Here we go

[A.B. Normal 65]

Like, yeah, I know it's really tempting to go for a wholesale reform
of English spelling. I do think that idea definitely has its
advantages, but I also don't think it's very likely to be embraced by
the general public world-wide any time soon. What I see being the
more practical approach is a reform of the worst cases of English
spelling anomolies -- correcting spellings that just don't make sense.
Many will readily agree that a reform of this type would be
beneficial to all. What if a group of proposed spelling changes was
formalized and submitted through the proper channels world-wide to
really bring about reform? What are some spellings that you would
consider ones that really just don't make sense and need to be
changed? What ways can you envision a spelling reform actually
happening? What would be the most effective and practical avenues of
change? I have some ideas about this and would be interested in your
thoughts.

--a.b.

[zbihniew]

[cut]

I think it would be nice to use "k" instead of "c" wherever it sounds "k".

[A.B. Normal 65]

Post by zbihniew
[cut]
I think it would be nice to use "k" instead of "c" wherever it sounds "k".

I agree. I'm not sure I'd make that number one on my list of
horrendous English inconsistencies, but it is certainly one worth
looking at. Here's a couple of reformed spelling suggestions with
that in mind:

cool -> kool
school -> skool
carrot -> karot
crypt -> kript
chasm -> kazm

How about changing some of the crazy words with silent letters like
"psychologist"? I'd be ok with sychologist or how about siekolojist?
This brings up another question, if we drop the silent "p" in
"psychologist" or the silent "k" in "knowledge" do we then fix up the
rest of the word while we're reforming it? I think that probably
makes sense that if we're touching the word then we might as well make
that word the best we can. That's just a thought. I can see the
other side though where we might want to minimize changes so as not to
shock people too much with a radical spelling change. I vote for the
radical change word by word, minimizing the number of words we touch,
but maximizing the change while we're changing a word. What do you
think of that? Here's a couple of real easy changes that might work:

psychologist -> siekolojist
knowledge -> nolledge
know -> no
night -> nite
knight -> nite

Then there's some pretty good examples of how we use the wrong letters
for a given sound. Here's some of those with possible revised
spellings:

laugh -> laf
ghost -> gohst
tough -> tuff
telephone -> telefone

That's just barely scratching the surface, of course. I think it
would be fun to come up with a list of a few hundred and see how a
simple reform might be accomplished. Please don't be shy about
pitching in your 2 cents. I'm working on coming up with a good
process to introduce reformed spellings like these to the public. Any
of your ideas about how that could and should be done are welcome.

a.b.

[N?ant Humain]

Iye think we shood goe all out with ar spelling reeformz. This iz
still reedubol, izint it? Myener chainjiz, lyek "knight" -> "nite,"
arnt goeing too fiks thingz. Pridy soohn, if evreewun starts spelling
werdz az Iye doo, weel hav a funedik spelling revuloohshin aun ar
handz!

Imajin if kindergardin stoohdints wer taut frum the vairy beegining
too spell az it soundz! Yoo woohdint haf too waist owerz uv klas tyem
tryeing too lern spellingz baisd auf the prununsyaishin uv fyev
hundrid yeerz ugoe! Beefor spelling wuz standerdyezd, thats wut peepol
did eneeway!

Chainj beeginz with yoo.

// Translation for the weak

I think we should go all out with our spelling reforms. This is still
readable, isn't it? Minor changes, like "knight"->"nite," aren't going
to fix things. Pretty soon, if everyone starts spelling words as I do,
we'll have a phonetic spelling revolution on our hands!

Imagine if kindergarten students were taught from the very beginning
to spell as it sounds! You wouldn't have to waste hours of class time
trying to learn spellings based off the pronunciation of five hundred
years ago! Before spelling was standardized, that's what people did
anyway!

Change begines with you.

//

[zbihniew]

Post by N?ant Humain
Imagine if kindergarten students were taught from the very beginning
to spell as it sounds! You wouldn't have to waste hours of class time
trying to learn spellings based off the pronunciation of five hundred
years ago! Before spelling was standardized, that's what people did
anyway!

that's what we do in Poland

[A.B. Normal 65]

Post by N?ant Humain
Iye think we shood goe all out with ar spelling reeformz. This iz
still reedubol, izint it? Myener chainjiz, lyek "knight" -> "nite,"
arnt goeing too fiks thingz. Pridy soohn, if evreewun starts spelling
werdz az Iye doo, weel hav a funedik spelling revuloohshin aun ar
handz!

Heerz mie wai ov rieting fonetiklee. Ie fuhlee apreesheeait wair yuhr
kuming frum. Ie agree that thee iedeel way too spel wuhd bee too yooz
a troolee konsistent fonetik sistem. Ie noe manee wil agree with yoo
on this. Ie think thoe that sugjesting that a plan fohr radikul,
internashyonal reefohrm kuhd bee realistikalee akomplishd just miet
bee too fahr fetchd. Wie? Beekahz speling tuchez soe much ov our
evreedai lievz. Chainjez in speling ahr not goeing too bee eezee too
bring about noe mater waht yoo doo. Thats wie Ie think that smahler
reefohrmz konstitoot the mohr praktikal kohrs too puhrsoo. In mie
opinion a smahler reefohrm iz beter than noe reefohrm at ahl. If yoo
goe fohr the radikal aproech Ie think yoor goeing to end up with noe
reefohrm. Goeing fohr reealistik reefohrmz wil at leest bring
improovments that wee kan ahl embrays and that wil bee ov graet
benefit ahl ov us.

[A.B. Normal 65]

aneehoo, heerz sum mohr too ad too the list ov wuhrdz needing noo
spelingz.
Theez ahr listed az beeing 15 ov the top 100 wuhrdz moest comonlee
misspeld bie
amerikan hie skool stoodents (Ie doo enjoi rieting this wai. It just
maiks soe much sens). The tradishional speling iz listed on the left
and a sujested reefohrmd speling on the riet:

accommodate > akomodate
achieve > acheev
aggressive > agresiv
background > bakground
basically > basikly
battalion > batalion
broccoli > brokoli
business > bizness
calendar > kalender
category > kategory
ceiling > seeling
cemetery > semetery
character > karakter
commitment > komitment
complexion > kompleksion

[A.B. Normal 65]

Post by A.B. Normal 65
aneehoo, heerz sum mohr too ad too the list ov wuhrdz needing noo
spelingz.
Theez ahr listed az beeing 15 ov the top 100 wuhrdz moest comonlee
misspeld bie
amerikan hie skool stoodents (Ie doo enjoi rieting this wai. It just
maiks soe much sens). The tradishional speling iz listed on the left
accommodate > akomodate
achieve > acheev
aggressive > agresiv
background > bakground
basically > basikly
battalion > batalion
broccoli > brokoli
business > bizness
calendar > kalender
category > kategory
ceiling > seeling
cemetery > semetery
character > karakter
commitment > komitment
complexion > kompleksion

Now, so far in my proposed spellings have been trying to maintain the
existing English rules as much as possible while simplifying
spellings. This is similar to the Rite spelling approach. An
advantage is that it's fairly easy on the eyes to the adept English
reader. A disadvantage is that the rules still have to be fairly
complex. A new thought I'm pondering is to still take the "word by
word" approach, changing one word at a time in a prioritized order
rather than a "wholesale" reform. But how about going further with
the reform of each word as we touch it? Move the new spellings toward
a simpler, more consistent and phonetic system. For instance, with
this approach "knight" becomes "niet" rather than "nite".

The only changes that would have to be applied to the above list to
bring these words into complete phonetic conformity are as follows:

basically > baisiklee
battalion > batalyon
broccoli > brokolee
business > biznes

The rest can remain as above.

I'll go back over the words we mentioned earlier and revamp them too.
Give me your comments as we move forward.

a.b.

[raymond o'hara]

Post by N?ant Humain
Iye think we shood goe all out with ar spelling reeformz. This iz
still reedubol, izint it? Myener chainjiz, lyek "knight" -> "nite,"
arnt goeing too fiks thingz. Pridy soohn, if evreewun starts spelling
werdz az Iye doo, weel hav a funedik spelling revuloohshin aun ar
handz!
Imajin if kindergardin stoohdints wer taut frum the vairy beegining
too spell az it soundz! Yoo woohdint haf too waist owerz uv klas tyem
tryeing too lern spellingz baisd auf the prununsyaishin uv fyev
hundrid yeerz ugoe! Beefor spelling wuz standerdyezd, thats wut peepol
did eneeway!
Chainj beeginz with yoo.
// Translation for the weak
I think we should go all out with our spelling reforms. This is still
readable, isn't it? Minor changes, like "knight"->"nite," aren't going
to fix things. Pretty soon, if everyone starts spelling words as I do,
we'll have a phonetic spelling revolution on our hands!
Imagine if kindergarten students were taught from the very beginning
to spell as it sounds! You wouldn't have to waste hours of class time
trying to learn spellings based off the pronunciation of five hundred
years ago! Before spelling was standardized, that's what people did
anyway!
Change begines with you.
//

sounds to who ? there are a great many accents in the english speaking
world . americans generally say the h at the beginning of words many brits
don't , where i come from boston mass we tend to drop the hard r and broaden
the a sound at the end of words . saying hahhbuh for harbor
[ harbour } or cahh for car {automobile } the language would fly apart even
faster than it is .
]

[A.B. Normal 65]

Post by raymond o'hara

Post by N?ant Humain
Iye think we shood goe all out with ar spelling reeformz. This iz
still reedubol, izint it? Myener chainjiz, lyek "knight" -> "nite,"
arnt goeing too fiks thingz. Pridy soohn, if evreewun starts spelling
werdz az Iye doo, weel hav a funedik spelling revuloohshin aun ar
handz!
Imajin if kindergardin stoohdints wer taut frum the vairy beegining
too spell az it soundz! Yoo woohdint haf too waist owerz uv klas tyem
tryeing too lern spellingz baisd auf the prununsyaishin uv fyev
hundrid yeerz ugoe! Beefor spelling wuz standerdyezd, thats wut peepol
did eneeway!
Chainj beeginz with yoo.
// Translation for the weak
I think we should go all out with our spelling reforms. This is still
readable, isn't it? Minor changes, like "knight"->"nite," aren't going
to fix things. Pretty soon, if everyone starts spelling words as I do,
we'll have a phonetic spelling revolution on our hands!
Imagine if kindergarten students were taught from the very beginning
to spell as it sounds! You wouldn't have to waste hours of class time
trying to learn spellings based off the pronunciation of five hundred
years ago! Before spelling was standardized, that's what people did
anyway!
Change begines with you.
//

sounds to who ? there are a great many accents in the english speaking
world . americans generally say the h at the beginning of words many brits
don't , where i come from boston mass we tend to drop the hard r and broaden
the a sound at the end of words . saying hahhbuh for harbor
[ harbour } or cahh for car {automobile } the language would fly apart even
faster than it is .
]

I'm not sure that English is "flying apart". I do see your point
about regional variations, but I think a phonetic reform would
actually help to cut down the amount of variation that occurs. If
written English was truly descriptive of spoken English then correct
pronunciation becomes more important at an early age. Our English
teachers would be better equipped to spend the time needed to help our
children communicate better both in writing and in speech. Right now
a teacher in Boston probably has to tell her students something like,
"I know it sounds like 'hahhbuh', but it's spelled 'harbor'." With
phonetic spelling she'll be forced to say, "Oh, it's actually supposed
to be pronounced 'hahrber'." The "correct" pronunciation and correct
phonetic spelling should be arrived at logically. There has to be a
process whereby these things are decided. Probably going with the
majority of English speakers would work in most cases.

[raymond o'hara]

"A.B. Normal 65" >

Post by A.B. Normal 65
I'm not sure that English is "flying apart". I do see your point
about regional variations, but I think a phonetic reform would
actually help to cut down the amount of variation that occurs. If
written English was truly descriptive of spoken English then correct
pronunciation becomes more important at an early age. Our English
teachers would be better equipped to spend the time needed to help our
children communicate better both in writing and in speech. Right now
a teacher in Boston probably has to tell her students something like,
"I know it sounds like 'hahhbuh', but it's spelled 'harbor'." With
phonetic spelling she'll be forced to say, "Oh, it's actually supposed
to be pronounced 'hahrber'." The "correct" pronunciation and correct
phonetic spelling should be arrived at logically. There has to be a
process whereby these things are decided. Probably going with the
majority of English speakers would work in most cases.

but why is it supposed to be pronounced hahrber . whose accent do you pick
as a baseline . the queen ?
to a bostonian ar is ahh the way ph is f .
and try talking to a jamaican or someone from the caribbean they are
speaking english but communication can be rough .distance can do funny
things to a language . and do you say cara beean or carib beun people
here say it both ways ,sometimes in the same conversation .
i think its better to standardize spelling and let pronunciation try to
deal with that rather than let pronunciation determine spelling . at the
least we could always exchange notes ..