Arguments against phonetic alphabet reform?

[Erik Max Francis]

The "English ambuigity?" thread came up with several people pointing out
there are numerous cogent arguments against spelling reform by means of
the introduction of a phonetic alphabet. Searching here and there with
Google doesn't seem to find too many good anti-reform resources. In
particular, is there someplace these arguments are all collected in one
place?

(Although this request may sound contrarian, I'm genuinely interested,
although not so interested in arguing them point by point. Consider it
a free shot.)

[James Vipond]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Erik Max Francis
The "English ambuigity?" thread came up with several people
pointing out there are numerous cogent arguments against spelling
reform by means of the introduction of a phonetic alphabet.
Searching here and there with Google doesn't seem to find too many
good anti-reform resources. In particular, is there someplace
these arguments are all collected in one place?
(Although this request may sound contrarian, I'm genuinely
interested, although not so interested in arguing them point by
point. Consider it a free shot.)

The following page refutes 13 arguments against reforming English
spelling, including one concerning word games:
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP9IWxMNJIejnLYNBEQIgIgCcCw9nQket3JrR2jWPdVCPUvv6OpQAn2ue
Wmk99sCtLqFVk2O9gho4LTaR
=uNG8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ramasamy]

Hi there everybody. A chinese friend of mine told me something interesting.
He cannot read chinese but knows the meaning of the characters when he looks
at them. The characters are the same but the dialects are different in
chinese. Each
dialect pronounces the words differently but the form and meaning of the
character remains the same and is common for all dialects.

In a somewhat similar sense, though not exactly, I think a universal script
which has the capacity to accomodate all or most of the world languages,
sound wise, will be a welcome development. In this way English will maintain
its status quo for those who want it but
the universal script with its exact and clear phonetic system and without
the complex and sometimes ridiculous spelling system will be the vehicle to
learn English or any language for that matter world wide. Hopefully this
will also be a prelude to the development of a universal tongue itself. I
believe this is inevitable in the future.

p.r_samy

Post by Erik Max Francis
The "English ambuigity?" thread came up with several people pointing out
there are numerous cogent arguments against spelling reform by means of
the introduction of a phonetic alphabet. Searching here and there with
Google doesn't seem to find too many good anti-reform resources. In
particular, is there someplace these arguments are all collected in one
place?
(Although this request may sound contrarian, I'm genuinely interested,
although not so interested in arguing them point by point. Consider it
a free shot.)
--
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ The average dog is a nicer person than the average person.
-- Andrew A. Rooney

[zbihniew]

Post by Ramasamy
In a somewhat similar sense, though not exactly, I think a universal script
which has the capacity to accomodate all or most of the world languages,
sound wise, will be a welcome development. In this way English will maintain
its status quo for those who want it but
the universal script with its exact and clear phonetic system and without
the complex and sometimes ridiculous spelling system will be the vehicle to
learn English or any language for that matter world wide. Hopefully this
will also be a prelude to the development of a universal tongue itself. I
believe this is inevitable in the future.
p.r_samy

Methinks nowadays script is quite like Chinese. Although it is
pronounced in different ways and there are even people who cannot
pronounce in any understandable way (I mean some non-natives), the
standardized script is accepted. Pronounciation will evolve in the
future. Will we change the spelling again? In 15th century, when the
current spelling was made ordered by Caxton, it was probably based on
pronounciation.
If we introduced new spelling today, would we transcribe works of
old-time masters? We sometimes may be not sure how particular words were
pronounced but we know the script.
Present English language rules over computers, international documents,
magazines, publications, data etc. Such a change would require millions
of people to learn both spellings. Many writers and other people would
not accept new spelling and a schism would establish.
Reformed spelling is an interesting idea but just as a hobby. The
introduction of it would cause mainly problems and troubles.
If we want a really better communication tool, we should consider
applying another language, more simple and more suitable for any humane
purposes. This could be Esperanto (methinks it is the best), this could
be something else.


With Christmas, Hanucca, Yule, $mas or New Year best wishes (choose
whatever suits you best),

[Zz]

zbihniew wrote...

Post by zbihniew
Pronounciation will evolve in the
future. Will we change the spelling again?

Hardly. So why change it now? No two people say things exactly the same way
in any case - otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell people apart from their
voices... (see my reply to "heron stone" in this NG on 8/12).

Post by zbihniew
If we introduced new spelling today, would we transcribe works of
old-time masters? We sometimes may be not sure how particular words were
pronounced but we know the script.

Exactly. Do this and say goodbye to hundreds of years of cultural heritage,
and an insurmountable volume of present day data.

Post by zbihniew
Reformed spelling is an interesting idea but just as a hobby.

I agree. Minor reforms happen naturally (and inevitably) over time.
Wholesale reform has to be a non-starter.

Post by zbihniew
If we want a really better communication tool, we should consider
applying another language, more simple and more suitable for any humane
purposes. This could be Esperanto (methinks it is the best), this could
be something else.

Feel free. I can't see it happening though.

:)

[zbihniew]

Post by Zz
zbihniew wrote...

Post by zbihniew
Pronounciation will evolve in the
future. Will we change the spelling again?

Hardly. So why change it now? No two people say things exactly the same way
in any case - otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell people apart from their
voices... (see my reply to "heron stone" in this NG on 8/12).

That's what I say. No changes.
I hadn't read your posts earlier but now I have and I agree with your
points.

Post by Zz

Post by zbihniew
If we introduced new spelling today, would we transcribe works of
old-time masters? We sometimes may be not sure how particular words were
pronounced but we know the script.

Exactly. Do this and say goodbye to hundreds of years of cultural heritage,
and an insurmountable volume of present day data.

Not necessarily goodbye at all, but the access for a bulk of the
English-speaking population would be restricted.

Post by Zz

Post by zbihniew
Reformed spelling is an interesting idea but just as a hobby.

I agree. Minor reforms happen naturally (and inevitably) over time.
Wholesale reform has to be a non-starter.

exactly :]

Post by Zz

Post by zbihniew
If we want a really better communication tool, we should consider
applying another language, more simple and more suitable for any humane
purposes. This could be Esperanto (methinks it is the best), this could
be something else.

Feel free. I can't see it happening though.

Like we cannot make a reform spelling, we cannot change the language
used by millions.