In this thread, we fix whatever is wrong with the English Language and make it a more viable AuxLang.
We all agree there's something wrong with it, so what would you do to repair it?
I think we should make all weak verbs strong
>>1100140
>the weak should fear the strong
>>1100079
First of all you'd need a spelling reform.
It's pathetic that they never matched their spelling and their pronunciation.
>>1100216
The spelling and pronunciation perfectly matched... in the year 1400
>>1100216
With a spelling reform, we're going to need more letters/get rid of old ones.
We have two different "th" sounds but no symbol of it (anymore).
How do you spell "church" when we don't even have a "ch" symbol?
>>1100140
>he's starting with word reformation before sound
>the absolute madman
>>1100250
>you may never live with a language that is spelt exactly how it's pronounced.
>>1101507
Learn Serbo-Croatian.
>>1100371
Consonant sounds are the least of English's problems. The number of English vowels can be in the teens depending on dialect.
>>1101507
Japanese
>>1102410
>Japanese
>>1100079
The best way to make English better is through Anglish. Cast aside the outlandish wordstock and remake the English tongue as a selfstanding and soulful well of speech.
Also fix the fucking spelling
>>1102362
But if we're hacking off vowels, a hell of a lot of words will become homophones.
Are you implying we need stressed and accents like the french?
>>1102434
I like the way you think.
But how?
>>1102410
しゃ = sha, not shiya
せんぱい = sempai, not senpai
Adopt Lojban spelling, grammar, and words.
Now English is Lojban. Now English is good.
.i mi ca gleki .i mi jinvi lo du'u do nitcu lo nu cilre fi lo lojbo
>>1102746
>ん
It can be either a bilabial nasal /m/ or a uvular nasal /ɴ/.
They make pretty similar sounds and it's almost always the latter so I still say Japanese is close enough to being "read and say".
>>1102754
>Lojban
Literally why better than Loglan?
>>1102776
Because it's far more fleshed out, has a more comprehensive grammar, and isn't as English-biased.
>>1102754
Can one of you explain to a nonlinguist what the holy hell that mess is
>>1103005
I'm no lojban expert, but think of it like speaking code.
From what I can understand, it's something like
>I am happy
>In my opinion we have a need to learn lojban
>>1103068
Wew lad, not even close on either count.
>>1103005
Lojban is a constructed language. It isn't "code" - it just has an artificial grammar that actually makes a lot of sense once learned. A correct direct translation of what I said is:
I am (currently, verbose) happy. I opine the fact that you need the event of learning about the topic Lojban.
Simple translation is: I'm happy, I think you need to learn Lojban.
>>1101507
Mohawk
>>1103005
I'm not a linguist, and I learned it pretty easily. It is really intuitive for a programmer to learn.
>>1103093
>Wew lad, not even close on either count.
>it was pretty close
>>1103201
You got the semantic meaning of the translation correct, but not the actual syntactic translation at all.
>>1100079
Spanish speaker here.
You need verb conjugation reform, accents and pronunciation reform.
>>1103380
>accents
Romance language, please go. We are trying to make things simpler, not add even more.
>>1103326
still a bit rude
>>1101507
does such a language even exist?
I don't think it does, even those with a low phoneme-grapheme ratio like Czech have (relatively) lots of exceptions.
>>1105049
A lot of conlangs do that.
Fuck, most conlangs I know of use the IPA for that exact reason.
>>1105056
>constructed languages
pig disgusting
>>1100079
>fix whatever is wrong with the English Language
Can't fix what ain't don' be broked, boi.
>>1105065
whaddup, here come dat boi
>>1103388
This.
Don't want some chinese bullshit where the tone spoken completely changes a word.
>>1105069
Weeeel shitfire! U bois sure do come mighty speedy like. Wuz the Sheriff chasin' u? Whyle ur here to get teh fixin', com'on tend to dis here noose. Been feelin' purty light of late
>>1100216
Who's pronunciation? Should we, for example, put an 'h' in street?
>>1105103
I keep hearing that there is no "True" pronunciation of English, but I disagree.
If language is defined my mutual intelligibility, then if there was one dialect that all could understand then it is the true way, regardless of number of speakers.
Received Pronunciation is the correct English dialect because speakers may not understand GA, AAVE, IE, SAE etc, but everyone can understand RP.
Think of the scene in Hot Fuzz with the farmer. Everyone could understand Simon Pegg, even if he can only understand one person, so he is speaking the "correct way", except he was speaking Eastern London. Take that and apply it to a global level and we have a working pronunciation.
>>1105133
> then if there was one dialect that all could understand then it is the true way, regardless of number of speakers.
So there is an 'h' in shtreet.
BRING BAD THE LETTER FOR THE SOUND OF "TH" IN "THE"
COME ON SENPAI IT MAKES SENSE
>>1105141
RP doesn't aspirate the s there.
The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak.
They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other.
Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him;
and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak.
And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two.
Ðë Norþ Wind and ðë Sän wër dispjūting wič wäs ðë strāngër, wen ei travëlër keim ëlāng rapd in ei wārm klouk.
Ðei ëgrīd ðat ðë wun hū fërst säksīdid in meiking ðë travëlër teik hiz klouk āf šud bī kënsidërd strānger ðan ðë äðër
Ðen ðë Norþ Wind blū az hārd az hī kud, bät ðë mor hī blū ðë mor klouslī did ðë travëlër fold hiz klouk ëraund him;
and at last ðë Norþ Wind geiv äp ðë atemt. Ðen ðë Sän šaind aut wārmlī, and imīdīëtlī ðë travëlër tuk āf hiz klouk.
And so ðë Norþ Wind wäs ëblaiǧd tū kënfes ðat ðë Sän wäs ðë strāngër ëv ðë tū.
>>1105150
You mean a Thorn, Þ, þ?
Does that help seeing as again the thorn is used for both voiced and voiceless versions.
Linguist here.
Wanting to reform spelling is autistic.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
>>1105353
>Wanting to reform spelling is autistic.
It really isn't, especially with a language such as English where so many sounds don't have their own letters.
>>1105356
So?
>>1105358
So there's really nothing bad about it. It may make for a lot more efficient alphabet.
>>1105356
>such as English where so many sounds don't have their own letters.
Learn 2 lines of French then come back to me. English hit a nice ratio.
>>1105258
>lets use symbols where the only difference is a dot, two dots, or a line to determine them.
For handwriting, how many people are going to mix up those two "i"s?
Don't get me wrong, I like the way it's structured, the grouping adds some logic to it, but there must be better ways to differentiate between them.
Adding a schwa, or an ash wouldn't go awry.
>>1105385
That's not really an argument. I never said French was perfect, either.
>>1105366
It's a fair point.
What's the point of having a symbol for every sound when we can do perfectly fine without them?
>>1105439
>when we can do perfectly fine without them?
This is your problem.
It's not perfectly fine, there are so many dialects that are becoming mutually unintelligible, not to mention that it's so hard for people to learn as a second language.
>>1105496
>not to mention that it's so hard for people to learn as a second language
Surely, you don't mean English?
>>1105353
waj dy u þink so
fo igzampl spelin' rifom ov 1917 impryvt rashn langvic veri mac
>>1105496
>It's not perfectly fine, there are so many dialects that are becoming mutually unintelligible
How will changing the writing system help that? Even though people speak differently they still write mostly the same.
>>1105159
But a New York Accent is the one true way, regardless of number of speakers.
>>1105513
Who said we were just changing the writing system?
.i mu'i ma do'o na djica lonu cilre fi lo lojbo .i mi djuno lo du'u lo lojbo cu mutce xamgu
>>1105506
Except nobody writes like this. English doesn't need reforming. It will change to adapt to speakers' use of it.
>>1105506
>Uaj du ju fink sou
>For ikzempәl, dә speling riform of 1917 impruft rašәn lengvič veri mač
Here's a better version.
Bring back thorn and eth, give sh and ch their own letters, make s and z and d and t phonetic and rigid (to bring to a standard is not "standardise", it's " standardize" for example), use yall as a second person plural, and just let the vowels do whatever the fuck they want. So long as consonants are held together vows can shift around. Use non-phonetic spelling to differentiate homophones (soul vs sole). Bring back Anglish as necessary.
This only applies to American English of course, Brita can do as they please.
>>1105561
>retaining homophones
>not revamping the grammar and vocabulary entirely
wew
>>1105580
And what then? Bring in tones and linguistic gender as if we were barbarians? I think not.
>>1105591
.i na go'i .i do mabla mitcinse .i e'o ko catra do
literally newspeak - the thread
>>1105599
You have no fucking idea what newspeak is, do you?
>>1105561
And really what would this change?
>>1105599
That is doubleplusungood.
>>1105391
Supreme autist here, I'm pretty sure that the other anon was just using IPA. IPA is pretty frustrating because of the laziness with the symbols. It's just a bunch of edited Latin/Greek letters. So one day I got bored and drew up a new alphabet with original characters for every sound.
Predictably it wasn't easy and more than a few letters look the same. But at least it isn't some fucking i with a line or some shit.
>>1105561
>use yall as a second person plural
hello white trash
>>1101544
Really, Serbian is the only of the Serbo-Croat language branch that follows Vuk's phonetic rule. Croatians never translitarate phrases written with the Latin alphabet; Bosnians, usually, write Turcisms and Ottomanisms with the English transliteration.
>>1105862
>Supreme autist
You were right, but I'm still mirin'
I want to fault it, but it seems pretty solid to me, no real way to mistake one of another.
>>1105952
I would agree with you, but we need two things in English.
A second person plural
A singular third person epicene.
The generic "he" is crap from the start, and this "singular they" is a fucking botch job at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_personal_pronouns
>the table
>those fucking overlaps at random with the "you"s
>that abomination of an overlap for the "him" "her" "his" "hers" area.
>>1106404
Why don't we just do away with the categories of number and gender altogether? Plenty of languages get along fine without them.
>>1106507
The lack of dual and genders isn't something to strive for, to be honest.
>>1105070
Tone spoken already changes a word you moron. You just dont have any sign to mark it.
>>1105353
>Wanting to reform spelling is autistic.
>through
>enough
>thorough
>bough
>though
>drought
>thought
>bought
>brought
lel
>>1105258
>reformed english version
The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak.
They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other.
Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him;
and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak.
And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two.
De Nort Wuind and de Son guer disputin guich guas de stronguer, guen a traveler caim alon gurapd in a guarm clouk.
Dei agrid dad de uan ju firs suxided in meikin de traveler teik jis clouk of shuld bi considerd stronguer dan de oder.
Den de Nort Guind blu as jard as ji culd, but the mor ji blu de mor clousely did de traveler fold jis clouk araun jim; and at last de Nort Guind gueiv op de atempt. Den de Son xaind aut guarmly, and imidiatly de traveler tuk of jis clouk.
And sou de Nort Guind guas oblaigd tu confes dad de Son guas de stronguer of de tu.
>>1106950
I was even trying to sound these out without knowing all the phonetic symbols and i realized there is no way to make a universal sound using just vowels.
Kind of upsetting, maybe I do have the autisms after all.
desu english spelling is a bit like chinese characters. no matter how different two people's dialect is spoken, they'll always understand written english. I like it in this respect.
>>1102772
More importantly, the Japanese don't really care how you pronounce ん or す, or the R/L consonant. It's the same sound to them.
>>1107335
>or the R/L consonant.
That's because they have neither a /ɹ̠/ or a /l/ sound, they have /ɾ/, /ɺ/ and possibly /ɽ/, which is more like a flapped /d/.
The point is they use a different sound entirely for transcribing "r" and "l"
>>1107368
>That's because they have neither a /ɹ̠/ or a /l/ sound, they have /ɾ/, /ɺ/ and possibly /ɽ/
But /ɾ/, /ɺ/ and /ɽ/ are all acceptable pronunciations for those syllables in the ら group to them, that's what I meant.
>>1102746
sha and shiya are distinctly different though, しゃ vs. しや
>>1105353
Fuck off you prescriptivist scum
>>1107506
しゃ is often more like sh'a or even shya in onomatopeia too.
>>1107519
Actually it's the ones who want to reform language who are the prescriptivists. You don't even know what the term means.
>>1106950
What's your point, pedantic retard?
>>1102434
This.
The more Germanic we make the language the more everything falls back into place. 1066 caused everything to become disjointed.
>>1103105
>matching the spelling
>mohawk
dont make me laugh.
>>1101507
Finnish.
>>1108974
even finnish is not always pronounced the way it is spelled, it labializes n in np or theres velarization of n in nk clusters
>>1108991
I'm not an linguist, but i am Finnish. Could you give me some examples of what you just said?
>>1105049
just study some minority language. they normally got writing so late, linguistics were already discovered so they got good writing. check out what the lakota language consortium did for lakota.
Can somebody explain why intentionally setting standards for a language is objectively better than letting the language evolve over time as it is used?
There is nothing wrong with the english language. It might be one of the main reasons America conquers the world.
>>1109294
This is what I've been pointing out throughout the thread. Language reformism is idiotic and mostly based on mysticism, unless they're talking about improving methods for language learning in schools or something like that.
>>1106931
As in the literal pitch of voice used. Name me 3 English words that change in definition by difference of tone.
>>1109341
not him but "and", "fuck", and "hey".
>>1109341
Because there are sarcastic tones, it would be harder to find words whose definitions don't change with a difference of tone
>>1109337
I don't agree with that at all tbqh. Icelandic or Lithuanian grammar and orthography would not be as conservative as it is, and retain a lot of cool features from their respective older variants if they didn't have have it as a government policy to keep the language that way.
>>1109365
That might be your personal aesthetic feeling about it, but it has no bearing on how well the language itself works.
>>1109364
Sarcasm tends to be marked at the level of the utterance, not at the level of the word.
>>1109382
Not really my personal opinion. They are both languages known for being deliberately guided by government policy.
If you think that language reformism is idiotic, then language conservativism has to be equally as idiotic.
>>1109341
What do you mean by "word"?
>>1109341
Why
You
Little
>>1109498
It does in my language, but I have never heard of it in English.
>>1109365
Their governments have only been involved with those languages for the past hundred years. It hardly has anything to do with their conservatism.
>>1109394
I'm saying it's only your opinion that the features that are preserved by government mandate are 'cool'. In linguistic terms it doesn't really matter and doesn't improve the language in any objective sense.
>>1101507
Esperanto
>>1109601
Depends on the speaker. If Esperanto ever became a major language (ie in the sense of being an official language de jure or de facto of a country) there would immediately form regional dialects with redundancy and variation from the spelling system.
>>1109575
There doesn't exist any "improvement to a language in any objective sense".
I was merely telling you that those specific languages are way more conservative than others, and it's partly because of government policy.
And the reason I say this is because you said language reform is idiotic, which isn't always true at all depending on what your goal is.
>>1109621
I don't think goverment policy has ever changed the grammar of a language
Can you name some examples?
>>1109621
You're not really understanding what I said. I didn't say no government has ever adopted policies on language, I'm just saying that there isn't any point to doing so given how language works, therefore reformism and all other varieties of prescriptivism are pointless and, yes, retarded.
'There doesn't exist any "improvement to a language in any objective sense"' is what I have been reiterating throughout this whole fucking thread, you cunt. I don't know how you can possibly be misreading me this badly.
>>1101507
italian? anyone?
>>1100079
>linguistics thread
>let's fix english
ignorance: the thread
>>1110720
As I've been saying.
>>1110478
even italian has nontrivial allophones; for example [n] gets velarized before velar stops.
>>1110959
>implying that is not the most trivial and common allophone ever
>>1110720
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gripe about English the way it follows just about all the Germanic language familial rules, but often in remnants and not consistently.
That could be what is "wrong", as they propose it, with the language. A purer vocabulary might settle some autism, but phonetics and grammar are well on point though as I understand it.
>>1111222
What do you mean by 'purer'? What the fuck could be more or less 'pure' about arbitrary set of signs X versus arbitrary set of signs Y?
Why are people so fucking stupid
>>1112353
I mean this purely on word origin. I'm keenly aware of the hordes of retards thinking that word origin is all there is to it, but isn't it true that it has watered down the rules that governed English pre-Norman invasion?
>>1112568
What exactly do you mean?
First things first. We can just go down the New Zealand English route and replace every vowel with "U"
> Trudushunul Unglush fush und chups.
That's half your problems gone right there.
>>1112612
I mean that English has, and use to have features and rules about it that made it more comprehensive. For example, things like the distinction of 'gold' and 'gild', 'mice' and 'mouse', 'goose' 'geese' 'old' 'elder'. That's only one of many features that are remarkable about the Germanic languages, and Old English followed these rules more common and more consistently.
With Norman French, you see their linguistic influence on diction, (and to a much smaller extent, phonetics, but this is negligably small), you see English become a more erratic and simplified speak.
OK, the only way to "fix" it is to wind back time and make it a language that sprang forth fully formed and immutable, with words for every single possible concept and object in the universe. In other words, good luck with that one. The reasons English is the way it is... it isn't a dead language, it is a concatenation of other languages, and the literate are always getting dragged down to the level of the illiterates. Just like every other language. Can we "fix" French? or Xhosa? or Khalka Mongolian? Good luck.
>>1112568
Are you from the 9th century or the 21st century? If it's the latter, any 'restoration' to 'original' syntactic forms will be an artificial 21st century innovation based on an incomplete data set of old Germanic languages, not a return to a 'purer' form by orign. The purity metaphor is already misleading as fuck, but even if it were true you wouldn't be making the language any purer.
>>1112738
Well then perhaps something different ought to be brought about, assuming it's worth a damn devising. It doesn't need to be historically based, but making these linguistics features more consistent would be nice perhaps.
>>1101507
spanish comes close to that, the only fuckery is accents and putting Us before I
>>1105133
>RP
no. It's literally a French accent without the nasal vowels
>>1105133
there is no best dialect of english just like there was no best dialect of early modern english just like there was no best dialect of middle english just like there was no best dialect of old english just like there was no best dialect of proto-west-germanic just like there was no best dialect of proto-germanic just like there was no best dialect of proto-indo-european. it's all aribtrary. the idea that everyone can understand received pronunciation is just wrong, there is no reason to believe that received pronunciation is any more easily comprehensible than any other dialect to those who are unfamiliar with it.
>>1108485
this. there's not a right way to do things.
>>1112869
What do you mean by consistent in this context?
>>1109498
"hey" can mean "pay attention to me", "what are you doing?", or "hello", depending on the tone.
>>1105338
or eth (ð) for voiced and thorn for unvoiced as in IPA
>>1106404
'ye' is vastly superior to the redneck 'y'all'.
and there is no problem with he/him/his as gender neutral third person pronouns. we're not using 'ze' and if want that you can kill yourself.
>>1113430
That's still taking place at the level of the utterance rather than the word per se. By the way, that's a mapping that you've just pulled out of your ass, rather than one that is mandated in English grammar.
>>1111222
Fucking checked.
>>1113200
But every speaker of English can understand RP.....
>>1113524
>'ye' is vastly superior to the redneck 'y'all'.
No-one uses "ye" in that context.
And there is a problem, look at the table again and see how the Object, Possessive determiner, Possessive pronoun form are "him, his, his" and "her, her, hers". Why the hell is it not even symmetrical?
>there is no problem with he/him/his as gender neutral third person pronouns
Jesus christ, grow up, you can barely say pronoun without being labelled a tumblrite anymore.
The reason the "generic he" is no good is because it implies knowledge of the person being talked about, where the knowledge is not there. This is a hole in the language and it needs something to fill it.
>>1113562
I count 7 mate.
/oʊ/ as in "though" (cf. toe).
/uː/ as in "through" (cf. true).
/ʌf/ as in "rough" (cf. ruffian).
/ɒf/ as in "cough" (cf. coffin).
/ɔː/ as in "thought" (cf. taut).
/aʊ/ as in "bough" (cf. to bow).
/ə/ as in "thorough" (cf. dirt).
>>1113231
That these rules will be applied wherever they ought to be, and not at random.
>>1113635
>tfw this low-traffic board means I'll never get all the (you)s I am owed
>>1102362
Why is having lots of vowels a bad thing?
>>1115057
Not bad, but a challenge in terms of the orthography.
Pronunciation and spelling in English is horrible
Example:
Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation's OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
>>1115493
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
>>1115497
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation -- think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won't it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough --
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up!!!
>>1115497
>>1115493
>>1115500
what is wrong with that? do you struggle to read english? how often do you really find a word that you don't know how to pronounce? there's a continuum with writing systems, you can have a totally phonetic spelling like spanish, you can have something like french where the spelling isn't phonetic but it's regular, then there's english where there are general rules that the spelling follows but it isn't always phonetic, and finally you could have chinese where every word has its own orthographic form and there's no letters at all. they all work perfectly fine. you're not going to find a study that shows that totally phonetic systems are somehow more or less efficient than totally idiographical ones. you're relying totally on your own unsubstantiated intuitions about efficiency which are really nothing more than personal aesthetic preference.
>>1115497
>Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
wew
>>1115898
Imagine being a non-native English speaker and trying to read this poem aloud.
Really, English can be quite irregular and unintuitive with respect to spelling to pronunciation and pronunciation to spelling and it complicates the process of learning it when it is the lingua franca of the world. Consider the situation where you are listening to someone speaking English and you hear a word you don't know and want to look it up. You would have a problem transcribing what you heard into spelling with these irregularities and might miss the opportunity to learn a new word. Another situation that might happen is you might find a new word while reading and you want to ask what it means. But then, you might mispronounce the word and at worst, get a different definition. I personally don't think it would get any less efficient if you can readily transition between spelling and pronunciation without resorting to IPA or example words every time.
But I will concede to the point that different spelling for the same sounds allows English to distinguish homophones like their, there, and they're in writing. Other than that, I don't really see any point in having such irregularities.
>>1116490
It's only a problem if they are past the critical period when they learn it. Reform is redundant for L1 English speakers because it comes effortlessly anyway.
>>1115898
This. Prescriptivists want to legislate communication based on unsubstantiated notions.
>>1114570
And who determines where rules "ought" to be applied? You?
>>1116490
>Consider the situation where you are listening to someone speaking English and you hear a word you don't know and want to look it up
This might have been a problem 10 years ago, but now every third person has a computer in their pocket that lets you look up definitions just by speaking them aloud. You don't have to know how its spelled or anything.
>>1117018
Cunt, stop.
You're trying to dismantle the idea rather than analyzing it. Experts of sorts would be the ones determining these things, on the basis of a more uniform language. Nigger.
>>1117995
I'm not, I'm suggesting a more uniform use of the various Germanic language features, such as consistent use of the Germanic Umlaut, as one of many examples.
>>1110478
>sometimes cc is ch, sometimes cc is kk
No.
>>1111222
>A purer vocabulary might settle some autism
Who the hell wants this aside from germanic pagan larping neckbeards?
I rather like our greco-roman lexicon, thanks.
>>1118097
>what is palatalization before front vowels
>>1117060
>a crutch means my leg isn't broken
>>1118044
What are you seying, eviry time a word contains an /i/ in the next syllable it should be mutated?
>>1118439
I'm pretty sure he is, if he's this guy
>>1112672
I've been thinking about how a spelling reform for English should be done.
My background, I am Norwegian, and thus have a lot of experience with spelling reforms, language politics and different writing systems.
1. The writing system should not pander to the lowest, most degenerate language possible, and should not attempt to force people with higher quality language to become more degenerate.
2. There is not just one dialect. When it's reasonable, all dialects should be taken into account, and ideally, you should have pronunciation rules that allow you to go from the written language to the dialect.
3. The history of the language should be visible when it's reasonable. No rush to always go for more degenerate spellings as soon as they become wellspread in the spoken language. Pronunciation rules and silent letters works.
These are all things that drag in a conservative direction, and they should be balanced with the need for a clear writing system. I have some thoughts.
- all k-sounds should be written with "k" (kold, not cold)
- church-sounds should be written with "c" (curc)
- jelly-sounds should be written with "j"
- sh-sounds should be written as "sh"
- following the pattern, "measure" should instead be "meazhure", making it more regular. The sound represented by "zh". (But if you want to fight for purism, in the long term this sound should be eliminated.
- differentiate between the two "th" sounds. Either by "th" and "dh", or if you wish, introduce the thorn and eth. I would consider adding an exception to the rules here, the "dh" sound should be written with a thorn if it's in the start of grammatical words, even if they sound like eth.
-gh should be silent, and kept in the words where they are present, unless pronounced as "f", in which case it should be written as "f".
-keep the difference between "w" and "wh". The merger is degenerate, and it helps show the historical similarities to Icelandic hv and many other languages.
can't say more
>>1117995
why would it be less efficient though?
>>1101507
Hungarian too you cuck
>>1118137
Not really. Accented o is pronounced as a, also d is sometimes d and sometimes as dz, as in Дeньги
>>1100079
There isnae anything to fix
>>1118097
It's extremely logical and simple if you know anything about the evolution of Romance languages.
ce and ci are /tʃe/ and /tʃi/ respectively
che and chi are /ke/ and /ki/ respectively
ge and gi are /dʒe/ and /dʒi/ respectively
ghe and ghi are /ge/ and /gi/ respectively
>>1121350
Every spelling system is logical by this logic. Even English spelling has rules.
In the end it's still shit. Only Spanish is spelled as it is pronounced
>>1101507
Korean
Spanish
Japanese (mostly)
>>1121331
t. Irvine Welsh
>>1118137
>russian
Haha no. Russian has diphtongues EVERYWHERE.
дeлo --> [djelo]
кoгo --> [kago] (not diphtongue but still)
ты --> [te]
>>1121375
No, there isn't a one-to-one mapping from phoneme to letter in Spanish.
>>1121388
>дeлo --> [djelo]
>кoгo --> [kago] (not diphtongue but still)
>ты --> [te]
What is this transcription system?
Here's something that represents the pronounciation:
"дeлo" is "djéla"
"кoгo" is "kavó"
"ты" is "ty"
No idea about russian IPA though.
>>1100079
I propose we use all three letter combinations we still have combinations like "xor" that have no meaning; not to mention this mass shortening of words would make spelling tests much easier on primary/elementary school.
>>1120405
>- jelly-sounds should be written with "j"
I'm gonna disagree with this one. In most european languages, "j" is used for the /j/, as in "yes, yacht, yack", sound, which leads to so many mispronunciations and translations, arguably the most famous is YHWH, which became Yaweh, which became jehovah.
Like's similar to how in many middle eu languages, the /w/ sound and the /v/.
It would be easier for some people to reverse the uniquely English use of these letters.
"wonderful village" would be pronounced the same but be spelt "vonderful willage".
>>1101507
>all those people saying japanese
>all those people saying spanish
You fools.....
>>1121494
I know English is stupid when it comes to "y", but it's how everyone in English is used to, and it is fine that English has some quirks.
It is a bit tempting to force English speakers to learn to pronounce every other language correctly, but I think some unique qualities are acceptable.
When it comes to vowels, I'm thinking the same way. Well, I'm not quite sure how to deal with it. I want to keep them similar to how they are. They are not merged in all dialects, so merging them in writing would be forcing degeneracy on the higher quality dialects. It also helps to keep things separate, and helps tell the story of the language. And like someone said, consonats are what's important.
I disagree with you when it comes to "v" and "w". I think how English does it is fine. That's the proper way according to IPA and many other languages anyway.
The only thing to argue about here is the existence of "v". The phoneme /v/ does not actually belong in the English language. If you want to be super purist, you could attempt to remove it, or, all words that contain it. Personally, I think it's fine. Most of the words that have "v" fit nicely with the rest of the Germanic English language, unlike "measure" words. I also think having /v/ as an independent phoneme from /w/ would help block the change w->v that has happened in many Germanic languages, and, even if you decide to fight for more Germanic in English, I think it's nice that a language can have signs of its history in it, so some French should remain just so people can remember the time when English was oppressed by French.
>>1121561
> The phoneme /v/ does not actually belong in the English language
U wot?
>>1121600
It comes from French. Originally, [v] and [f] were different allophones of the same phoneme, where [f] was at the start of words, and [v] was between vowels. Then English got words from French that started with [v], and they became two different phonemes.
Today, it's probably impossible to eliminate the phoneme, even if we eliminate all foreign words, because other stuff also happened, like the gh->f change, causing [f] at the end of words, that originally only had [v]. But, excluding foreign words, the number of words ruining this plan is probably very small.
>>1121642
Actually, I think "half" ends with [f], and maybe it always did. But even so, now we have words like "love", that ends with [v], which still forces a contrast at the end of words.
>>1121642
There are some native English words with initial /v/, like "vixen"
>>1121722
>
Is pronouncing "th" as "z" really a thing in the English language or is it just a theorical meme?
Most of the times I hear someone saying "th", whether it's an American or a British saying it, I hear an "f" sound. For example, I get the impression they pronounce "thirst" and "first" the same way. Do they pronounce "th" like that or am I just not perceiving a subtle difference in each pronounciation?
>>1121909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_%E2%9F%A8th%E2%9F%A9#Phonetic_realization
>>1121909
Some types of English pronounce "th" and "f" the same. But in proper English, "thist" and "first" have different pronunciations, and also different from "zirst".
"f" uses your lips, "th" uses your tongue, against the teeth.
