Argument against phonetic spelling reform

[Iain]

The uniform logic of English(what exists of it) is based around text,
not sound. Take "France" and "Francophile", for example. The logic of
the word construction is apparent by looking at the text, yet the
prefixes of both these words are pronounced differently even though
the spelling is the same until the C. This is a good thing, because I
did not know what Francophile meant when I first saw the word, until I
looked at it's construction. Francophile therefore need not appear in
the dictionary, any more than "Europhobe".

Also, "France" is phonetically spelled as according to English
grammer, an E following a C sounds like an "s" so there is not only no
problem, but not much of an issue.

Speech does follow the written word naturally yet varies greatly.
Written text is the only thing which makes various pronounciations
recognisable as belonging to the same word. The Scottish, Londoner,
Australian and Californian pronounciations of the a in "cat" are not
even remotely the same vowel sound.

Speech and sound are more corruptable which is why text is a better
medium for standardisation.

On top of all this, the link between phonetics and written English is
fairly complete anyway. That the K in "knight" is usually silent is
simply a matter of laziness, and that it was, in medieval England,
pronounced "Kneeta", is simply a drift in accent. My point here is
that the word is still fairly phonetic, yet is considered one of the
least phonetic words around.

We can understand historical texts because the spelling of "knight"
has varied less than the pronounciation of "knight". If we wish to be
understood more easily in 400 years time then it is text, not speech
which must remain consistent and than means no reform, thus completing
my argument against phonetic reform of English.
--
Iain

[zbihniew]

Post by Iain
The uniform logic of English(what exists of it) is based around text,
not sound. Take "France" and "Francophile", for example. The logic of
the word construction is apparent by looking at the text, yet the
prefixes of both these words are pronounced differently even though
the spelling is the same until the C. This is a good thing, because I
did not know what Francophile meant when I first saw the word, until I
looked at it's construction. Francophile therefore need not appear in
the dictionary, any more than "Europhobe".

This would not be such a problem. In Polish it is:
Francja = France
frankofil = francophile (although my Polish dictionary advises to say
"galoman" but everyone would understood "frankofil", I suppose they'd
have problems with this "galoman")

And there is no problem. I think that the word "francophile" is
ethimologically connected with Francs, rather than France. Knowing the
name of the tribe (which is famous enough or so I suppose) one would
have no problems identyfiyng the meaning of it either written or spoken.

However, I agree with your arguments about connection with the past and
the future of the language as well as usage of it in numerous contries.

Spelling might be also a good thing to refer to when differences of
spoken language would disable your communication abilities (albeit in
nowadays English-speaking world, these differences are not so big and
imho they tend to decrease rather than to appear).

[Iain]

Post by zbihniew

Post by Iain
The uniform logic of English(what exists of it) is based around text,
not sound. Take "France" and "Francophile", for example. The logic of
the word construction is apparent by looking at the text, yet the
prefixes of both these words are pronounced differently even though
the spelling is the same until the C. This is a good thing, because I
did not know what Francophile meant when I first saw the word, until I
looked at it's construction. Francophile therefore need not appear in
the dictionary, any more than "Europhobe".

Francja = France
frankofil = francophile (although my Polish dictionary advises to say
"galoman" but everyone would understood "frankofil", I suppose they'd
have problems with this "galoman")
And there is no problem. I think that the word "francophile" is
ethimologically connected with Francs, rather than France. Knowing the
name of the tribe (which is famous enough or so I suppose) one would
have no problems identyfiyng the meaning of it either written or spoken.
However, I agree with your arguments about connection with the past and
the future of the language as well as usage of it in numerous contries.
Spelling might be also a good thing to refer to when differences of
spoken language would disable your communication abilities (albeit in
nowadays English-speaking world, these differences are not so big and
imho they tend to decrease rather than to appear).

Other examples of why phonetic reform of spelling is not a good idea:

Some people on this group would have "does" re-spelled "duz" even
though the construction of "does" makes it's meaning apparent in the
same way as "eats", the words deriving for "do-eth"(to do) or "doth"
and "eateth" respectively.

Some people on this group would have the G & H removed from "Night"
even though they are pronounced sometimes by the Scots. The
pronounciations with and without the GH sound, both derive from the
memory the speaker has of the _written word_, except than the Southern
British pronounciation is lazier. This is fine as long as people
recognise which combination of letters they are referring to.

Some people say "Krischun" and some "Kristee-an", and both these
pronounciations are based on the "C.H.R.I.S.T.I.A.N" spelling. The
superiority of the logic of the present spelling as opposed to the
phonetic spelling of the loose pronounciation is obvious.

The English language is 99% phonetic, just not 100% simple to that
end. Words such as "xenophobe" _are_ really phonetically spelled
according to English pronounciation rules, but they are so in a more
complicated way so as to preserve the logic and origins of the words.

"Zenophobe" and "Senchury" would seem too connected under 100%
simplistic phonetic spelling.

And so on and so on...
--
Iain

[N?ant Humain]

Post by Iain
Also, "France" is phonetically spelled as according to English
grammer, an E following a C sounds like an "s" so there is not only no
problem, but not much of an issue.

Yet yoo lernd the werdz Frans and French befor yoo koohd eevin reed,
and you did not hav difikulty noeing thay wer reelaidid.

(Yet you learned the words France and French before you could even
read, and you did not have difficulty knowing they were related.)

Post by Iain
Speech does follow the written word naturally yet varies greatly.
Written text is the only thing which makes various pronounciations
recognisable as belonging to the same word. The Scottish, Londoner,
Australian and Californian pronounciations of the a in "cat" are not
even remotely the same vowel sound.

Troo unuf, but we still manij too understand eetch uther for the moest
part. Iyel ryet "cat" az "kat," and yoo kan ryet it "kaht" if yoo
wunt. Aksents arnt az big a problom az yoo maik them out too be.

(True enough, but we still manage to understand each other for the
most part. I'll write "cat" as "kat," and you can write it "kaht" if
you want. Accents aren't as big a problem as you make them out to be.)

Post by Iain
Speech and sound are more corruptable which is why text is a better
medium for standardisation.

Iye disugree with yoo wun hundrid persent that speetch iz more
"keruptubol" then tekst. Its not a mader uv kerupshin; its a mader uv
simpol chainj. This kyend uv adutoohd iz ignerint uv regyooler
linggwisdik chainj. Its NOT a reezult uv laizeenis; its not spusifikly
the reezult uv lak uv ejukaishin. Its just chainj.

(I disagree with you one hundred percent that speech is more
"corruptable" than text. It's not a matter of corruption; it's a
matter of simple change. This kind of attitude is ignorant of regular
linguistic change. It's NOT a result of laziness; it's not
specifically the result of lack of education. It's just change.)

Post by Iain
We can understand historical texts because the spelling of "knight"
has varied less than the pronounciation of "knight". If we wish to be
understood more easily in 400 years time then it is text, not speech
which must remain consistent and than means no reform, thus completing
my argument against phonetic reform of English.

This iz wun komin argyoomint ugenst Inglish spelling reeform; and its
probly a pridy good wun, too, if yer an akudemik hoo kairz ubout the
etimolijy uv werdz. Az for ar kerint ryeting beeing red in the
fyootcher, Iyem not soe sher: The langgwij will probly hav chanjd soe
mutch bye then that ar kerint spellingz will bee kimpleetly yooslis;
it woohd bee lyek the French spelling all ther werdz az Latin werdz.

(This is one common argument against English spelling reform; and it's
probably a pretty good one, too, if you're an academic who cares about
the etymology of words. As for our current writing being read in the
future, I'm noy so sure: The language will probably have changed so
much by then that our current spellings will be completely useless; it
would be like the French spelling all their words as Latin words.)

In mye upinyin, ther ar oenly too good argyoomints agenst Inglish
spelling reeform: (1) kosts uv myegraishin, witch inkoohd all the
muteereelz allredy uvailubol in the kerint form, and (2) uventchoowol
los uv the ubilidy too reed oeld teksts, uspesholy dokyoomints ritin
in Midol Ingglish that ar kerintly reedubol too modern reederz.

(In my opinion, there are only two good arguments against English
spelling reform: (1) costs of migration, which include all the
materials already available in the current form, and (2) eventual loss
of the ability to read old texts, especially documents written in
Middle English that are currently readable to modern readers.)

[zbihniew]

Post by N?ant Humain
materials already available in the current form, and (2) eventual loss
of the ability to read old texts, especially documents written in
Middle English that are currently readable to modern readers.)

by the way I always wonder how these texts should be pronounced in the
manner of these days

[Scotius]

Post by Iain
The uniform logic of English(what exists of it) is based around text,
not sound. Take "France" and "Francophile", for example. The logic of
the word construction is apparent by looking at the text, yet the
prefixes of both these words are pronounced differently even though
the spelling is the same until the C. This is a good thing, because I
did not know what Francophile meant when I first saw the word, until I
looked at it's construction. Francophile therefore need not appear in
the dictionary, any more than "Europhobe".
Also, "France" is phonetically spelled as according to English
grammer, an E following a C sounds like an "s" so there is not only no
problem, but not much of an issue.
Speech does follow the written word naturally yet varies greatly.
Written text is the only thing which makes various pronounciations
recognisable as belonging to the same word. The Scottish, Londoner,
Australian and Californian pronounciations of the a in "cat" are not
even remotely the same vowel sound.
Speech and sound are more corruptable which is why text is a better
medium for standardisation.
On top of all this, the link between phonetics and written English is
fairly complete anyway. That the K in "knight" is usually silent is
simply a matter of laziness, and that it was, in medieval England,
pronounced "Kneeta", is simply a drift in accent. My point here is
that the word is still fairly phonetic, yet is considered one of the
least phonetic words around.
We can understand historical texts because the spelling of "knight"
has varied less than the pronounciation of "knight". If we wish to be
understood more easily in 400 years time then it is text, not speech
which must remain consistent and than means no reform, thus completing
my argument against phonetic reform of English.

You've made an excellent argument. I'm Canadian, and grew up
speaking English with a Canadian "accent". Of course, I never thought
I had an accent of any kind, but neither does anyone else who has one.
As pronunciation is different from country to country, and
sometimes varies between smaller areas (regions, counties, provinces,
etc), it seems that the best idea is to determine proper pronunciation
by how English is spoken in England (ignoring those with a Cockney
accent, of course). I've noticed that the way many words are
pronounced if said correctly sound much different than the accepted
standard pronunciation here. Take the word "white" for example. In the
US it is often pronounced as if there was an "h" before the "w". Most
North Americans just pronounce it "wight".
Language is important, and so is proper pronunciation. Take a
look at Noam Chomsky's ideas on "deep grammar", and you begin to
realize that there is a REASON why certain words are pronounced the
way they are. North Americans (myself included), are in effect
speaking a language that is almost "pidgin" English, by comparison to
the way it is properly spoken. Certain words have emotional meanings,
and although it doesn't cheapen a person's feelings to not pronounce
certain words correctly, it may better express what a person feels to
do so. I once heard a native North American suggest that the English
language comes from the mind, and the Cree language comes from the
groin. Clearly, some languages are more emotional than others.
I'm beginning to think I should have studied etymology. I WILL
study it, but as I'm currently in advertising, I think I better do
that in my spare time.

[zbihniew]

Post by Scotius
sometimes varies between smaller areas (regions, counties, provinces,
etc), it seems that the best idea is to determine proper pronunciation
by how English is spoken in England (ignoring those with a Cockney
accent, of course). I've noticed that the way many words are

do you mean very Southern England? It is pronounced in different ways
even in various parts of England.
--
zbihniew

ICQ# 340170009
email: zbihniew[at]op[dot]pl
http://heevla.host.sk

Nyir, far werever yu ar
Ay beliv det may hart wil gow on
Wons mor yu owpen de dor
End yu'r hyir in may hart
End may har wil gow on end on

[Iain]

Post by Scotius

Post by Iain
The uniform logic of English(what exists of it) is based around text,
not sound. Take "France" and "Francophile", for example. The logic of
the word construction is apparent by looking at the text, yet the
prefixes of both these words are pronounced differently even though
the spelling is the same until the C. This is a good thing, because I
did not know what Francophile meant when I first saw the word, until I
looked at it's construction. Francophile therefore need not appear in
the dictionary, any more than "Europhobe".
Also, "France" is phonetically spelled as according to English
grammer, an E following a C sounds like an "s" so there is not only no
problem, but not much of an issue.
Speech does follow the written word naturally yet varies greatly.
Written text is the only thing which makes various pronounciations
recognisable as belonging to the same word. The Scottish, Londoner,
Australian and Californian pronounciations of the a in "cat" are not
even remotely the same vowel sound.
Speech and sound are more corruptable which is why text is a better
medium for standardisation.
On top of all this, the link between phonetics and written English is
fairly complete anyway. That the K in "knight" is usually silent is
simply a matter of laziness, and that it was, in medieval England,
pronounced "Kneeta", is simply a drift in accent. My point here is
that the word is still fairly phonetic, yet is considered one of the
least phonetic words around.
We can understand historical texts because the spelling of "knight"
has varied less than the pronounciation of "knight". If we wish to be
understood more easily in 400 years time then it is text, not speech
which must remain consistent and than means no reform, thus completing
my argument against phonetic reform of English.

You've made an excellent argument. I'm Canadian, and grew up
speaking English with a Canadian "accent". Of course, I never thought
I had an accent of any kind, but neither does anyone else who has one.
As pronunciation is different from country to country, and
sometimes varies between smaller areas (regions, counties, provinces,
etc), it seems that the best idea is to determine proper pronunciation
by how English is spoken in England (ignoring those with a Cockney
accent, of course). I've noticed that the way many words are
pronounced if said correctly sound much different than the accepted
standard pronunciation here. Take the word "white" for example. In the
US it is often pronounced as if there was an "h" before the "w". Most
North Americans just pronounce it "wight".
Language is important, and so is proper pronunciation. Take a
look at Noam Chomsky's ideas on "deep grammar", and you begin to
realize that there is a REASON why certain words are pronounced the
way they are. North Americans (myself included), are in effect
speaking a language that is almost "pidgin" English, by comparison to
the way it is properly spoken. Certain words have emotional meanings,
and although it doesn't cheapen a person's feelings to not pronounce
certain words correctly, it may better express what a person feels to
do so. I once heard a native North American suggest that the English
language comes from the mind, and the Cree language comes from the
groin. Clearly, some languages are more emotional than others.
I'm beginning to think I should have studied etymology. I WILL
study it, but as I'm currently in advertising, I think I better do
that in my spare time.

Thanks; it's nice to get some positive feedback. You should see the
result this rather simple, non-extremist view got in sci.lang, even
though the majority there are not in favour of the sort of reform
favoured here.

It's quite obvious with a little consideration, that spelling connects
with two things simultaneously during reading: sound, and meaning.

Although ideally the two(sound and meaning) need not be mutually
exclusive, reforming the English language, instead of designing a
language from scratch, would require that the link between "sign" and
"signal", as they appear, is lost, and things such as this make things
harder in the long run, not easier. It is much easier to see the
meaning of "Ufologist" when it is not spelled "Yoofologist", et
cetera.

Note that although you seem to believe that the English accent outside
of London is consistent, this is far from true. The accents of
Yorkshire, Cornwall, and Newcastle have nothing at all in common. This
isn't even touching on the accents of the other three British states.
--
Iain