I often have a part of my brain thinking about reforming English orthography

[conuly]

Nothing new goes on, I just rehash the same thoughts, but it's always there in the back of my mind. It is never gonna happen, but if it's okay for people to seriously discuss the characters on their favorite series, it's gotta be okay for me to spend some time seriously thinking about reforming our writing system.

The nieces were, as I said, home sick today, and they spent some time playing on the computer, doing a PBS game called, I thought, "Ecohouse". Do not let your kids find this site. It is boring and patronizing. "You are going to bed. Should you leave every single light in the house on, or turn them all off? Which is better for the earth?" "You are waiting for your friend. Should your mom and dad leave the car running for ten minutes, or turn it off while you wait?" To make it even more insulting, it is always the second answer. So even if you're completely ignorant and also devoid of all common sense, you can still get it right if you have a basic ability to make patterns.

At any rate, it turns out the site is named "Eeko" house. Or so Ana told me, I didn't check personally. So I had to explain to her that sometimes you can - if and only if you know what you're doing! - make the stylistic choice to deliberately misspell a word for some sort of effect. What sort of effect "eeko" makes rather than "eco" I don't know, but maybe it has to do with copyright or something.

Obviously, with any reasonable orthography this would be limited, at best... at least, if you wanted to keep the same pronunciation. And that would be a loss, actually. Not one that justifies the mess that is English (I mean, why exactly is it that the w in one is nonexistent and the w in two is silent? No, don't tell me why, I do know the reason, but it's beyond silly to pretend that those spellings make sense nowadays), but a loss nonetheless. (And one that, for whatever reason, the "Never Reform!" people never mention.)

Well, it's fine for me to talk like this. We'll see the end of "spring forward, fall back" long before there's any momentum to fix writing - and even if there were, it'd take ages for them to start doing it!

Comments

[pne]

Implementation would be a lot easier if there were a dictator who would simply declare a new spelling - have all schoolbooks reprinted, put sanctions on newspapers using pre-revolutionary spellings, etc.

On the other hand, I wonder what that would do to the unity of the English language. One advantage of a comparably abstract spelling is that you can read the same word in different ways; once you represent spelling fairly directly, you have to choose a pronunciation to represent.

I mean, you have things like color/colour already, but I imagine the divide will get even bigger if each English-speaking country chooses their own accent to represent. (And even then, people will have to be taught that "this spelling accurately reflects pronunciation... if you're speaking the 'proper' accent", and others will still have to learn irregular spellings.)

Still, it would be interesting to see how things would pan out.

[trialia]

Um, actually, "eeko" is how "eco" is pronounced in British English. So you might want to re-explain that to Ana, instead of leaving her with a false impression about this particular word!

[conuly]

That's, um, how we say it in American English too.

[conuly]

Implementation would be a lot easier if there were a dictator who would simply declare a new spelling - have all schoolbooks reprinted, put sanctions on newspapers using pre-revolutionary spellings, etc.

Yeah, I've considered that, but then what do you do when the benign dictator dies? Maybe people just revert to the old spelling out of petty spite, and anyway, your country is in a shambles because you've been ruled by a dictator for however long it was.

[pne]

As opposed to being in a shambles because you're being ruled by an elected parliament?

If he's a benign dictator, why couldn't he be a capable one, too, who won't run the country into the ground economically/politically/socially?

[conuly]

Wait, wait... he?

That's it. WHEN I am dictator, I'm going to insist people just adopt a damn gender-neutral pronoun already and get it over with!

[pne]

And if you're a dictator and fiddling with language anyway, you'll likely have a better chance than anyone else!

[conuly]

Yeah, but truth be told, I don't particularly want to be dictator anyway. It's just work, work, work, and when do you find time to goof off?

[pne]

It's called "delegation".

[conuly]

Too much of that and they stab you in the back and take over. Then you gotta do the purges, and the this, and the that. Oh, it's such a hassle!

No, the real thing to do is kill everybody and start over again. With clones.

[pne]

Ruling the country would be so easy if it weren't for the populace!

[dragonwolf]

people will have to be taught that "this spelling accurately reflects pronunciation... if you're speaking the 'proper' accent"

Don't we already have that, though?

I saw a discussion the other day on the "correct" pronunciation of "router." Evidently, even when referring to the little device that sits on your desk and allows more than one computer access to your Internet connection, the Proper (ie - British) Pronunciation is "root-er," not "r-out-er."

Then, there's the whole root/shag debacle, where "root" to an Aussie is the same as "shag" to a Brit, and while those two are referring to sex, the Yankee is wondering what plants (or cheering for a team) has to do with the style of carpet pile.

[pne]

Don't we already have that, though?

Perhaps a bit, but to a much lesser degree, because the current spelling doesn't claim to represent pronunciation unambiguously.

To take your example, a British person can say, "sure, 'router' with an 'ou' as in 'douche' or 'through' or 'routine' or 'boutique' or ..." while an American can say, "sure, 'router' with an 'ou' as in 'doubt' or 'sound' or 'bough' or 'house' or ...". The spelling doesn't really "vote" for either pronunciation.

Similarly with most mergers: people who still keep horse/hoarse, witch/which, cot/caught, etc., separate will have, say, five ways to spell one pronunciation and three ways to spell the other one, while people who merge them will have eight ways to spell the merged sound. Neither is really crazier than the other, since people are already used to the idea of having multiple spellings for any given sound, so learning that "cot" and "caught" have to be spelled differently even if they're pronounced the same isn't any different than, say, "bow" (fold your upper body down) vs. "bough" (of a tree), which I think everyone merges yet you still have to learn to spell them differently.

Then, there's the whole root/shag debacle, where "root" to an Aussie is the same as "shag" to a Brit, and while those two are referring to sex, the Yankee is wondering what plants (or cheering for a team) has to do with the style of carpet pile.

Spelling reform isn't going to change that, though. (Nor grammar, for that matter, though that's more uniform than word use, I think.)

[dragonwolf]

Neither is really crazier than the other, since people are already used to the idea of having multiple spellings for any given sound, so learning that "cot" and "caught" have to be spelled differently even if they're pronounced the same isn't any different than, say, "bow" (fold your upper body down) vs. "bough" (of a tree), which I think everyone merges yet you still have to learn to spell them differently.

Then you get into regional pronunciations. Using your examples, "cot" and "caught" aren't pronounced the same in my area. I have to actually think about pronouncing "bow" like "bough" when reading it (particularly without the context), or it becomes "bow" as in "bowtie" or "crossbow."

Spelling reform isn't going to change that, though. (Nor grammar, for that matter, though that's more uniform than word use, I think.)

To clarify - "router" as pronounced in British English can come across as "one who shags" to an Aussie, or something akin to "Roto-Rooter" to an American. Thanks to the quirks of English, a different pronunciation of a given word results in three (or more) completely different meanings. I think part of spelling reform should include coming up with one definition of a word. If a word has to have more than one definition, they should at least be related.

To provide something a little simpler - consider "dove" (the bird) and "dove" (past tense of "dive"). Two totally different meanings from nothing but a different pronunciation.

That said, perhaps that's another reason why Sci Fi writers have given up and gone with Mandarin for the "common language." :P

[pne]

I think part of spelling reform should include coming up with one definition of a word. If a word has to have more than one definition, they should at least be related.

Wow, so you're going to eliminate all homophones? That's... pretty ambitious.

What would be the one definition of the word that's now spelled to/two/too? And what pronunciations would you use for the other meanings?

[dragonwolf]

Actually, wouldn't the dove/dove thing be a homograph, not homophone?

Technically speaking, to/two/too are different words, so coming up with a different pronunciation would get rid of homophones, but only by nature of your idea of language reform where the spelling clearly suggests its pronunciation.

Of course, it seems I'm looking at it the opposite way as you - starting with what's written and going to speaking, while I think you're starting with speaking and going to writing. That then poses the question - which one should be the standard? When starting with speech, you have the issue of homophones, while when starting with writing, you have the issue of homographs, and potentially either way, you still have largely nonsensical language quirks.

Honestly, I'm not sure reforming the English language is really feasible without at least adding letters to our alphabet.

Perhaps this is why no one wants to reform the language? Its rat's nest of rules and exceptions that make it one of the most difficult second languages to learn also makes reforming it a highly daunting, if not almost impossible, task.

[pne]

Of course, it seems I'm looking at it the opposite way as you - starting with what's written and going to speaking, while I think you're starting with speaking and going to writing.

That's the feeling I got, too!

That then poses the question - which one should be the standard?

Well, in the context of spelling reform, I always thought the point was to change the spelling to conform more closely to pronunciation - meaning that speech is primary and writing tries to reflect speech.

Although, a pronunciation reform would also be an interesting project :) Making pronunciation conform to current spelling. (Reverting several centuries of sound changes and speaking Middle English would probably go quite a way towards that goal.)

Honestly, I'm not sure reforming the English language is really feasible without at least adding letters to our alphabet.

True; at least, if you want to get by without lots of digraphs ("th", "sh", "ch", "aw", "oo", etc.) - or trigraphs or worse.

Though starting with a new alphabet from scratch might be easier than trying to retrofit new letters into the existing alphabet.

[dragonwolf]

True; at least, if you want to get by without lots of digraphs ("th", "sh", "ch", "aw", "oo", etc.) - or trigraphs or worse.

Fun factoid - the Runic alphabet from Northern and Central Europe has a letter that represents "th".

So, it could be possible to come up with single letters that represent at least the common digraphs. I don't think most people see them as digraphs, anyway, but as the individual letters that make up the digraphs (in my experience, teaching about digraphs as digraphs is an afterthought, at best, so it's not like the number system where seeing numbers grouped in certain ways means something different than the same numbers grouped in different ways), so actually turning digraphs into their own letters might actually solve a lot of problems.

[pne]

Fun factoid - the Runic alphabet from Northern and Central Europe has a letter that represents "th".

*nod* and the Latin alphabet ultimately borrowed it: þ. Used to be used in English; still used in Icelandic.

I don't think most people see them as digraphs, anyway, but as the individual letters that make up the digraphs

Quite likely. They're not even considered letters of the alphabet in English (though other languages sometimes do give digraphs a place of their own in the alphabet, such as ly in Hungarian, ll in Welsh, or - formerly? - ch in Spanish).

But some people consider spelling schemes that use digraphs clumsy.

It's a matter of choice; using digraphs (as opposed to inventing new letters) certainly helps make a writing system more compatible with existing computers and keyboards.

There are quite a few respelling schemes for English that use digraphs.

[conuly]

There are quite a few respelling schemes for English that use digraphs.

It's pretty close to unavoidable unless we want to use diacritics which are, imo, even worse.

[pne]

It's pretty close to unavoidable unless we want to use diacritics

Or entirely new letters. (Either new additional letters, or an entire new alphabet.)

[conuly]

If we repurposed c, x, and q and re-added the thorn, that would help a lot. We could use diacritics to double the usage we have from vowels... but yes, we basically would have to add letters. We have more phonemes (even at a very conservative estimate!) than we have symbols.

Or we could go the Klingon route and eliminate upper/lowercase instead. Or make it so the uppercase letter is just a big version of the lowercase letter - that would allow us to add several letters without actually adding any letters, though it'd look ugly and it's really cheating.

[conuly]

Well, starting completely from scratch (I bet you do know about Deseret already, but I'm linking to it for fun) would solve a lot of problems, but I don't even think worldwide dictatorship would get people to readily accept it.

Man, China can't even get people to stop using characters! (But are they trying for that? I don't pay attention.)

[pne]

I bet you do know about Deseret already

*nod* I'm partial to Shavian myself, FWIW.

China can't even get people to stop using characters! (But are they trying for that? I don't pay attention.)

I think that was the plan for a short while (and some people surely still think so), but I think as an official party line, that plan was dropped quite a while ago.

[rantinan.livejournal.com]

Could be worse. Could be a water conserving site suggesting that toilets be flushed once a day at most, as if cholera was someone else's problem.
On english orthography, one of my favorite orthographic past times is playing phonetic spelling games. then fire the results into one of those TI text to speech parsers, and see what happens. "rhanetanahhn" comes out remarkably like rantin an, and is not out of place in fantasy settings for example

[conuly]

Well, I suppose it is if that flush takes it far, far away from you.

[rantinan.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Having had some very nasty sick thanks to a malfunctioning septic tank when i was a kid, yeah. Waterborne disease is something I'm unfortunately far too familiar with for my own comfort. Sewage treatment is one of the greatest things imaginable, and it should come as a completely dull surprise to know that water based charities (along with the lort smith and food for individual homeless folks) is where my charity monies go

[siderea]

"Clever" marketing misspellings predate the internet, but the internet really lit a fire, because of the limited supply of dot.com names. New companies being founded have a choice between a long and hard to remember name/url or getting clever. Probablly "eeko..." was available as "eco..." was long since bought.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

I always think about changing the orthography too. I hadn't considered that we'd lose "kreativ" names. Even not for businesses, but no more Kamryn, Madasyn, or Aydens... not that that would be a huge loss, I suppose, but people wouldn't necessarily like it. It'd be nice because you'd never have a teacher trying to sound out a name because it's spelled weird (unless it is a name from another country/language) but the parents who LIKE to spell their kids' names strangely would be put out. Or would do it anyway. Hmm. Or maybe the strange spelling thing is just a phase this country is going through right now and it won't last.

[conuly]

That doesn't apply here because it's part of pbskids.org.

[siderea]

No, eekoworld.com and eekoworld.org redirect to http://pbskids.org/eekoworld/ . It allows them to have their cake and eat it too: short URLs, and the brand of pbskids.org

[conuly]

Huh, when I googled to check it out I just got the pbs site. Nevermind, then.

[ihcoyc.livejournal.com]

The perennial problem of changing English spelling is that the realization of vowel sounds changes drastically across all of the standard or semi-standard dialects, as well as in local dialects. The current spellings, for all their flaws, are based on a Middle English phonology that nobody still uses. The vowel sounds of English changed dramatically after the system had come to be in widespread use and its basic features were becoming set in stone by the printing press.

English uses the Latin alphabet differently from practically any other language that uses it. But the traditional spellings are equally alien to all current English speakers. Convoluted rules are needed to move from written English to the dialect of any current speaker, but those rules are similarly convoluted regardless of which broad dialect family (N. Am vs. Commonwealth) the reader is using. You couldn't spell English phonetically without choosing one or another of these bases.

[conuly]

I actually tackled that issue last time I posted about this.

1. Most of what people mention when they talk about The Vowel Problem is things like "In Texas, people say Ah when they mean I" and the like. This isn't really a problem - so long as we agree that the same symbol or symbols always means that vowel sound, it doesn't matter if we disagree on how to say it.

2. There are of course things like splits and mergers, which make things more complicated. In this case, I suggest a general poll and you go with the most common set-up. If most of the English speakers distinguish between the vowel in Dawn and the one in Don (no matter how they SAY those sounds), they get separate symbols. If most of them don't distinguish between the one in "Mary" and the one in "marry", they don't.

3. There will still be situations like "orange" and the pin-pen merger, in which case we just suck it up, pick one pronunciation as standard, and run with it. This isn't ideal, but it's what everybody else does and it's significantly MORE ideal than the current mess. Plus, in my view of things, we call this pronunciation "standard" or "school" or "business" English instead of calling it "correct". We consider it a deliberately homogenized version of the language and call it a day, allowing people to speak their own dialects with limited stigma.

[conuly]

Also, it's worth noting (you wouldn't know this) that half the time I'm thinking not about what reforms to make, but how to implement them. I'm thinking going in stages - and doing ANYthing to vowels (even eliminating meaningless silent vowels like the e in love, which isn't the sort of silent e that "makes the a say a") is at the very very very end, just because of that.

The FIRST step is eliminating silent, unintuitive consonants like the m in mnemonic or the g in phlegm. (I understand that g comes back when you say phlegmatic, but that's hardly MY fault. If we can figure out how to say these words through hearing them spoken we can do that by writing them sensibly as well.)

[ihcoyc.livejournal.com]

If we're talking about standardizing pronunciation, may as well do the right thing and start pronouncing English the way it is written. Give each simple vowel its Italian or Spanish value, and pronounce the 'ou' in 'house' as /u:/. Undo the vowel shift, in other words.

Then, we can work on reviving grammatical genders, noun cases, the pronoun 'thou', the letters 'þ' and 'æ', and otherwise fix English so it's right once more.

[steorra (from livejournal.com)]

The spelling of personal names, especially surnames, might not change when the spelling of the languages as a whole did. I know that Dutch, which has been through a series of orthographic reforms, still has surnames with archaic spellings, although I'm not sure if that applies to first names as well.

I suppose, in current English, you could compare surnames like Greene that are spelt unlike the standard English spelling.

[steorra (from livejournal.com)]

I really wish we would revive þ and æ! Especially þ - it lasted so long (I've seen Scottish texts from the 1600s that still use it), and then finally withered away :-(