# Phonographic English: real or dream?



## Dominio

Hello to everyone:

 As I explained my former thread, English has always flabbergasted me because there's no phonographic rules, i.e., you cannot figure out how to pronounce a word, as it happens in Spanish.

 My astonishing impression is wider since it would be relatively easy to add 
some diacritics to the vowels to know to pronounce the words.
 For example, 'éa' for gréat /greit/, 'èa' for hèad /hed/ or 'ea' for read /ri:d/.

 English is said to be «the only language in the world where 'fish' can be written 'ghost'», since 'gh' can be pronounced as /f/ (tough, rough, enough, etc.) and o can be pronounced as /i/ like women.

 About the consonants, it would be as relatively easy as vowels to modify the words to follow some logical rule. 
 For instance, enough, tough, rough, etc. can be re-written as enouf, touf or rouf.
*Would it be so hard to believe (even for English natives)? Isn't it worthy? *(I put the question on the table to widely discuss it)

 I want to believe that English can be conveyed to a phonographic language, where learning is easier to natives and foreigner (I conform the latter, unfortunately). *Everybody wins with a phonographic language*. If you're a native, you already know the language and the rules and you're able to read the texts with little modifications. Adding to this, foreigners find easier to aproach the language.

 I believe in English as a global language, I love English the more I read and the more I know the language. I believe about the necessity of a global language for all to communicate among each other and English seems to be the best candidate. Their characteristics make them suitable to bear this title.
 But English might need some 'revision' to make it easier to learn, especially for ESOL (English for Students of Other Languages).

 Well, I hope my point of view is clear now, hope your comments will help me.

 All comments are welcome, I'll thank you'll enlight me.

 Thanks for your time,

 Ignacio.


----------



## Wobby

Well, if we are going to make any version of English phonetic, it should be American English, seeing as they are already half-way there! 

I think British English needs to be quirky and have the strange amalgamations of spellings from different origins to be truly British, hence I'm rather fond of keeping it as it is. 

I guess you're referring to creating a seperate branch of English for learners? I personally think that _any_ language could be represented as a purely phonographic language, and I guess it wouldn't be that difficult to do, except someone would have to have the patience to do it! The thing is, I think I'd actually rather have a made-up language than English become the official global language, because I already feel ashamed on behalf of our nation for being only able to speak one language fluently, whilst most people of other countries can speak not just our language, but their own too! 

p.s. When you mention 'fish' can be written as 'ghost', I think you mean 'ghoti', where the 'ti' comes from the word 'station'.


----------



## belle_gique

Hi - ok, first of all it should be pointed out that depending on the accent of English (and there are SO MANY) the sounds change in comparison to co-relating sounds in other accents, but within the particular accent, the sounds have specific and constant relation to each other.  For example, the Southern English "coke" sounds like the Southern Scottish "cake", so Southern English and Southern Scottish speakers may have confusion when the accents meet - but within Southern English itself, or within Southern Scottish itself, the ambiguity is minimised because the sounds within those individual accents "match up".  

Certain accents have unique phonemes, such as "ch" in "loch" (a large pond).  In some areas of England, this is pronounced "lock" like the lock on a door, and not "loch" with a /x/ velar fricative.

To make "American English" phonetic would be difficult because there are so many different varieties (Texas or New York for instance, so different are they not?) and some varieties of American English lack sounds that English English has (certain diphthongs for instance).  Each variety has its own charm (the Welsh!) but you're right, that must make it difficult for foreigners to learn.

It has been suggested that "European English" become more widely taught, the kind of hybrid English sometimes spoken on the continent - this would involve possible constructions such as the French-influence "for that" instead of "in order to" e.g. "I must return early for that I can have a good sleep" instead of the Standard English "I must return early in order to have a good sleep".  Interestingly, this variety follows a romance-style pronunciation.  

"  I believe in English as a global language, I love English" that is inspiring!  Hmmm and I'm studying English, and you make me think ...!

I hope I'm helping : )  If you have any other questions, let me know - it's really interesting to hear your side of things (I have similar questions when I try to learn French!) good luck!


----------



## nzfauna

English does indeed have "phonographic rules", they're just more complex - something that is often lost on foreign speakers.

Frankly, I enjoy the complexities of the English language.


----------



## 50131901812

I just finished reading a wonderful book called _Spellbound_ by James Essinger. The author constantly makes fun of English spelling while explaining the origins of it. It's a very fun book that gave me a greater appreciation for the English language and its silly spellings. I highly recommend it.

Anyway, after reading about how different words got their spelling and went morphing down the ages, I simply can't support sudden modifications of spelling. A language is more than a system of communication; it carries history and culture with it—which is revealed partially through its spelling. Ah, maybe I'm being selfish.

That being said, with all the sounds in the English language and all the variations between accents*, I can't imagine that adopting a standard alphabet and spelling system would be easy. Then again, maybe we should start spelling with the IPA? 

* And between people. And between sentences; I've occasionally found myself pronouncing the same word differently.


----------



## gvergara

Some native speakers of English may be wanting to propose that it is Spanish that modifies its spelling so that there is so big a mismatch between its written form and its oral form as there is in English... Languages are just what they are... words are tools that to a greater or a lesser degree help our inner worlds flow out, sometimes in the form of a breeze, sometimes resembling turmoils... I don't know, I don't think I would like our minds to be ruled by a post-modern _Newspeak_ after all...

Gonzalo


----------



## Rosa7

I agree with Wobby - I don't mind if AE becomes phonetic! But I love tracing the etymology (history) of English words through the spelling.

My husband hated learning spelling at school because he had a (in my opinion) fairly ordinary teacher who didn't explain that our spelling of "light" as it is (not "lite") is because it comes from old Teutonic (?) "licht". She should then have gone through and found every example of this pattern.

Then done the same for Latin, French etc.

My husband finds these explanations more helpful than rote learning.


----------



## Athaulf

You might be interested in checking out the discussion in this old thread.


----------



## xxmchxx

Rosa7 said:


> that our spelling of "light" as it is (not "lite") is because it comes from old Teutonic (?) "licht".


I don't know about "Teutonic", but licht still works in German. I love to look at _older versions_ of English, German and Dutch and see how they're basically all the same.


----------



## belle_gique

Hi xxmchxx!
Auld Scotts is in there too   like "to go out" where I'm from sounds like "gang oot" and the Dutch for "exit" sounds like "oot gang" but has a totally different spelling (random example sorry, first that came to mind!) 
This kind of thing is fascinating, Dominio has brought up so many interesting questions!


----------



## Forero

Unfortunately, Spanish has recently been borrowing words from English and other languages without "correcting" the spelling.

Before that, only the letter _x_ was confusing in Spanish.


----------



## Sepia

Wobby said:


> Well, if we are going to make any version of English phonetic, it should be American English, seeing as they are already half-way there!
> 
> ...


 

Why do you think that - I could find you lots of examples where AE orthography seems even more conservative than the BE orthography. The only really important examples of the opposite, in my opinion, is that they dropped the "u" in color and they pronounce lieutenant closer to the way it is written. ("lef-tenant" ...!!! holy cow!!!)


----------



## Wobby

There are several more I can think of. The use of 'z' in 'ise' and 'isation' words for starters. Then there is how they use 'program' for both television and computer. How about the good old 'sulfur' instead of 'sulphur'? 'Aeroplane' to 'airplane'? 'Metre' to 'meter' and all varients such as 'litre' to 'liter', 'theatre', 'titre', etc. 'Carburettor' to 'carburetor'? 'Moustache' to 'mustache'? There are lots of examples of where the 'u' is dropped out in American, not just with 'colour', so this is quite significant - e.g. 'armour', 'honour' etc. All 'ae's on 'oe's have been changed to just 'e's - e.g. 'haemoglobin', 'oesophagus', etc. Getting rid of the 'e' when suffixes are added. And then there is the removal of double consonants in American such as 'traveller' has become 'traveler'. I think that's quite a lot to be honest! In fact, most of them are listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences


It's not about how 'conservative' they are - it's about the fact that the words are closer to their phonetic equivalents and have been attempted to have been made uniform.


----------



## Fred_C

Wobby said:


> There are several more I can think of. The use of 'z' in 'ise' and 'isation' words for starters.


 
Hi, Actually, using a Z to spell words ending in "ise" or "isation" is closer to the Greek etymology of the suffix "izein" that has been borrowed into late Latin as "izare", with a Z in orter to translitterate the Greek zeta.


----------



## Kevin Beach

The problem about trying to match spelling to modern pronunciation, is that there is no single form of pronunciation.

There are not only differences between standard British English and standard American, but between both of those and Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Caribbean and African forms. May I give one example?:

In central South London (England) there is an area whose name is spelled "Thornton Heath".

In standard British English it is pronounced "Thawnt'n Heeth". (silent "r")

In the lazy speech of many traditional South Londoners, it is pronounced "Faw'neef". ("th" mutated to "f", silent "r" and most other parts too!)

But in the speech of the many Indian and Caribbean immigrants who have repopulated the area over the past 40 years it is now pronounced "Tahrntan Heet" (exaggerated burred "r" and the elimination of "th", as well as vowel changes).

With the arrival of migrants from Poland and other Eastern European countries in the past five years or so, it has fast become "Tohrrntawn Kheet" (Still no "th", aspirant and exaggeratedly trilled "r" and a gutteral "kh", as well as slavonic vowel sounds).

Which version should we use for the revised English phonography?


----------



## Wobby

Fred_C said:


> Hi, Actually, using a Z to spell words ending in "ise" or "isation" is closer to the Greek etymology of the suffix "izein" that has been borrowed into late Latin as "izare", with a Z in orter to translitterate the Greek zeta.


 
Again, my point was not about which one retained the words closer to the original. In fact, there are many words in American that are closer to the Old English equivalents than in British English, which have changed. The idea of the sound 'f' being represented as one letter in 'sulfur' in American is probably closer to the idea of one letter 'phi' in Greek - I think it was only written as 'ph' because that's how the Romans heard it. My point was that a greater number of American words (whether they have been conserved better than in British English or not) are spelt similarly to the way they are pronounced. And hence would make a better starting place for a 'Funetic Inglish'.


----------



## Dominio

belle_gique said:


> Hi xxmchxx!
> 
> This kind of thing is fascinating, Dominio has brought up so many interesting questions!



I want to thank Belle Gigue for your compliment.
I also think that this subject is specially important and some spelling reform is needed.


----------



## Sepia

Fred_C said:


> Hi, Actually, using a Z to spell words ending in "ise" or "isation" is closer to the Greek etymology of the suffix "izein" that has been borrowed into late Latin as "izare", with a Z in orter to translitterate the Greek zeta.


 
The other examples were good, but this is the one I don't buy either. If I am not quite mistaken the "z" spelling also used to be the only correct spelling in BE while I began learning English. (As a child l learned BE - I switched to AE during my teens.)


----------



## Outsider

Sepia said:


> If I am not quite mistaken the "z" spelling also used to be the only correct spelling in BE while I began learning English.


The "s" spelling has been common in BE for quite some time. At least a century, I'd wager, and probably more.


----------



## Sepia

Outsider said:


> The "s" spelling has been common in BE for quite some time. At least a century, I'd wager, and probably more.


 
No contradiction in that. The fact that it was common for a long time does not tell us that it was considered correct - generally speaking. But even if we are talking about a complete century, they are still ahead of the Americans with reforming the spelling of this single word. (At least one single word ...)

A dictionary I bought in the mid-eighties gives both versions as correct in BE.


----------



## Forero

The immediate etymology of the _-ise_, _-isation_ endings is French.  Did Latin borrow these endings from Greek before or after borrowing the letter _z_?


----------



## Outsider

After. It's a late/medieval suffix.

For the record, I think both spellings are defensible. The 's' spelling emphasizes/emphasises the close historical relation between English and French, while the 'z' spelling is etymologically more consistent. I use the latter because it's easier for me, since it normally coincides with the Portuguese spelling. Not that it's particularly difficult to adjust to either of them.


----------



## Forero

I wonder why French spells _-ize_, _-ization_, and _Elizabeth_ with _s_.


----------



## avok

Hi,

Please do not think I am being sarcastic or something but maybe English will never be phonetical as long as it is written in Latin script! I really do not know why but I have always thought that the Latin alphabet is, kind of...not-so-appropiate for English phonology but it is perfect for writing (in) English. Hahaha I am not sure what I have just meant!


----------



## Sedulia

I could really do without smug commenters from Britain who write as if they own the English language and all other native speakers are incorrect. It inevitably calls up hostility from Americans and is not productive in polite discussions.

It's also just wrong.

Although I personally wish that America used the same spelling as the Brits, there are sound historical reasons for the difference. Spelling was wildly individual until the late 1700s. American spelling was standardized in America less than a generation after the Dr Johnson wrote his standardizing dictionary. Americans had just won a nasty war against the British, and Dr Johnson was rabidly anti-American; it was no wonder that when Daniel Webster created his own American dictionary, he wanted to  change a few things. (U.K. "gaol" vs U.S. "jail," for example.)

As for American English being somehow a deformed version of British English, it is, just like modern British English, a descendant of British English in the 1600s, and in many ways more conservative, keeping the subjunctive, more irregular verbs, and the pronunciation of "r" and "h" (as in words like "Birmingham"). American English also has the huge advantage that speaking it does not instantly brand the speaker with a class marker.

But to return to the main point of this discussion, much as it might be helpful to simplify the spelling of English, there is a good reason for not doing so. It would make many varieties of English mutually incomprehensible.


----------



## Sedulia

I want to apologize if I offended anyone. Upon rereading the comments, I see that most people qualified their remarks. I guess I've just heard the anti-American language thing too much from Brits. 

Sorry!

Back to the discussion, to illustrate: I was reading a biography of Evelyn Waugh and someone in the book made a joke that everyone laughed at. I didn't get it. It was only later I realized that the British pronounce "Waugh" and "war" the same. (So how would "phonetic English" spell it?)


----------



## jfm

Dominio said:


> Hello to everyone:
> English is said to be «the only language in the world where 'fish' can be written 'ghost'», since 'gh' can be pronounced as /f/ (tough, rough, enough, etc.) and o can be pronounced as /i/ like women.



It's <ghoti>, not <ghost>. However, English spelling does *not* allow "fish" to be spelled <ghoti>. <gh> only corresponds to /f/ at the end of morphemes, never initially. <o> corresponds to /i/ in one word only and is an exception (which can be explained). <ti> corresponds to /sh/ only when it's morpheme initial, as in -tion, -tial.

English has a lot more spelling rules than most people give it credit for. It's not a straight one-to-one relation between letters and sounds, true, but it's not enrtirely chaotic either.

Besides, the written language doesn't depend on being "phonographic". That's not how we read texts. Our brain processes written texts more holistically, in that words are usually treated as units. We don't rad "one letter at a time", but "one word (sometimes phrase) at a time".

More "phonographic" spelling does, however, simplify the learning process, but once you're got past that stage, a more "phonographic" writing system is not easier to use than a less "phonographic" one.


----------



## sokol

There are several problems involved with a radical language reform of the English language; some of them are already listed in the 'spelling reforms' thread linked to already by Athaulf; some of the most severe ones would be, in my opinion:

- there is a huge number of native speakers and non-native speakers using English regularly who would have to learn the new spelling
- there is a REALLY huge number of books written in old spelling which would become nearly indecipherable for readers who only learned the new one (would be a problem after the new spelling would have been established firmly)
- there are several standard varieties, and standardising a new phonological spelling would mean that (x) either the new phonological writing would have to follow one standard variety (and I can't imagine Americans using English phonological spelling, or the English using American phonological spelling) (x) or the English language would split at least into two, but most likely in more than two national varieties
- there are a great many native speakers and even non-native speakers radically opposed to a phonetical writing; the only way I could imagine these reservations could be cleared up would be a totalitarian regime, and we don't want that, now do we?

(Apart from that I want to add that if there were a spelling reform - and a radical one - then the reformed spelling really should be strictly phonological.)

So basically if English would NOT be such an international language, if English were spoken only by the inhabitants of, say, Northumbria, then it would be rather easy to introduce a phonological writing system.

But as things stand this is extremely unlikely to happen.


----------



## avok

Kevin Beach said:


> Which version should we use for the revised English phonography?


 
This problem exists for all the languages as well. The only difference is that we "already" solved the problem. Generally,a more prestigous accent/version was chosen for the phonography and the other variants had to accept it.


----------



## Athaulf

jfm said:


> It's <ghoti>, not <ghost>. However, English spelling does *not* allow "fish" to be spelled <ghoti>. <gh> only corresponds to /f/ at the end of morphemes, never initially. <o> corresponds to /i/ in one word only and is an exception (which can be explained). <ti> corresponds to /sh/ only when it's morpheme initial, as in -tion, -tial.



Exactly so. This _ghoti_ example is akin to claiming that Spanish orthography is so chaotic that, say, _mejor_ could be spelled _hmhegohr_ - after all, Spanish _h_ is always silent unless it's a part of _ch_, so you never know when to expect it, and /x/ can be spelled as either _g_ or _j_. Of course, this example would be absurd, since silent _h_ can occur only in a very limited number of contexts, and _g_ is pronounced as /x/ only in front of _e_ or _i_. As you correctly note, the _ghoti_ example in English is equally absurd for similar reasons.  



> English has a lot more spelling rules than most people give it credit for. It's not a straight one-to-one relation between letters and sounds, true, but it's not enrtirely chaotic either.


Here is a very interesting article about this topic: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html. The author has written a computer program that predicts the pronunciation of English words more or  less correctly over 85% of the time using a pretty simple set of rules. I agree with his conclusion:_What I hope to have shown, however, is that beneath all the pitfalls, there's a rather clever and fairly regular mechanism at work, and one which still gets the vast majority of words pretty much correct. It's not to modern tastes, but by no means as broken as people think.  
_​


> More "phonographic" spelling does, however, simplify the learning process, but once you're got past that stage, a more "phonographic" writing system is not easier to use than a less "phonographic" one.


I would even say that the claims about the ease of learning of more phonemic spelling systems are usually exaggerated. I speak from first-hand experience, since I've been exposed to two extreme examples: English on one side, and on the other my native language, which has one of the most regular and predictable phonemic spelling systems in the world. 

First, any phonemic spelling system will still have horrible pitfalls for at least some people, since it has to be based on the phonology of the official standard language, which will always be different from many people's native dialects. Just ask Croatians whose local pronunciation doesn't differentiate between the phonemes /tʃ/ and /ʨ/. Similarly, if someone devised a phonemic spelling for English, would these words have same or different spellings? Either way, you'll make the spelling horribly illogical and non-phonemic for many people.

Second, in order to be able to write in a proper and educated way, you have to get not only the correspondences between letters and phonemes, but also a lot of other stuff that can't be other than arbitrary, such as capitalization and punctuation rules. These things are always complicated and arbitrary, and I'd say that they can be more difficult to master than even a very irregular and non-phonemic spelling system. I don't make almost any spelling mistakes in English these days, except for typos, but proper punctuation (e.g. comma rules) keeps eluding me.


----------



## PaulQ

Sepia said:


> No contradiction in that. The fact that it was common for a long time does not tell us that it was considered correct - generally speaking. But even if we are talking about a complete century, they are still ahead of the Americans with reforming the spelling of this single word. (At least one single word ...)
> 
> A dictionary I bought in the mid-eighties gives both versions as correct in BE.


The OED gives only 'z'.

The human brain copes easily with spellings as long as there is ample opportunity to be acquainted with them. 

We have no difficulty with seeing 1,987 and saying, "one thousand nine hundred and eighty-seven." Yet there is no guide to pronunciation at all. The x-billion Chinese are happy to see ideographs, which likewise give no hint.

Bengali spelling is relatively straightforward but is then complicated by a myriad of compound letters that often have little or no relationship to their constituent parts.

I don't find that the argument that some natives pronounce a word one way and others, another would create difficulties. When I see a combination of letters, I pronounce the word in my regional accent: I see 'bath' and pronounce it with a flat "a", my wife's version is more "barth" but we both see the same word and know what it means.

It is true that we see patterns in print rather than read the individual letters in words:

From research at Nottingham University


> Suteids sohw taht olny aoubt 55 prcenet of plepoe cna raed tihs. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. Tihs sohws us the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are in, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset of the txet cna be a taotl mses adn you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but isntaed raeds the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and we awlyas tghuhot slpelnig was ipmorantt!​
> Qoestuin -
> Can thsi be doen in ohter lnagugues? Snapsih, Fenrch, Iatilan, Gerek, Rissuan. Chenise, Jaapense, Herbew, Aaribc?


----------



## Explorer41

Athaulf said:


> Second, in order to be able to write in a proper and educated way, you have to get not only the correspondences between letters and phonemes, but also a lot of other stuff that can't be other than arbitrary, such as capitalization and punctuation rules. These things are always complicated and arbitrary, and I'd say that they can be more difficult to master than even a very irregular and non-phonemic spelling system. I don't make almost any spelling mistakes in English these days, except for typos, but proper punctuation (e.g. comma rules) keeps eluding me.


I do not agree with the point about punctuation. For example, the rules of Russian punctuation seem to me to be less arbitrary and more understandable than rules of English orthography, their logic is more clear for a newcomer's eye; there are fewer dependencies on third factors, such as meanings or etymologies of individual words. And when it comes to the standard language, that rules are rather strict and unambiguous; of course, writers of the prose sometimes break the rules, wishing to express meanings forbidden by the standard language (or just being mistaken), but it's another story.


PaulQ said:


> It is true that we see patterns in print rather than read the individual letters in words:


Oh, I agree!  It's a very interesting fact. But I can't be sure of the point about random shuffling, even if we preserve the first and the last letter.

Mabye it is true, but the eeeimnprxt on feoorrs you have peeenrstd d'enost daemnorstte it. Egilnsh wdors are not e-alnortxg in gaeenrl, so the radeing is saafghiorrrttwd, bacesue the nbemur of cabiimnnoots to pceorss while radeing a word is the faaciortl of the nbemur of leertts to sffhlue. Also, the uabdeiilnrstty of a ccenorte text cnotus as well - smoe wdors may be jsut geessud by uinsg maeginns of sdinnorruug wdors. I have also seen aehnotr ealmpxe of scuh text (aeflnnorttuuy I have fegoorttn its laciootn in the ieennrtt), wehre a text was ceehpryd the same, and was uaabdelnre.

Anyway, I agree that all simplifications of orthography etc serve for the only purpose -- to help newcomers (children, for example) to get acquaintance with using language. But it's a good purpose, isn't it?

===================

Ah, and I don't think of course, that orthographic rules should be exceptionless. No, it's impossible, especially for such a wide-spread language as English, but it's better to present fewer exceptions, than to present more exceptions. ::-/


----------



## ahvalj

I think, it's unrealistic to expect any significant changes in the English orthography, there is just too much to correct. As strange as it may sound, but I think the only way to get rid of all the inconsistencies is to change the alphabet. It sounds even more idiotic today, but who knows what the future may bring...


----------



## Explorer41

ahvalj said:


> I think, it's unrealistic to expect any significant changes in the English orthography, there is just too much to correct. As strange as it may sound, but I think the only way to get rid of all the inconsistencies is to change the alphabet. It sounds even more idiotic today, but who knows what the future may bring...


Yes, I agree. A hypothetical new alphabet might be even Latin-like (maybe with extensive use of diacritics), but a structure of such an alphabet would be so different and made anew, that we would have to call that thing a new alphabet anyway.


----------



## ahvalj

Explorer41 said:


> Yes, I agree. A hypothetical new alphabet might be even Latin-like (maybe with extensive use of diacritics), but a structure of such an alphabet would be so different and made anew, that we would have to call that thing a new alphabet anyway.


Yes, any alphabet people might prefer, even tengwar, for example.


----------



## Explorer41

ahvalj said:


> Yes, any alphabet people might prefer, even tengwar, for example.



Funny. Too few letters. Maybe with dots, as in Arabic, it will be OK. Or else -- why not a binary code?


----------



## LilianaB

ahvalj said:


> I think, it's unrealistic to expect any significant changes in the English orthography, there is just too much to correct. As strange as it may sound, but I think the only way to get rid of all the inconsistencies is to change the alphabet. It sounds even more idiotic today, but who knows what the future may bring...


I hope there won't be any significant changes: English is great the way it is. It has quite simple grammar which compensates the other difficulties.


----------



## Explorer41

LilianaB said:


> I hope there won't be any significant changes: English is great the way it is. It has quite simple grammar which compensates the other difficulties.


Liliana, I think you don't want any reforms in the English orthography for the very same reasons I don't want any reforms in the Russian orthography, even most logical ones: you don't want to have a headache.  Funny enough. And I'm with you: laziness is a pretty humane thing


----------



## francisgranada

Hau duu yu laik dhis text? 

It's en _ad hoc_ experiment or radhör e jouk ounli, änd not e pörpöz, of koors. Ai'v traid tu rait dhii Inglish wördz moor or les fonetiköli, yuuzing sam ortogräfiköl ruulz dhät yu kän faind aut iizili. Dhis iz not e riöl fonogräfiköl solushön, äz nou lägnwij iz spelt pörfektli fonetiköli, it's imposiböl änd ai think not nesesöri ät ool.

 Wot duu yu think, wud dhis (or sam adhör "normelaizd" speling) iiziör tu riid änd tu löörn for e non neitiv dhän for e neitiv Inglish spiiking pörsn?


----------



## LilianaB

No, Explorer, I basically love English the way it is. I like the words the way they look. It is also easier to  figure out some words from older versions of English if the spelling is the way it is today. I would also worry what happens to older literature, poetry: such a change of the spelling system could be catastrophic for the English language. And you are right, I would consider it a waste of time to have to learn something that does not make sense whatsoever, such as the new spelling of the English words: I would rather learn another language. #38


----------



## terredepomme

> Wot duu yu think, wud dhis (or sam adhör "normelaizd" speling) iiziör tu riid änd tu löörn for e non neitiv dhän for e neitiv Inglish spiiking pörsn?


Yes, ie dhink it wud bi a lat iiziör för non neitivs, böt hard to riid för alrädi neitiv spiikerz.


----------



## terredepomme

There has been never an instance in history where a language was reformed to meet the needs of its foreign learners. In almost every thread about learning Chinese there is a claim that it should be written in Pinyin. But Chinese will always be written in Hanzi, as English will always be written in unphonetical spelling. Learners conform to speakers, not the other way around.


----------



## LilianaB

Thank God. I thought I was to switch to Old English soon, because the phonetic spelling of English is not for me. There is some tradition I like in languages, this is why the more ancient the language, the better, in a way.


----------



## Dan2

francisgranada said:


> Hau duu yu laik dhis text?
> 
> It's en _ad hoc_ experiment or radhör e jouk ounli, änd not e  pörpöz, of koors. Ai'v traid tu rait dhii Inglish wördz moor or les  fonetiköli, yuuzing sam ortogräfiköl ruulz dhät yu kän faind aut iizili.  Dhis iz not e riöl fonogräfiköl solushön, äz nou lägnwij iz spelt  pörfektli fonetiköli, it's imposiböl änd ai think not nesesöri ät ool.
> 
> Wot duu yu think, wud dhis (or sam adhör "normelaizd" speling) iiziör  tu riid änd tu löörn for e non neitiv dhän for e neitiv Inglish spiiking  pörsn?





terredepomme said:


> Yes, ie dhink it wud bi a lat iiziör för non neitivs, böt hard to riid för alrädi neitiv spiikerz.


These attempts reveal misconceptions about English pronunciation in a few places. 
But overall, well done! ("Well done" as an exercise in English phonetics; I think this kind of spelling has huge disadvantages.)


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> These attempts reveal misconceptions about English pronunciation in a few places.


Out of curiosity: where do you see the the misconception? I see a few mistakes (like some=_sam_ rather than _söm_) but now real inconsistencies. What struck me as odd was that he used a rounded vowel, "ö", to transcribe the unrounded phonemes /ʌ/, /ə/ and /ɜ/, maybe because my compatriots often make this mistake in English, e.g. pronouncing _w*or*ld_ as [w*œː*lt(ʰ)].


----------



## PaulQ

As far back as 1768 Benjamin Franklin advocated (but lost interest in) a phonetic alphabet consisting of all the lowercase letters of the Latin alphabet, minus c, j, q, w, x, and y, which he thought redundant, plus six new letters for sounds which he thought lacked unambiguous orthographic representation. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/franklin.htm

Anything that introduces more or new letters is doomed to failure, there is too much invested in the English alphabet and its lack of diacritics.

More recently, this has been around the internet. Humorous, probably because it's true - by the end you will be able to read what is otherwise gibberish:



In Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased by either "k" or "s" and likewise "x" would no longer be a 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 konsanant, wile
Year 3 might well abolish "y", replacing it with "i".
Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.  Jenerally. then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear.
Iear 5 would do awai with uselas double konsonants.
Iears 6-12 or so wil be modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl to 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, after sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewaat xe Ingliy-spiking werld.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> Out of curiosity: where do you see the the misconception? I see a few mistakes (like some=_sam_ rather than _söm_) but no real inconsistencies.


(I'll use "..." for phonetic spelling, _italics_ for standard English spelling, and [...] for IPA symbols.)

True, writing _some_ as "sam" could be a simple error, but it could also represent a misconception as to how this exceptional word is pronounced.  (Admittedly it's very easy to make errors when writing phonetically - there are no spell checkers!)

I really don't mean to be critical; it's impressive how well these members have mastered the crazy English spelling rules and exceptions. It just struck me as interesting that on WRF we often see people who _write_ excellent English (or other language), but we have no idea how they _pronounce_ it.  Here we have a rare extensive look into non-native WRF'ers' perceptions of English pronunciation.

Some of the things that I noticed in the first post, in addition to "sam" were:

The word _a_ as "e" instead of "ei" (compare _native _as "neitiv") or "ö" (used for schwa).

> Wot duu yu think
_do _and _you_ have the same vowel , at least in careful speech, so I was surprised at the different spellings.  True, _you _can be reduced, but a) if _you_ were reduced, _do _would certainly be as well, and b) the reduction is to generally taken to be to schwa, for which "ö" is being used here.  Also, _think _is not _thin_ + [k].

> fonetiköli ... solushön,
The first vowel of _solution_ is schwa, not "o"; and the middle vowel is , so we would expect "uu", not "u" ("u" is used here for the vowel of "would").
I would pronounce the first vowel of _phonetically_ as schwa, but some might use the vowel of _foe_, for which "ou" would be the expected spelling (see _joke only _as "jouk ounli")_.
_I would also have no vowel between the k and l, not even schwa (I'm not sure if that's universal).

> ortogräfiköl
The _th_ of _orthographical _is pronounced as such, not as [t].  (Perhaps just a typo.)  The second vowel should be "ö" (certainly not "o").

I noticed a couple of other things, but I'll stop here.

Most noticeable in the second post (which seems to use different conventions than the first) was "dhink" for _think _(which has unvoiced _th_) and _lot _as "lat" (vacillating between AmE and BritE?).

But again, good job, guys, on a _very_ difficult task.



berndf said:


> What struck me as odd was that he used a  rounded vowel, "ö", to transcribe the unrounded phonemes /ʌ/, /ə/ and  /ɜ/


When you invent an orthography, you get to use whatever symbols you want...  Seriously, tho, I agree; that's not the symbol I would choose, certainly not for /ʌ/ and /ə/.  However Americans (at least), new to German, often hear the vowel of _turn _as the closest English vowel to the vowel of German _schön_. _ur_ isn't rounded like [ö], but it bears some acoustic similarity to [ö].


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Also, _think _is not _thin_ + [k].


That's ok, though. Phonetically oriented spelling reforms will never produce the level of accuracy you would expect from systems like IPA. Using "ng" for both, [ŋ] and [ŋg], and "nk" for [ŋk] are quite acceptable, even though this can lead to some ambiguities, like in _tinköp_ for _tincup_.


----------



## NewtonCircus

francisgranada said:


> Hau duu yu laik dhis text?



LOL. 

This is actually done in Bahasa Malaysia for words borrowed from other languages, mainly English. 

- _Aiskrim _= Ice cream
- _I__migresen _= immigration
- _Mayonis_ = mayonnaise
-_ T__reler _= trailer
-_ Polis _= police
- _Taksi_ = taxi


----------



## francisgranada

Thank you all for the interest. If I knew that you would analyze it so carefully perhaps I should have produced something more precise  ... 



Dan2 said:


> ... writing _some_ as "sam" could be a simple error, but it could also represent a misconception as to how this exceptional word is pronounced.  (Admittedly it's very easy to make errors when writing phonetically - there are no spell checkers!)


In this case, the spelling _sam _is rather the result of my hesitation. I know that it doesn't sound "sam" (neigther in my own pronounciation), but I wanted to avoid somehow the "too many schwas", and in some cases to use the "etymological" spelling for better understanding. Thus, maybe I should  have left _som,_ but I agree with you and berndf. 



> I really don't mean to be critical; it's impressive how well these members have mastered the crazy English spelling rules and exceptions. It just struck me as interesting that on WRF we often see people who _write_ excellent English (or other language), but we have no idea how they _pronounce_ it.  Here we have a rare extensive look into non-native WRF'ers' perceptions of English pronunciation.


It is surely true, but not necessarily in all cases. Even if one (non native) prounounces a certain word correctly, it is not easy to analyze how the words exactly sound and to find an adequate spelling ...  

And there is an other dilemma: not all the schwas sound equally, so what should be the criterion? To spell them always with "ö", or sometimes e.g. with "e" (as we don't want to introduce too many new characters) ?


> The word _a_ as "e" instead of "ei" (compare _native _as "neitiv") or "ö" (used for schwa).


A dilemma, or rather a "compromise". I didn't want to use different spellings for the same word dipending on it's position in a sentence etc. (my attempt was not to give a phonetical transcription but rather an "orthography"). So I've chosen "e" consciousely, but it could be also "ö". 



> > Wot duu yu think
> _do _and _you_ have the same vowel , at least in careful speech, so I was surprised at the different spellings.  True, _you _can be reduced, but a) if _you_ were reduced, _do _would certainly be as well, and b) the reduction is to generally taken to be to schwa, for which "ö" is being used here.



You are right, it's a mistake. First I did not distinguish between u and uu and then I forgot to change yu in yuu. 



> Also, _think _is not _thin_ + [k].


I didn't want introduce other characters. In this case it is paractically inpossible (or at least difficult) to pronounce the _n_ and the _k_ separately, so I think there's no need to distinguish the _nk_ from _n+k_ graphically.



> > ... solushön,
> The first vowel of _solution_ is schwa, not "o";


Here I've left the "o" to maintain the etymological vowel for better understanding of the written text. By the way, it seems to me, that when we pronounce the word _solution _with a "strong" strees on the second syllable, the result will be automatically a schwa, even if we maintain "o" in the written form.



> >  ... solushön,
> and the middle vowel is , so we would expect "uu"



I agree.



> >  ... fonetiköli
> I would pronounce the first vowel of _phonetically_ as schwa, but some might use the vowel of _foe_, for which "ou" would be the expected spelling (see _joke only _as "jouk ounli")_. _


Again, I've left the "o" maintaining the etymological vowel for better understanding.





> I would also have no vowel between the k and l, not even schwa (I'm not sure if that's universal).


A dilemma, I preferred ö because I didn't want to reduce the numeber of the syllables, and, as I've noticed, sometimes a certain kind of schwa can be heard in such cases, probably influenced by the pronounciation of the following "l". 



> > ortogräfiköl
> The _th_ of _orthographical _is pronounced as such, not as [t].  (Perhaps just a typo.)


Yes, a typo.



> > ortogräfiköl
> The second vowel should be "ö" (certainly not "o").


Again, I've left the "o" consciousely,  maintaining the etymological vowel for better understanding.


My intention was not to represent the pronounciationation exactly, this is even not possible using a limited number of characters, but rather to experiment with a possible orthography which is _a prori _a compromise, more or less, I think in all the languages.



> But again, good job, guys, on a _very_ difficult task.


Thank you


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> In this case, the spelling _sam _is rather the result of my hesitation. I know that it doesn't sound "sam" (neigther in my own pronounciation), but I wanted to avoid somehow the "too many schwas", and in some cases to use the "etymological" spelling for better understanding. Thus, maybe I should  have left _som,_ but I agree with you and berndf.


I think you over-use the letter "ö" by using it for three phonemes: /ʌ/, /ə/ and /ɜ/. "ö" for /ə/ and "öö" for /ɜ/ is is fine (except for my reservations about your choice of the symbol, but that is a minor detail). But I would choose a different symbol for /ʌ/.


francisgranada said:


> And there is an other dilemma: not all the schwas sound equally, so what should be the criterion? To spell them always with "ö", or sometimes e.g. with "e" (as we don't want to introduce too many new characters) ?


Schwa has a wide range of possible realizations which is almost natural for a reduced vowel. But I can't think of any case where this would be phonemically relevant. The only reduced vowel I would distinguish from all the others is the _i_-Schwa in _ros*e*s _as some minimal pairs depend on it (_Rosa's_ vs. _roses_). Hence, I would transcribe roses as _rouziz_ and not as _rouzöz_. Which Schwas you have to distinguish depends on the language. In German, e.g., you have to distinguish _a_-Schwa and _e_-Schwa as in _ein*er*_ /aɪn*ɐ*/ and _ein*e*_ /aɪn*ə*/ but in English this distinction is completely irrelevant. If you tried to map _brother_ into the German phonemic grid, it would sometimes be /brazɐ/ and sometimes /brazə/, a difference that doesn't matter in English. And differences that do not matter are as important as differences that do matter. Otherwise even the smallest deviation would render a word unidentifiable.



francisgranada said:


> A dilemma, or rather a "compromise". I didn't want to use different spellings for the same word dipending on it's position in a sentence etc. (my attempt was not to give a phonetical transcription but rather an "orthography"). So I've chosen "e" consciousely, but it could be also "ö".
> ...
> Again, I've left the "o" consciousely,  maintaining the etymological vowel for better understanding.


This is an important point and to a certain degree reveals a misconceptions on Dan's part rather than on yours: Even a phonetically oriented spelling system has to maintain some form of a compromise between phonemic and etymological spelling, especially regarding reduced vowels. Otherwise absurd monstrosities would emerge, like _arithmetic _(noun) = _örithmötik_ and_ arithmetic_ (adj.) = _ärithmetic_. In languages which do not have reduced vowels, like Italian or Spanish, this is less of a problem; but in English with its abundance of word form dependent vowel reductions it is.


----------



## LilianaB

This language would be a monster: I  have even a new name for it, Monstrish.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> This language would be a monster: I  have even a new name for it, Monstrish.


I agree. 

Had there been any such reform in the recent past, we could read Shakespeare only in translation today. (Almost) fixed spelling during a time of drastic phonetic changes (the Great Vowel Shift) helped to preserve the continuity of English literature.


----------



## Dan2

francisgranada said:


> Thank you all for the interest. If I knew  that you would analyze it so carefully perhaps I should have produced  something more precise  ...


Right.  I realize you could have.


francisgranada said:


> the spelling _sam _is rather the result of my   hesitation. I know that it doesn't sound "sam" (neigther in my own   pronounciation), but I wanted to avoid somehow the "too many schwas",   and in some cases to use the "etymological" spelling for better   understanding. Thus, maybe I should  have left _som,_ but I agree with you and berndf.


_some_, in its full, non-schwa, pronunciation, actually has neither your "a" (vowel of _f*a*ther_) or your "o" (vowel of _hot_) but rather the vowel of "sun", traditionally [ʌ].  I don't think this stressed vowel actually occurs in your sample text (but Bernd assumes you use "ö" for it) (and other transcription systems also use the same symbol for [ʌ] and [ə]).
Also: I don't think there's any argument for an o in _some _from "etymology".



francisgranada said:


> Again, I've left the "o" consciousely,  maintaining the etymological vowel for better understanding.





berndf said:


> This is an important point and to a certain degree reveals a misconceptions on Dan's part


I don't think so.

First let me say that I actually think that it would be useful to modify a _few _common words that have especially difficult spelling, and a change in whose spelling _would have no impact on the rest of the language_. An example is _(al)tho _for _(al)though_.  But I'm totally against what most people mean by "phonetic spelling", and the most important reason for that is that it obscures the visual similarity of related words.

In all the proposals for true phonetic spelling that I've seen, this would be a problem for each of the vowels and some consonants.  In each case below, the bold letters would no longer be identical in phonetic spelling:
n*a*tion - n*a*tional
k*ee*p - k*e*pt
div*i*ne - div*i*nity
teleph*o*ne - teleph*o*nic
min*u*te (very small) - min*u*te (small part of an hour)
publi*c* - publi*c*ity
ve*h*icle - ve*h*icular
mou*th* (noun) - mou*th* (verb)

So when Bernd says it's a misconception on my part that phonetic spelling would impair etymological relationships, consider the result of allowing exceptions for words like _nation_ and the thousands of cases like the ones I illustrate above.  If we spell _nation_ as "nashun", in order for it to continue looking like "nashunul" (arbitrarily using "u" for schwa), then we have "nashun" vs "neikid" (_naked_). No phonetic-spelling reformer would stand for that; that's exactly what they're trying to rid the language of.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> In all the proposals for true phonetic spelling that I've seen, this would be a problem for each of the vowels and some consonants.  In each case below, the bold letters would no longer be identical in phonetic spelling:
> n*a*tion - n*a*tional
> k*ee*p - k*e*pt
> div*i*ne - div*i*nity
> teleph*o*ne - teleph*o*nic
> min*u*te (very small) - min*u*te (small part of an hour)
> publi*c* - publi*c*ity
> ve*h*icle - ve*h*icular
> mou*th* (noun) - mou*th* (verb)
> 
> So when Bernd says it's a misconception on my part that phonetic spelling would impair etymological relationships, consider the result of allowing exceptions for words like _nation_ and the thousands of cases like the ones I illustrate above.  If we spell _nation_ as "nashun", in order for it to continue looking like "nashunul" (arbitrarily using "u" for schwa), then we have "nashun" vs "neikid" (_naked_). No phonetic-spelling reformer would stand for that; that's exactly what they're trying to rid the language of.


The main problem in English is with the reduced vowels. As Francisgranada suggested, you can very well keep etymologically motivated differences is spelling which are phonemically irrelevant. 

Most of your examples can be solved by a choice of symbols which follows etymological lines: choose "aa" for [eɪ] and "a" for [æ] and n*aa*shon - n*a*shonal (I kept the etymological vowels for Schwa) don't look that differently any more. You might know this "trick" from German: The spelling of MHG _lenge_ changed to _Länge_ in ModHG (involving no change in pronunciation) to make the connection to _lang_ more transparent.


----------



## francisgranada

> … In all the proposals for true phonetic spelling that I've seen, this would be a problem for each of the vowels and some consonants. In each case below, the bold letters would no longer be identical in phonetic spelling:
> n*a*tion - n*a*tional
> k*ee*p - k*e*pt
> div*i*ne - div*i*nity
> teleph*o*ne - teleph*o*nic
> min*u*te (very small) - min*u*te (small part of an hour)
> publi*c* - publi*c*ity
> ve*h*icle - ve*h*icular
> mou*th* (noun) - mou*th* (verb)



From a merely "othographical" point of view, I should exclude the words _k__eep a_nd _public_ from your list. _Keep-_ and _kep-_ can be seen as different stems of the same verb (like write-wrote, give-gave …), thus I find the different spelling justifiable (e.g. _kiip, kept_). In case of _public/publicity_, the rules for the pronounciation are unambiguous and so worth of maintaining the letter “c” in both cases. We have many examples of this type, besides the dual pronounciation of  “c” and “g” in the Romance languages, also the palatal pronounciation of _d,t,n,l_ before the vowels “i” and “e” in many Slavic languages, the unvoiced pronouciation of voiced consonants before an unvoiced consonant etc…. 

In case of words like _nation_, _national_ etc., where the pronouciation depends e.g. on the stress, introduction of diacritical signs could be also a theoretical solution (e.g. _năshon_ versus _n__äsh__onal_ …), though this would not be a very “elegant” solution, because we should have to give up one of the positive features of the English spelling, namely the absence of various diacritical signs.



berndf said:


> ...You might know this "trick" from German: The spelling of MHG _lenge_ changed to _Länge_ in ModHG (involving no change in pronunciation) to make the connection to _lang_ more transparent.


A good example (and a good “trick”, as well ).


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> The main problem in English is with the reduced  vowels. As Francisgranada suggested, you can very well keep  etymologically motivated differences is spelling which are phonemically  irrelevant.


Yes, reduced vowels are a very major problem.  But so are alternations involving full vowels, which go far beyond the few examples I mentioned.

But with respect to schwa: you seem to be saying that we don't have to worry about, for ex., the "o" in a "phonetic" spelling like "soluushun", since it's predictable that it'll be reduced to schwa.  But first of all, any predictability assumes you know that the first syllable is unstressed.  _Solomon _looks very much like_ solution_, but of course here the "sol" doesn't reduce.  Stress is largely unpredictable and would have to be indicated in a phonetic spelling (yet another diacritic - see below).  But, significantly, even in words with the same stress pattern as _solution_, it's not predictable that the first vowel will reduce: compare _Socratic._ If you take seriously the goal of phonetic spelling, pronunciation predictable from the spelling, we can't write "soluushun" and "Sokratik". (Would you suggest a special diacritic on the "o" of "soluushun", meaning "this is an o that reduces to schwa"?  And such a mechanism would be needed for each of the vowels.)


berndf said:


> Most of your examples can be solved by a choice of symbols which follows   etymological lines: choose "aa" for [eɪ] and "a" for [æ] and n*aa*shon - n*a*shonal .


So now, "Hey, I say eight" will look like, "Haa, ii saa aat", as tho English were not already far enough from the way the Latin alphabet is used in most languages.  But more importantly, don't forget that we also have the "father" vowel (different from the vowels of _nation _and _national_).  Clearly we don't want to use e, i , o, or u for this vowel, so we need yet another trick.  Sure, we could write "naashun", näshunul", and "fadhr", but I don't think anyone wants this proliferation of diacritics and single vs double letters.



francisgranada said:


> From a merely "othographical" point of view, I should exclude the words _k__eep a_nd _public_ from your list. _Keep-_ and _kep-_ can be seen as different stems of the same verb ... thus I find the different spelling justifiable (e.g. _kiip, kept_).


I think that would be a mistake.  It's not just keep/kept: we have sleep/slept, weep/wept, sweep/swept.  Outside the realm of verbs there are things like deep/depth.  This _/[E] pattern is pervasive in English (thanks a lot, Great Vowel Shift...)


francisgranada said:



			In case of public/publicity, the rules for the pronounciation are unambiguous and so worth of maintaining the letter “c” in both cases.
		
Click to expand...

*I* agree with you, but one of the first things the spelling reformers typically mention is the "illogic" of having "c" vary between [k] and [s].  Your thinking leads to a compromise, which is indeed possible, but would satisfy neither side.


francisgranada said:



			In case of words like nation, national etc., where the pronouciation depends e.g. on the stress
		
Click to expand...

No, both words start with a stressed syllable, followed by an unstressed syllable.


francisgranada said:



			In case of words like nation, national  etc., ..., introduction  of diacritical signs could be also a theoretical solution (e.g. năshon versus näshonal  …), though this would not be a very “elegant” solution, because we  should have to give up one of the positive features of the English  spelling, namely the absence of various diacritical signs.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly._


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> I think that would be a mistake.  It's not just keep/kept: we have sleep/slept, weep/wept, sweep/swept.  Outside the realm of verbs there are things like deep/depth.  This _/[E] pattern is pervasive in English (thanks a lot, Great Vowel Shift...)_


_This difference is older than the GVS. That's why deep and depth are spelled differently already now; so nothing would change. Late ME conventions where "ee"=[e:], "ea"=[E:], "e"=[E]. Also umlauts like l*o*ng-l*e*ngth are much older than the GVS._


----------



## elirlandes

While in English there is confusion because the same letter can be used for different phonemes, my difficulty is with French where the same phoneme can be written in so many ways...
All the red groups below are pronounced the same way... what kind of crazy language pronounces "*ez*" the same as "*aient*"?

Je suis all*é* avec ma fianc*ée*. Mon ami m'a l*ai*ss*é* s*es* co-ordonn*ées* de la maison pr*ès* du for*êt*. La maison *est *petite m*ais* elle *é*t*ait* bien. 
"Ven*ez*" il dis*ait* "*et* vous verr*ez*". Quant on *es*t arrivé, l*es* chiens *é*t*aient* lachés. J'y retourner*ai* un jour...


----------



## berndf

elirlandes said:


> While in English there is confusion because the same letter can be used for different phonemes, my difficulty is with French where the same phoneme can be written in so many ways...
> All the red groups below are pronounced the same way... what kind of crazy language pronounces "*ez*" the same as "*aient*"?
> 
> Je suis all*é* avec ma fianc*ée*. Mon ami m'a l*ai*ss*é* s*es* co-ordonn*ées* de la maison pr*ès* du for*êt*. La maison *est *petite m*ais* elle *é*t*ait* bien.
> "Ven*ez*" il dis*ait* "*et* vous verr*ez*". Quant on *es*t arrivé, l*es* chiens *é*t*aient* lachés. J'y retourner*ai* un jour...


You are mixing up closed "e" open "e". _All*é *_ /a.le/ and _all*ait *_/a.lɛ/ sound quite different.


----------



## terredepomme

> You are mixing up closed "e" open "e". _All*é */a.le/ __and all*ait */a.lɛ/ sound quite different._


I don't think they are distinguished so much anymore in modern European French.


----------



## francisgranada

elirlandes said:


> ... what kind of crazy language pronounces "*ez*" the same as "*aient*"?



Or, perhaps, to be more precise: "what kind of crazy language does not pronounce *ent *(at the end of a word)?"


----------



## rayloom

francisgranada said:


> Or, perhaps, to be more precise: "what kind of crazy language does not pronounce *ent *(at the end of a word)?"



They do. You have for example:
Les poules du couvent couvent.
It's pronounced in the first "couvent" (not the second one) 

P.S. But to be fair, English also has some funny heteronyms. (Arabic too without the diacritics)


----------



## Copperknickers

E próblum wé fne'c speln öz thi' ma fne'c prönoonsyéshn özné 'sém'z er fók's. ('is öz mentó, liks lik sum kna Turkösh/Höngeryön fiúzhn).      The problem, for those of you who are not Scottish, is that phonetic pronounciation can vary wildly. At least with the current version, no one dialect has priority over another. In fact English is the worst possible language to have a phoneticised spelling for, because it is the most widely spoken native language in the world: unlike Chinese and Spanish is is not concentrated in one area, but has fully naturalised native speakers everywhere: Jamaica, Canada, India, South Africa, Singapore, Nigeria, Ireland... how could we possibly decide on a 'standard' pronounciation for a phonetic alphabet, when in 30 years time there will be more English speakers in China than in the USA.


----------



## terredepomme

> because it is the most widely spoken native language in the world: unlike Chinese and Spanish is is not concentrated in one area, but has fully naturalised native speakers everywhere


Spanish is not concentrated in one area though. Anyway, the pronunciation difference should be of small concern because a phonetic orthography seeks to be consistant, not "phonetic" per se, for the relationship of letters and sounds is by nature arbitrary. Brazil and Portugal pronunciation difference of Portuguese is much greater than UK/US difference, yet they managed to agree upon a common "phonetic" spelling very recently. That doesn't really mean Portuguese speakers in South America, Europe, or Africa all have to pronounce the language in the same way. There is a distinction between standard pronunciation and standard spelling.



> when in 30 years time there will be more English speakers in China than in the USA.


I don't know why you would say that, but... no, not really. (unless by "English speaker" you mean being able to say some rudmentary phrases)


----------



## francisgranada

Dan2 said:


> ... No, both words start with a stressed syllable, followed by an unstressed syllable...


Of course. Sorry for the unclear formulation, I wanted to say something like "In case of words like _nation_, _national_ etc…., where the pronouciation depends on various factors e.g. on the stress ...".

In case we wanted to be consequent enough, the stress should be indicated as well (as you also mention it in an other part of your post) because it's an important factor of the English prounounciation. 



> ... Your thinking leads to a compromise, which is indeed possible ... but would satisfy neither side ...


Yes, in this case it leads to a compromise. A “practical” spelling system cannot be a perfect representation of the pronouciation (unless we want to "overcomplicate" the life of the "users", i.e. the common people ...). Simply, I think the rules of the orthography are needed for practical reasons and not for scientific purposes, so more aspects have to be taken in consideration, not only the exact pronounciation.


----------



## berndf

terredepomme said:


> I don't think they are distinguished so much anymore in modern European French.


In unstressed syllables you have got a point. But in stressed syllables it is different. Pronouncing _je suis allé_ like_ je suis *allait_ or_ il allait_ like_ il *allé_ would sound very weird.


----------



## elirlandes

Copperknickers said:


> E próblum wé fne'c speln öz thi' ma fne'c prönoonsyéshn özné 'sém'z er fók's. ('is öz mentó, liks lik sum kna Turkösh/Höngeryön fiúzhn).      The problem, for those of you who are not Scottish, is that phonetic pronounciation can vary wildly. At least with the current version, no one dialect has priority over another. In fact English is the worst possible language to have a phoneticised spelling for, because it is the most widely spoken native language in the world: unlike Chinese and Spanish is is not concentrated in one area, but has fully naturalised native speakers everywhere: Jamaica, Canada, India, South Africa, Singapore, Nigeria, Ireland... how could we possibly decide on a 'standard' pronounciation for a phonetic alphabet, when in 30 years time there will be more English speakers in China than in the USA.



Good point - although Chinese is surely the same... I have seen Chinese people who have difficulty understanding each other's spoken word simply write down their communication - If I understand correctly, the written word works across dialects, not just accents.

As for your first line - not just Scots will understand that... I had no problem, but then I come from Norn Iron. [Wizni ah mentó... reminded me of the favourite "second" drink for the night in Belfast... a norwegian ("another wee gin" in a Northern Irish accent before you non-Scots or Irish complain about the in-jokes)]


----------



## terredepomme

> Good point - although Chinese is surely the same...


Maybe for Classic Chinese. But modern written Chinese is clearly based on spoken Mandarin. It is generally read in standard Mandarin pronunciation except for Cantonese.


----------

