|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: an idea to change English spelling |
 |
|
i have an idea for simplifying English spelling and showing the rhythm of words at the same time...
please tell me: is this a good idea? has it already been done? who do i talk to about my idea? who's 'in charge' of English?
anyway, here goes:
the only rule:
replace all unstressed vowels (represented as the 'schwa' or upside-down 'e' in pronunciation guides) with a '_' (or something along those lines)
examples:
because >>> b_cause
photography >>> ph_togr_phy
entertainment >>> ent_rtainm_nt
i find that some of the difficulty in understanding non-native speakers of english comes from their lack of proper english rhythm... people say pho'togra'phy instead of photo'graphy' and native english speakers can't understand them...
ok.. discuss... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just because a syllable is unstressed, doesn't mean it has a schwa. unless it's the word troll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| can you give me an example of this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=653274
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain (see below)
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
While this is often attributed to Mark Twain, it is disputed. Many claim that this is an excerpt from The Economist which was written by M.J. Shields (or M.J. Yilz at the end of the letter). The full text of this letter is available in Willard Espy's Words at Play and again in Giles Brandreth's The Joy of Lex. Scholars studying the works of Mark Twain don't have any evidence that this was Mark Twain who wrote this piece. Mark Twain did, however, present several lectures (mostly in his 70s) on the topic of spelling reform. Properly attributed lectures include Simplified Spelling which was written in 1899 which is a satire/response of another essay written by George Bernard Shaw and Cadmus which satirized writing reforms with a story of ancient Greece and Egypt.
Several 'reforms' listed in the essay is satirizing a particular reform that has been presented at one time or another.
* Superfluous and silent letters - proposed by Noah Webster and Benjamin Franklin
* Double consonants - proposal by a scribe called Orm in the year 1180
* Cut Spelling proposal - see http://www.les.aston.ac.uk/book/cutspelhb.html for a book on one more recent (1996) proposal. This addresses the 'which' and 'one' in year 2.
* Checked Spelling proposal - Deals with voiced, unvoiced sounds. See http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/CCS-nut.html For more information on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| can you give me an example of this? |
'insipid' has a middle syllable stress, but at least with my accent, the initial 'i' is not a schwa (maybe in new zealand english it's a schwa). i think in some accents, the final 'i' isn't either.
similarly 'extremely'. the first 'e' in my accent is like the 'i' in 'ill'. the final 'y' is like this also.
i can't be bothered writing this in phonemic script, but that would better illustrate the idea. phonemic/phonetic script, while fairly accurate, is not the simplified writing system you were after. if you manage to wing it, let us know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a proposal.
The first part of the deal is that nonspellers just get over it and leave English spelling the hell alone. Even people to whom good spelling is important have to consult dictionaries from time to time.
The second part of the deal is that, outside of published or academic material, the spellers of the world will stop making fun of the non-spellers. At least to their faces.
And everyone will allow that typos are a condition of the species and only decry those that make it into published or academic material.
Deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| my idea has to do with pronunciation as well as spelling... i think that an alphabet is better if it can tell you how to say the word properly... it's not that i make fun of bad spellers, it's just that i think that the alphabet could be simpler and still retain the history and etymology... i don't think that we should do anything drastic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| my idea has to do with pronunciation as well as spelling... i think that an alphabet is better if it can tell you how to say the word properly... it's not that i make fun of bad spellers, it's just that i think that the alphabet could be simpler and still retain the history and etymology... i don't think that we should do anything drastic... |
good for you, ernie.
i guess the gist of my half-buttocked post (who's that to?) was that an alphabet has been designed to fairly cover all the discrete sounds of english, and simple, at least with what i'd imagine you're aiming at, it aint.
it (phonetic script) is what you see next to words as a pronunciation guide in good dictionaries. but you must have known this, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: Re: an idea to change English spelling |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
i have an idea for simplifying English spelling and showing the rhythm of words at the same time...
please tell me: is this a good idea? has it already been done? who do i talk to about my idea? who's 'in charge' of English?
anyway, here goes:
the only rule:
replace all unstressed vowels (represented as the 'schwa' or upside-down 'e' in pronunciation guides) with a '_' (or something along those lines)
examples:
because >>> b_cause
photography >>> ph_togr_phy
entertainment >>> ent_rtainm_nt
i find that some of the difficulty in understanding non-native speakers of english comes from their lack of proper english rhythm... people say pho'togra'phy instead of photo'graphy' and native english speakers can't understand them...
ok.. discuss... |
I don't mean to b_ a bitt_r billy, but I find your syst_m of dash_s to be extrem_ly confusing.
As for changing English..
I can't imagine there being wide support for any drastic changes. If the purpose of changing it would be to increase global consistency and mutual comprehension, wouldn't it be better to just advocate a constructed language as the lingua franca instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
one reason is that you're not using it properly... one syllable words should only have a dash if the word in the sentence is unstressed ('to' is unstressed, not 'be')... you should have written:
i don't mean t_ be a bitt_r billy, but i find your syst_m of dash_s t_ be _xtremely c_nfus_ng
some words, like 'baby' and billy' don't really have any unstressed syllables, hence the need to retain the original spellings... also, silent 'e's should be retained to show that the preceding vowel is to be enlongated...
i agree that a constructed language would be better functionally, but it would be impossible to implement, especially given the range of pronunciations and word etymologies that probably should be preserved... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLarter
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Queen's english is perfect the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
one reason is that you're not using it properly... one syllable words should only have a dash if the word in the sentence is unstressed ('to' is unstressed, not 'be')... you should have written:
i don't mean t_ be a bitt_r billy, but i find your syst_m of dash_s t_ be _xtremely c_nfus_ng |
You're right, that's much easier to read. 
| Quote: |
some words, like 'baby' and billy' don't really have any unstressed syllables, hence the need to retain the original spellings... also, silent 'e's should be retained to show that the preceding vowel is to be enlongated...
i agree that a constructed language would be better functionally, but it would be impossible to implement, especially given the range of pronunciations and word etymologies that probably should be preserved... |
It would be tough to force a new language to become globally used, but your reason for it doesn't make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maybe a more elegant letter would be easier to read, like the dash(-) or even the apostrophe (')...
do you really find it that hard to read? what if you read in that style more than once?
i don't imagine 'forcing' this down the throats of english speakers everywhere, just maybe using it as an option or as a way to teach people about english rhythm... even speakers from india (who learn english all their lives) can be impossible to understand because they don't know the rhythm of english...
i think of it like a computer playing the piano vs. a master pianist... the computer hits all the right notes but lacks the proper accents, making the song sound strange and often making it impossible for the listener to hear the proper theme... a concert pianist may not play the song exactly 'correctly' every time, but they can convey the feeling of the song whereas a computer can't... in short, a computer doesn't understand the song, and therefore cannot possibly convey its meaning properly...
call me a pronunciation nazi, but saying:
i real-LY like PHO-to-GRA-phy ES-pec-IAL-ly BE-cause... is incorrect because a native speaker won't know what the hell you are saying... it makes me sad when a person speaking english is trying so hard to say every vowel perfectly, only to say them wrong because the syllable is actually unstressed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
maybe a more elegant letter would be easier to read, like the dash(-) or even the apostrophe (')...
do you really find it that hard to read? what if you read in that style more than once? |
Okay, I'll briefly explain my opposition to your proposition. Using the style would first require precise knowledge of pronunciation. Thus, it would be useless. Implementing it would create excessive squabbling over error, such as can be seen in my erroneous attempt above. I tried my best. I know how to pronounce almost every English word properly (and by properly, I mean not Britishy).
| Quote: |
i don't imagine 'forcing' this down the throats of english speakers everywhere, just maybe using it as an option or as a way to teach people about english rhythm... even speakers from india (who learn english all their lives) can be impossible to understand because they don't know the rhythm of english...
i think of it like a computer playing the piano vs. a master pianist... the computer hits all the right notes but lacks the proper accents, making the song sound strange and often making it impossible for the listener to hear the proper theme... a concert pianist may not play the song exactly 'correctly' every time, but they can convey the feeling of the song whereas a computer can't... in short, a computer doesn't understand the song, and therefore cannot possibly convey its meaning properly...
call me a pronunciation nazi, but saying:
i real-LY like PHO-to-GRA-phy ES-pec-IAL-ly BE-cause... is incorrect because a native speaker won't know what the hell you are saying... it makes me sad when a person speaking english is trying so hard to say every vowel perfectly, only to say them wrong because the syllable is actually unstressed! |
True, intonation is tre importante. But I just don't like your idea of the underscores (my mistake saying dashes previously). To be honest, I don't like the idea of drastic changes to English at all. I've read several suggested ideas, and I hate them all. I love English just how it is.
As I said before, it would make more sense to support a constructed language. Esperanto and Ido, for example. They are fairly simple to understand. Or, we could all learn to speak in binary and intonation would be a moot point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this is a good discussion... i appreciate your input and i do understand that for a lot of reasons, english is good the way it is... i think that if you got used to noticing stressed vs. unstressed syllables, you wouldn't find it difficult at all to transcribe... i wonder: do different regions stress words differently? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
