speling refoe'rmerz ov the werld uenie't!

[t***@lycos.com]

< Derek Jensen Jan 12, 2:45 pm

Newsgroups: alt.language.english.spelling.reform
From: "Derek Jensen" <***@kconline.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 12 Jan 2005 14:45:25 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 12 2005 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: speling refoermerz ov the werld ueniet!

Altho I'm in favor of fairly sweeping changes, none of the methods I've

seen or tried maintain enough of the look of English for my taste.
Spelling in a more Germanic way (lots of Ks and Zs) makes Romanic words

look terrible and spelling in a more Romanic way (lots of Cs, Qs, and
Ss) make Germanic words look terrible. There doesn't seem to be a happy

medium.

However, I regularly use simpler spellings in all my casual writing,
including business e-mails and websites (I maintain a few). I use thru,

tho, altho, thoro, thruout, and thoroly. No one seems to mind... but
neither does anyone seem to follow my lead.

I find English spelling to be fascinating, both mechanically and
socially. Everyone hates it and few are any good at it, but no one
wants to break the rules and defy the Microsoft spellchecker.

=D= >


i've been away for awhile, but i think about spelling reform fairly
often. mostly when i'm driving back and forth to and from work. i
like to imagine what the signs along the road would look like if they
were spelled phonetically. it's probably pretty much a waste of time,
of course. i don't think any radical change is likely to happen in my
lifetime. there would be just way too much work to bring about a
reform that a consensus would agree upon, and for what i would imagine
would be perceived as little benefit by the majority of
english-speakers.

i think perhaps those of us who are intrigued by spelling reform have
some deep need to see things work logically in the world. i am
personally somewhat of an idealist in many things. my fundamentalist
christian background may have something to do with this tendency what
with being raised hearing that some day everything will be made perfect
after the second coming of christ and all. though some may say that
idealism is a waste of time, i think some idealism is probably very
healthy. idealism, after all, led the fathers of the american
revolution to believe that a nation could be formed where everyone is
guaranteed the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

enough of my rambling for now. more on this later...

fone'tik speling translation:

iev ben awae' foer awiel, but ie think abou't speling refoe'rm faerlee
often. moestlee wen iem drieving bak and foerth too and fruhm werk.
ie liek too ima'jin wuht the sienz along the roed wud luk liek if thae
wer speld fone'tiklee. itz probablee pretee muhch a waest ov tiem, ov
koers. ie doent think anee radikal chaenj iz lieklee too hapen in mie
lieftiem. thear wud bee just wae too much werk too bring about a
refoe'rm that a konse'nsus wud agree upo'n, and foer wuht ie wud
ima'jin wud bee persee'vd az litl benefit bie the majoe'ritee ov
english-speekerz.

ie think perhaps thoez ov us hoo ahr intree'gd bie speling refoe'rm hav
suhm deep need too see thingz werk lojiklee in the werld. ie am
personalee sumwut ov an iedee'alist in manee thingz. mie
fuhndame'ntalist kristian bakground mae hav suhmthing too doo with this
tendensee wuht with beeing raezd heering that suhm dae evreething wil
bee maed perfekt after the sekond kuhming ov kriest and ahl. thoe suhm
mae sae that iedee'alizm iz a waest ov tiem, ie think suhm iedee'alizm
iz probablee vaeree helthee. iedee'alizm, after ahl, led the fahtherz
ov thee amaerikan revolue'shun too belee'v that a naeshun kud bee
foermd waer evreewun iz gaerantee'd the riet too "lief, libertee, and
the persue't ov hapines."

enuh'f ov mie rambling foer nou. moer on this laeter...

--tw

[t***@lycos.com]

hey, derek, (by the way, now addressing some of the things you said in
your earlier post...)

i agree with you that the more spellings are changed they start to look
less and less english. i find that i'm favoring the germanic ways of
spelling rather than romanic. in my opinion germanic phonetics seem to
most clearly convey standard english pronunciations most of the time.
i also believe that in order to bring consistency into english spelling
we have to pretty much choose germanic or romantic as our basis and
then just go with it. one of the major things i think english spelling
is lacking is consistency. therefore, i think increasing the
consistency of english spelling should be a major priority in any
reform that is considered.


fone'tik translation:

hae, derek, (bie the wae, nou adre'sing sum ov the thingz ue sed in uer
erlee-er poest...)

ie agree' with ue that the moer spelingz ahr chaenjd thae stahrt too
luk les and les english. ie fiend that iem faevoering the jerma'nik
waez ov speling rather than roema'nik. in mie opi'nyen jerma'nik
fone'tiks seem too moest kleerlee konvae standerd english
pronunsee-ae'shenz moest ov the tiem. ie ahlsoe belee'v that in oerder
too bring konsi'stensee intoo english speling wee hav too pretee much
chooz jerma'nik or roema'nik az our baesis and then just goe with it.
wun ov the maejer thingz ie think english speling is laking is
konsi'stensee. thaerfoer, ie think inkree'sing the konsi'stensee ov
english speling shud bee a maejer prie-oe'ritee in anee refoerm that iz
konsi'derd.

[t***@lycos.com]

i have to apologize for an inconsistency that i keep falling into in my
reformed spelling. i recently switched my representation of the short
"u" sound (as in "fun") with the short "oo"(ts) sound (as in
"good"[ts]). i was using "uh" for short "oo" and "u" for short "u",
but now i'm using them the other way around -- "uh" for short "u" and
"u" for short "oo". i keep forgetting to make this change when i type
in fone'tiks. here are some corrections to the fone'tik section of my
last post:

"sum ov the thingz" should be "suhm ov the thingz"
pronunsee-ae'shenz > pronuhnsee-ae'shenz
"pretee much" > "pretee muhch"
"just goe with it" > "juhst goe with it"
"wun ov the maejer thingz" > "wuhn ov the maejer thingz"

i feel much better now. don't y'all? :)


fone'tik translation of ts portions above:

ie hav too apo'lojiez foer an inkonsi'stensee that ie keep fahling
intoo in mie refoe'rmd speling. ie reesentlee swichd mie
reprezentae'shen ov the shoert "u"(ts) sound (az in "fun"[ts]) with the
shoert "oo"(ts) sound (az in "good"[ts]). ie wuhz uezing "uh" foer
shoert "oo"(ts) and "u" foer shoert "u", buht nou iem uezing them thee
uhther wae arou'nd -- "uh" foer shoert "u" and "u" foer shoert
"oo"(ts). ie keep foerge'ting too maek this chaenj wen ie tiep in
fone'tiks. heer ahr suhm koere'kshenz too the fone'tik sekshen ov mie
last poest:...

ie feel muhch beter nou. doent yahl? :)