jɛs. ˈɛniˌθɪŋ tu ˈʤʌstəˌfaɪ ðə θri jɪrz aɪ spɛnt ˈstʌdiɪŋ ði ˌɪntərˈnæʃənəl fəˈnɛtɪk ˈælfəˌbɛt fɔr skul.

Spoiler

Yes. Anything to justify the three years I spent studying the International Phonetic Alphabet for school.

 

[Joan Nyan]

jɛs. ˈɛniˌθɪŋ tu ˈʤʌstəˌfaɪ ðə θri jɪrz aɪ spɛnt ˈstʌdiɪŋ ði ˌɪntərˈnæʃənəl fəˈnɛtɪk ˈælfəˌbɛt fɔr skul.

Spoiler

Yes. Anything to justify the three years I spent studying the International Phonetic Alphabet for school.

aɪ əˈsjum juər ˈtɑkɪŋ əˈbaʊt ði ɛnˈtaɪər IPA fɔr ɑl ˈleɪŋɡwədʒɪz biˈkʌz IPA dʒʌst fɔr ˈɪŋɡlɪʃ tʊk mi laɪk æn aʊər tu lɛrn

Spoiler

I assume you're talking about the entire IPA for all languages because IPA just for English took me like an hour to learn.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I would say so but it would need an actual alphabet and not just the IPA

 

[Joan Nyan]

I would say so but it would need an actual alphabet and not just the IPA

The Deseret alphabet is pretty cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The Deseret alphabet is pretty cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet

I prefer the alphabet that I made because it is connected so you can more easily see where one word ends and another begins

 

[Vitriol]

This is so close to a shallow thought thread its unreal. The only thing saving it is i vaguely remeber two linguistic students i lived with years ago having this debate so i assume its almost a real issue.

Their conclusion iirc was that knowing etymology was much more valueable in interpreting the meaning of unusual words and hinting at connotations than simplifying spelling for the minority that struggle with it.

I remeber that debate because at the time i thought it was the most retarded discussion i had ever heard.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

This is so close to a shallow thought thread its unreal. The only thing saving it is i vaguely remeber two linguistic students i lived with years ago having this debate so i assume its almost a real issue.

Their conclusion iirc was that knowing etymology was much more valueable in interpreting the meaning of unusual words and hinting at connotations than simplifying spelling for the minority that struggle with it.

I remeber that debate because at the time i thought it was the most retarded discussion i had ever heard.

One thing that is significant in the history of the english language is that words actually were spelled phoenetically previously in middle english but became spelled based on etymology later on

I think that we should add letters for th sh and ch (although ch might only be necessary for some words and not all) and letters for our vowels (because that is the most difficult part of english) and alter the spellings of certain random words (awkward to aqurd) but keep the spellings of ones with clear etymologies

Who was the mod who rejected my report on this thread?

 

[Vitriol]

awkward

Awkward is a fantastic word because it is awkward to spell itself! It is like 'lisp' having an 's' which is wonderful.

We think parts of middle english were pronounced phonetically, we dont actually know although in my experience pointing this out to linguistics makes them buttmad.

I'm afraid I'm not going to disclose who rejected your report except that it wasnt me. You can post in tts if you feel the decision was wrong.

 

[Joan Nyan]

This is so close to a shallow thought thread its unreal. The only thing saving it is i vaguely remeber two linguistic students i lived with years ago having this debate so i assume its almost a real issue.

Their conclusion iirc was that knowing etymology was much more valueable in interpreting the meaning of unusual words and hinting at connotations than simplifying spelling for the minority that struggle with it.

I remeber that debate because at the time i thought it was the most retarded discussion i had ever heard.

I probably should have posted it in off topic tbqfh. Move it if you want.

 

[SpessCaptain]

Why change something that isn't completely broken?

 

[Philosophy Zombie]

This is so close to a shallow thought thread its unreal. The only thing saving it is i vaguely remeber two linguistic students i lived with years ago having this debate so i assume its almost a real issue.

Their conclusion iirc was that knowing etymology was much more valueable in interpreting the meaning of unusual words and hinting at connotations than simplifying spelling for the minority that struggle with it.

I remeber that debate because at the time i thought it was the most retarded discussion i had ever heard.

It's not quite as cut and dry as that. There are many words in the English language whose spelling is in fact inconsistent with both pronunciation and etymology, often changed by scholars putting their fingers in to make English more like Latin or Greek.

"Debt" is a good example, which was originally spelled "dette" from "dete" in Old French but was erroneously changed in the sixteenth century to bear more similarity to the Latin word debitum. The s in "island" is total bullshit because the word should be spelled iland but was also changed to make it more like the Latin word insula, which isn't even related. These aren't isolated incidents either; tons of words really do just have extra letters for the sake of having extra letters. More of them did once have a purpose but have long, long since become obsolete.

I would on principle be in favor of reform of the English language to make it less ridiculously arbitrary in comparison to the writing systems of many other major languages, but it won't happen for one reason and that is that since spelling became basically codified in the 18th and 19th centuries, and there is no regulatory body which has the authority to officiate changes (unlike every other one of the 10 most spoken languages on Earth), the adoption problem has long since become insurmountable. It won't happen because the momentum of our current system is too strong and there is widespread complacency from most English speakers, who have a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" attitude.

This is despite the fact that the nonphoeneticism of English isn't actually harmless, either for children learning to read or foreign learners of English. The rate at which young children learn to read fluently and acquire literary competence in English is noticeably slower compared to children who learn to read in languages with more phoenetic writing systems.

 

[Vitriol]

It's not quite as cut and dry as that. There are many words in the English language whose spelling is in fact inconsistent with both pronunciation and etymology, often changed by scholars putting their fingers in to make English more like Latin or Greek.

"Debt" is a good example, which was originally spelled "dette" from "dete" in Old French but was erroneously changed in the sixteenth century to bear more similarity to the Latin word debitum. The s in "island" is total bullshit because the word should be spelled iland but was also changed to make it more like the Latin word insula, which isn't even related. These aren't isolated incidents either; tons of words really do just have extra letters for the sake of having extra letters. More of them did once have a purpose but have long, long since becom

I would on principle be in favor of reform of the English language to make it less ridiculously arbitrary in comparison to the writing systems of many other major languages, but it won't happen for one reason and that is that since spelling became basically codified in the 18th and 19th centuries, and there is no regulatory body which has the authority to officiate changes (unlike every other one of the 10 most spoken languages on Earth), the adoption problem has long since become insurmountable. It won't happen because the momentum of our current system is too strong and there is widespread complacency from most English speakers, who have a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" attitude.

This is despite the fact that the nonphoeneticism of English isn't actually harmless, either for children learning to read or foreign learners of English. The rate at which young children learn to read fluently and acquire literary competence in English is noticeably slower compared to children who learn to read in languages with more phoenetic writing systems.

Im sure there are many complications, as i said its a half remebered arguement from years ago. They also said something about 'through' 'threw' 'thorough' and 'though' although i no longer remeber anything of whatever point tied those words together or indeed distinguished them.

 

[Marvin]

I would on principle be in favor of reform of the English language to make it less ridiculously arbitrary in comparison to the writing systems of many other major languages, but it won't happen for one reason and that is that since spelling became basically codified in the 18th and 19th centuries, and there is no regulatory body which has the authority to officiate changes (unlike every other one of the 10 most spoken languages on Earth), the adoption problem has long since become insurmountable. It won't happen because the momentum of our current system is too strong and there is widespread complacency from most English speakers, who have a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" attitude.

Linguistic prescriptivism is pretty retarded, particularly for a language like English. It's not like the Royal Spanish Academy does much to maintain unity between the various dialects of Spanish around the world.

Metrication in the US failed pretty spectacularly for daily life. Largely because, I argue, daily use of measurement units are much more of a linguistic thing than a technical thing. And changing the real language on this kind of scale would be much, much harder.

 

[Dr. Tremolo]

English is ridiculously unphonetic as it gets, but you gotta deal with it. It's a consequence of being influenced by so many languages compared to others.

 

[AnOminous]

We used to use what amounted to phonetic spelling and nobody agreed on how to spell things, so shit from that era is virtually unreadable now. We're better off having one way of spelling, or at least only minor variations in it, than attempting to do phonetic spellings of virtually mutually incomprehensible dialects.

 

[DangerousGas]

In terms of the UK alone, a Scouser's phonetics would bear little relation to that of a Cockney, or a Manc, Scot, Yorkshireman, Taff or any other region you care to name. Dialectic drift between regions that are <100miles apart is enough to indicate that a phonetically-driven written language simply wouldn't work in English.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

English is ridiculously unphonetic as it gets, but you gotta deal with it. It's a consequence of being influenced by so many languages compared to others.

Japanese is also influenced by lots of languages but it is phoenetic

 

[Dr. Tremolo]

Japanese is also influenced by lots of languages but it is phoenetic

Not in a fundamental level English has been.
They also have to adapt foreign words to their syllabic system anyway.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Not in a fundamental level English has been.
They also have to adapt foreign words to their syllabic system anyway.

We adapt foreign words to our phonology too we just don't realize it because we don't know the original languages

In terms of the UK alone, a Scouser's phonetics would bear little relation to that of a Cockney, or a Manc, Scot, Yorkshireman, Taff or any other region you care to name. Dialectic drift between regions that are <100miles apart is enough to indicate that a phonetically-driven written language simply wouldn't work in English.

But american English is the only English that matters so we should just make it phonetic for american English