An American Language

I have heard from Spanish speakers that it is the Argentineans who speak a Spanish language that is the hardest to understand by other Spanish speakers. The reason being the large Italian and German emigration. Is this also true with the Chileans?

No idea in general, but the countries represented in question were Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile. Nobody had any trouble understanding anyone but the Chileans, although they definitely had some vocabulary differences.
 
I don't know if you can get a full-fledged American language in the sense of a single mostly standard language across the country that has the minimum level of mutual comprehension (which does not mean no or even very little mutual comprehension. See pretty much every cognate in the Germanic and Latin families).

What I think is doable is a number of dialects and a diglossic situation. As someone else suggested, have spelling reform go through very early after the revolution and expand the embrace of multicultural/multilingual acceptance at an earlier time in the nation's history. I'm not sure the details of how you'd get it, but the most likely scenario would be the *American language that develops would act as a shared lingua franca or written variant to go with actual spoken dialects, which could vary widely. Think the Chinese languages or Switzerland's complete disconnect between "Schriifduutsch" ("Writing German"/High German) and the spoken Swiss German.

The basic picture I would imagine is this spelling-reformed English being the standard writing language and lingua franca, taught in schools, but in most conversational situations the people use either their other language (German, Spanish, French, Gaelic, etc.) or the local region's distinct dialect which has both organic changes from the standardized form and extensive influence from the local immigrant groups. I'd guess the local *American dialects would predominate in most cities just by virtue of necessity for a lingua franca, although rural towns might stick to almost exclusive use of the other languages. From there, the different dialects may create an unofficial written form for quirks in their dialects that are recognized if not used by the standard such as the recreation of a second person plural like OTL's y'all, you guys, youse, yinz, etc.

The biggest issue is that the border between language and dialect is not as easily defined as people like to think. The Chinese dialects and Swiss German are mostly incomprehensible to speakers of the standard variants and have a number of very different grammatical constraints (eg. Swiss German has only two tenses, different conjugations of verbs, and uses only the nominative and dative cases for nouns and articles with the dative being rarely used even then) but are still considered "dialects". The old saying about languages being dialects with armies and navies might be the biggest support for this American language being a language rather than a dialect. I'd expect it would worsen the linguistic divide between the US and England, though Canadians closer to the border would probably be able to understand both almost equally well in spoken conversation.
I just could not help transcribing this fairly long post as it sounds to me. :eek:
A dxis kwd nat help trenskrabn ces ferli lang pwst es et sans tu mi.

I don't know if you can get a full-fledged American language in the sense of a
A dunw ef iu kin git u fwlfledxd umurkun lengwidx in cu sens uv u
single mostly standard language across the country that has the minimum
sengl mwsli stendurd lengwidx ukras cu kuntri cet hes cu menemum
level of mutual comprehension (which does not mean no or even very little
levl uv miwtxul kumprihenxun (witx dus nat min nw or ivun veri letl
mutual comprehension. See pretty much every cognate in the Germanic and
miwtxul kumprihenxun. Si preti mutx evri kagnut in cu dxurmenik en
Latin families).
letn femlis).

What I think is doable is a number of dialects and a diglossic situation. As
Wot a cenk es dwubl es u numbu uv daleks en u daglasik setiwixun. Es
someone else suggested, have spelling reform go through very early after the
sumwun els sudxestid, hev speling riform gw crw veri urli eftur cu
revolution and expand the embrace of multicultural/multilingual acceptance at
rivulwxun en ikspend ci imbris uv multekultxurul/multelingwul ukseptuns et
an earlier time in the nation's history. I'm not sure the details of how you'd get
un urliur tam en cu nixuns hesturi. Am nat xwr cu ditils uv ha iud git
it, but the most likely scenario would be the *American language that
et, but cu mws lakli sineriu wwd bi ci umurkun lengwidx cet
develops would act as a shared lingua franca or written variant to go with
divelaps wwd ect es u xerd lingwu frenku or ritn veriunt tw gw wec
actual spoken dialects, which could vary widely. Think the Chinese languages
ekxul spwkn daleks, witx kwd veri wadli. Cink cu txanis lengwidxis
or Switzerland's complete disconnect between "Schriifduutsch" ("Writing
or Swetsurlens kamplit deskunekt bitwin "Schriifduutsch" (ratn
German"/High German) and the spoken Swiss German.
dxurmun/ha dxurmun) en cu spwkn swes dxurmun.

The basic picture I would imagine is this spelling-reformed English being the
Cu bisek pektxur a wwd emedxen es ces spelingriformd inglix biing cu
standard writing language and lingua franca, taught in schools, but in most
stendurd ratin lengwidx en lengwu frenku, tat in skwls, but in mws
conversational situations the people use either their other language (German,
kunvusixunul setiwixuns cu pipl iws icu cer acu lengwidx (dxurmun,
Spanish, French, Gaelic, etc.) or the local region's distinct dialect which has
spenix, frenx, gelik, ets.) or cu lwkul ridxuns destenkt dalek wetx hes
both organic changes from the standardized form and extensive influence from
bwc orgenik txindxis fram cu stendurdast form en ikstensiv inflwens fram
the local immigrant groups. I'd guess the local *American dialects would
cu lwkul emigrent grwps. Ad ges cu lwkul umurkun daleks wwd
predominate in most cities just by virtue of necessity for a lingua franca,
pridaminut in mws setes dxus ba vurtxw uv nisesiti for u lengwa frenka
although rural towns might stick to almost exclusive use of the other
olctw rwrul tans mat stek tu olmws iksklwsev iws uv ci acu
languages. From there, the different dialects may create an unofficial written
lengwidxis. Fram cer, cu defren daleks me kriit un unafixul ritn
form for quirks in their dialects that are recognized if not used by the standard
form for kwurks in cer daleks cet ar rikugnast ef nat iwst ba cu stendurd
such as the recreation of a second person plural like OTL's y'all, you guys,
sutx es cu rikriixun uv u sekun pursun plwrul lak artamlans iol, iwgas,
youse, yinz, etc.
iws, iins, ets.

The biggest issue is that the border between language and dialect is not as
Cu begest ixw es cet cu bordu bitwin lengwidx en dalek es nat es
easily defined as people like to think. The Chinese dialects and Swiss German
isili difand es pipl lak tu cenk. Cu txanis daleks en swis dxurmun
are mostly incomprehensible to speakers of the standard variants and have a
ar mwsli inkumprihensibul tu spikas uv cu stendurd veriunts en hev u
number of very different grammatical constraints (eg. Swiss German has only
numbu uv veri defren gremetikul kunstrints (e.g. swis dxurmun hes wnli
two tenses, different conjugations of verbs, and uses only the nominative and
tw tensis, defren kundxugixuns uv vurbs, en iwsis wnli cu namnutiv en
dative cases for nouns and articles with the dative being rarely used even
ditev kises for nans en artikuls wic cu ditev biing rerli iwst ivn
then) but are still considered "dialects". The old saying about languages being
cen) but ar stel kunsedurd "daleks". Ci wl siin ubat lengwidxis biing
dialects with armies and navies might be the biggest support for this American
daleks wec armis en nivis mat bi cu begest suport for ces umurkun
language being a language rather than a dialect. I'd expect it would worsen
lengwedx biing u lengwidx racu cen u dalek. Ad ikspekt it wwd wursn
the linguistic divide between the US and England, though Canadians closer to
cu lengwistik divad bitwin ci Iwes en Inglun, cw kunidxuns klwsa tu
the border would probably be able to understand both almost equally well in
cu bordur wwd prabli bi ibul tu undursten bwc almws ikwuli wel in
spoken conversation.
spwkn kunvursixn.
 
(I do not like Franklin's spelling. If I remember it right, he discarded six letters, and then he invented six new graphs. Why could he (and many others) just not have used these already existing letters with new sounds attached? :mad: )

I think he felt they would be confusing as they already had a more or less standard pronunciation is english.

If, for example, you decided that "k" would represent all /k/ sounds and "S" all /s/ sounds, "C" would become obsolete. If you then decided to the use it to replace the digraph "ch", people having grown up learning standard english spelling would read the american "cuz" as "kooz", not "choose".
 
@democracy101: I for one would LOVE to see Hangeul used to represent English :)

Of course, the script would have to be from that of the Korean Language, much as the Latin Alphabet was modified from that of the Latin Language as a replacement for Runes in English (and many, many other Scripts around the world).

I agree that new letters for all English phonemes unsupported by any existing jamo, historic or modern, would be necessary, and I also believe one would need a set of rules for representing English's complex syllable structure would be essential.
 
@democracy101: I for one would LOVE to see Hangeul used to represent English :)

I was just saying that there were too many difficulties for Hangul to represent English without a major overhaul, although it is a nice idea in theory.

Of course, the script would have to be from that of the Korean Language, much as the Latin Alphabet was modified from that of the Latin Language as a replacement for Runes in English (and many, many other Scripts around the world).

Yes, but there were only a handful of changes made to the Latin alphabet originally used by Romans after it was adopted to represent English in written form. On the other hand, up to half of the letters used in this "semi-Hangul" system would require completely different pronunciations from the original ones that were used in Korean. In addition, there is essentially no systematic way to "ignore" many of the phonological distinctions as they are in the current convoluted writing system, given that many of the spelling rules in English are based on historical pronunciations hundreds of years ago, so this "foreign" system would essentially have to make all of the distinctions in order to be more efficient.

I agree that new letters for all English phonemes unsupported by any existing jamo, historic or modern, would be necessary, and I also believe one would need a set of rules for representing English's complex syllable structure would be essential.

I would argue that the latter is probably more important. More complicated syllables in English would be virtually impossible to render in this hypothetical system, as various individual components would all have to be squished within one block, making them incredibly difficult to read. On the other hand, separating the letters themselves would require completely disregarding one of Hangul's main quirks, at which point it just makes more sense to use another writing system altogether after significant adjustments.
 
I just could not help transcribing this fairly long post as it sounds to me. :eek:
A dxis kwd nat help trenskrabn ces ferli lang pwst es et sans tu mi.

I don't know if you can get a full-fledged American language in the sense of a
A dunw ef iu kin git u fwlfledxd umurkun lengwidx in cu sens uv u
single mostly standard language across the country that has the minimum
sengl mwsli stendurd lengwidx ukras cu kuntri cet hes cu menemum
level of mutual comprehension (which does not mean no or even very little
levl uv miwtxul kumprihenxun (witx dus nat min nw or ivun veri letl
mutual comprehension. See pretty much every cognate in the Germanic and
miwtxul kumprihenxun. Si preti mutx evri kagnut in cu dxurmenik en
Latin families).
letn femlis).

What I think is doable is a number of dialects and a diglossic situation. As
Wot a cenk es dwubl es u numbu uv daleks en u daglasik setiwixun. Es
someone else suggested, have spelling reform go through very early after the
sumwun els sudxestid, hev speling riform gw crw veri urli eftur cu
revolution and expand the embrace of multicultural/multilingual acceptance at
rivulwxun en ikspend ci imbris uv multekultxurul/multelingwul ukseptuns et
an earlier time in the nation's history. I'm not sure the details of how you'd get
un urliur tam en cu nixuns hesturi. Am nat xwr cu ditils uv ha iud git
it, but the most likely scenario would be the *American language that
et, but cu mws lakli sineriu wwd bi ci umurkun lengwidx cet
develops would act as a shared lingua franca or written variant to go with
divelaps wwd ect es u xerd lingwu frenku or ritn veriunt tw gw wec
actual spoken dialects, which could vary widely. Think the Chinese languages
ekxul spwkn daleks, witx kwd veri wadli. Cink cu txanis lengwidxis
or Switzerland's complete disconnect between "Schriifduutsch" ("Writing
or Swetsurlens kamplit deskunekt bitwin "Schriifduutsch" (ratn
German"/High German) and the spoken Swiss German.
dxurmun/ha dxurmun) en cu spwkn swes dxurmun.

The basic picture I would imagine is this spelling-reformed English being the
Cu bisek pektxur a wwd emedxen es ces spelingriformd inglix biing cu
standard writing language and lingua franca, taught in schools, but in most
stendurd ratin lengwidx en lengwu frenku, tat in skwls, but in mws
conversational situations the people use either their other language (German,
kunvusixunul setiwixuns cu pipl iws icu cer acu lengwidx (dxurmun,
Spanish, French, Gaelic, etc.) or the local region's distinct dialect which has
spenix, frenx, gelik, ets.) or cu lwkul ridxuns destenkt dalek wetx hes
both organic changes from the standardized form and extensive influence from
bwc orgenik txindxis fram cu stendurdast form en ikstensiv inflwens fram
the local immigrant groups. I'd guess the local *American dialects would
cu lwkul emigrent grwps. Ad ges cu lwkul umurkun daleks wwd
predominate in most cities just by virtue of necessity for a lingua franca,
pridaminut in mws setes dxus ba vurtxw uv nisesiti for u lengwa frenka
although rural towns might stick to almost exclusive use of the other
olctw rwrul tans mat stek tu olmws iksklwsev iws uv ci acu
languages. From there, the different dialects may create an unofficial written
lengwidxis. Fram cer, cu defren daleks me kriit un unafixul ritn
form for quirks in their dialects that are recognized if not used by the standard
form for kwurks in cer daleks cet ar rikugnast ef nat iwst ba cu stendurd
such as the recreation of a second person plural like OTL's y'all, you guys,
sutx es cu rikriixun uv u sekun pursun plwrul lak artamlans iol, iwgas,
youse, yinz, etc.
iws, iins, ets.

The biggest issue is that the border between language and dialect is not as
Cu begest ixw es cet cu bordu bitwin lengwidx en dalek es nat es
easily defined as people like to think. The Chinese dialects and Swiss German
isili difand es pipl lak tu cenk. Cu txanis daleks en swis dxurmun
are mostly incomprehensible to speakers of the standard variants and have a
ar mwsli inkumprihensibul tu spikas uv cu stendurd veriunts en hev u
number of very different grammatical constraints (eg. Swiss German has only
numbu uv veri defren gremetikul kunstrints (e.g. swis dxurmun hes wnli
two tenses, different conjugations of verbs, and uses only the nominative and
tw tensis, defren kundxugixuns uv vurbs, en iwsis wnli cu namnutiv en
dative cases for nouns and articles with the dative being rarely used even
ditev kises for nans en artikuls wic cu ditev biing rerli iwst ivn
then) but are still considered "dialects". The old saying about languages being
cen) but ar stel kunsedurd "daleks". Ci wl siin ubat lengwidxis biing
dialects with armies and navies might be the biggest support for this American
daleks wec armis en nivis mat bi cu begest suport for ces umurkun
language being a language rather than a dialect. I'd expect it would worsen
lengwedx biing u lengwidx racu cen u dalek. Ad ikspekt it wwd wursn
the linguistic divide between the US and England, though Canadians closer to
cu lengwistik divad bitwin ci Iwes en Inglun, cw kunidxuns klwsa tu
the border would probably be able to understand both almost equally well in
cu bordur wwd prabli bi ibul tu undursten bwc almws ikwuli wel in
spoken conversation.
spwkn kunvursixn.
Ow. I'd forgotten how utterly different Franklin's invented spelling was from traditional roman alphabet conventions. That's kind of a harsh reminder. :p
 
Ow. I'd forgotten how utterly different Franklin's invented spelling was from traditional roman alphabet conventions. That's kind of a harsh reminder. :p
No, that was not Franklin's spelling. I just made an on-the-spot romanisation of some kind of monophthongal American rural pronunciation, but any such would of course be fairly close to Franklin's, although I reckon mine is way more extreme in what it depicts. (I made a number of misspellings as well, unfortunately, but that is expected when one writes nonstandard.)
 
This is a very fascinating discussion. In many ways, a far greater difference between American English and British English is not inconceivable. Radical spelling reform ultimately seems the only plausible way to go, possibly combined with the use of lots and lots of loanwords from other languages. You need to get the “altered” American version of English well-established before globalization sets in.

That said, I find the spelling reforms suggested by Franklin et al that are referred to in this thread to be… really weird. Allow me to try my hand at my own version of phonetic English. For that purpose, I will follow the awesome example of Jurgen Wullenwever, and “translate” the earlier post by Jord839. (Which was a very sensible post to begin with, and one I very much agree with.)

Since English is, like many languages, very inconsistend in the way certain characters (or combinations thereof) are to be pronounced, I have sought to standardize pronounciation somewhat. As such:

1. “I” is always pronounced like “i” in “brick”.

2. “Ai” is always pronounced like “i” in “like”.

3. “Ay” is always pronounced like “a” in “hate”.

4. “O” is always pronounced like “o” in “rock”.

5. “Oo” is always pronounced like “o” in “no” or “oa” in “road”.

6. “Au” is always pronounced like “ou” in “sound”.

7. “Ou” is always pronounced like “ou” in “would” or “oo” in “cool”.

8. “U” is always pronounced like “u” in “blur” or “bus”.

9. “Ee” is always pronounced like “ee” in “bleed” or “y” in “generally”.

10. “Ow” is always pronounced like “augh” in “taught”.


…therefore, just as an example, the word “boot” would not refer to, nor be be pronounced like, the existing English word for a thing you put on your foot. It would instead refer to, and be pronounced like, the existing word “boat”.

The existing woord “boot” would be written as “bout” (and “foot,” for that matter, as “fout”), whereas the existing word “bout” would be written as “baut”.

Got that? Good. (Or should I say… goud…?)


I don't know if you can get a full-fledged American language in the sense of a single mostly standard language across the country that has the minimum level of mutual comprehension (which does not mean no or even very little mutual comprehension. See pretty much every cognate in the Germanic and Latin families).

Ai doon’t noo if you ken get u foul-fledjd Emerikun lengwudg in the sens of u singul moostlee stendurd lengwudg ukros the kontree thet hes the minimum levul of mjoutsjual kompreehensjun (witsj dus not meen noo or eevun veree litul mjoutsjual kompreehensjun. See pritee mutsj evree kognayt in the Djurmenik end Letin femilees).

What I think is doable is a number of dialects and a diglossic situation. As someone else suggested, have spelling reform go through very early after the revolution and expand the embrace of multicultural/multilingual acceptance at an earlier time in the nation's history. I'm not sure the details of how you'd get it, but the most likely scenario would be the *American language that develops would act as a shared lingua franca or written variant to go with actual spoken dialects, which could vary widely. Think the Chinese languages or Switzerland's complete disconnect between "Schriifduutsch" ("Writing German"/High German) and the spoken Swiss German.

Wat ai think is douwubul is u numbur of daiulekts end u diglosik sitjouwasjun. Es somwan els sudjestud, hev speling reeform goo throu veree urlee eftur the revoloosjun end ekspend the embrays of multikultjural/multilingual ekseptens et un urleejur taim in the naysjun’s histuree. Ai’m not sjour of the deetayls of hau jou’d get it, but the mowst laiklee sunerjo woold bee thet the Emerikun lengwudg thet deevelups would ekt es u sher’d “lingua franca” or writun veriunt tou goo with eksjual spookun daiulekts, witsj kould veree waidlee. Think the Tsjainees lengwudjus or Switsurlend’s kompleet diskonekt butween “Schriifduutsch” ("Raitung Djurmun"/Hai Djurmun) and the spookun Swis Djurmun.

The basic picture I would imagine is this spelling-reformed English being the standard writing language and lingua franca, taught in schools, but in most conversational situations the people use either their other language (German, Spanish, French, Gaelic, etc.) or the local region's distinct dialect which has both organic changes from the standardized form and extensive influence from the local immigrant groups. I'd guess the local *American dialects would predominate in most cities just by virtue of necessity for a lingua franca, although rural towns might stick to almost exclusive use of the other languages. From there, the different dialects may create an unofficial written form for quirks in their dialects that are recognized if not used by the standard such as the recreation of a second person plural like OTL's y'all, you guys, youse, yinz, etc.

The baysik piksjur ai would imegun is this speling-reeformd Inglush beeung the stendurd raitung lengwudg end “lingua franca”, towt in skouls, but in moost konvursaysjunul sitjouwaysjuns the peepul jous aithur their othur langwudg (Djurmun, Spenusj, Frensj, Gaylik, ets.) or the Lookul reedjun’s distinkt daiulekt witsj hes booth orgenik tsjaynjus from the stendurdaizd form end ekstensiv inflouwens from the lookul imigrunt groups. Ai’d ges the lookul Emerikun daiulekts would preedominayt in moost sitees djust bai vurtjou of nesesitee for u “lingua franca”, olthoo rourul tauns mait stik tou almoost eksklousif jous of the othur lengwudgus. From ther, the difrunt daiulekts may kreejayt un unofisjul ritun form for kwurks in their daiulekts that are rekognaisd if not jousd bai the stendurd, sutsj es the reekreejaysjun of u sekund pursun plourul laik OTL’s j’al, jou gais, jous, jinz, ets.

The biggest issue is that the border between language and dialect is not as easily defined as people like to think. The Chinese dialects and Swiss German are mostly incomprehensible to speakers of the standard variants and have a number of very different grammatical constraints (eg. Swiss German has only two tenses, different conjugations of verbs, and uses only the nominative and dative cases for nouns and articles with the dative being rarely used even then) but are still considered "dialects". The old saying about languages being dialects with armies and navies might be the biggest support for this American language being a language rather than a dialect. I'd expect it would worsen the linguistic divide between the US and England, though Canadians closer to the border would probably be able to understand both almost equally well in spoken conversation.

The bigust isjou is thet the bordur butween lengwudg end daiulekt is not es eesulee deefaind es peepul laik tou think. The Tsjainees daiulekts end Swis Djurmun ar moostlee inkomtreehensubul tou speekurs of the stendurd veriunts end hev u numbur of veree difrunt gremetikul konstraynts (e.g. Swis Djurmun hes oonlee tou tensus, difrunt kondjugaysjuns of vurbs, end jousus oonlee the nominutiv end daytiv kaysus for nauns end artikuls, with the dativ beeing rerlee jousd eevun then), but ar stil konsidurd “daiulekts”. Thee old sayung ubaut lengwudgus beeing daiulekts with armees end nayvees mait bee the bigust suport for this Emerikun langwudg beeing u langwudg rethur then u daiulekt. Ai’d ekspekt it would wursun the lingwistuk deevaid butween the US end Inlund, thow Kenaydjuns klowsur tou the bordur would probublee bee aybul tou undurstend booth eekwulee wel in spookun konvursaysjun.


Of course, this is not what I'd ever expect an "American language" to look like. I just couldn't resist giving the whole phonetic spelling a try. Since I came up with it on the spot, it certainly has major defects. For example, the words "vary" and "very" (both used in the text) both end up spelled as "veree". (One way to deal with this would be to stop using the world "vary" altogether, and use "variate", or rather "verjayt", instead.) Similarly, "two" and "to" both become "tou". (A possible solution would be to start pronouncing the "w" in "two" again, as is still done in Dutch [twee] and German [zwei]; that would make it "twou".)
 
Last edited:
Since I came up with it on the spot, it certainly has major defects. For example, the words "vary" and "very" (both used in the text) both end up spelled as "veree". (One way to deal with this would be to stop using the world "vary" altogether, and use "variate", or rather "verjayt", instead.) Similarly, "two" and "to" both become "tou". (A possible solution would be to start pronouncing the "w" in "two" again, as is still done in Dutch [twee] and German [zwei]; that would make it "twou".)

Or prehaps just shrug and accept that the same word can mean different things depending on usage. Homonyms allready exist to a certain degree, in most (all?) languages ... prime contender for most different meanings for the same word in english is probably Bow
 
Or prehaps just shrug and accept that the same word can mean different things depending on usage. Homonyms allready exist to a certain degree, in most (all?) languages ... prime contender for most different meanings for the same word in english is probably Bow

You are quite right, of course. Though we must keep in mind that a phonetic spelling is automatically going to spell things the same if they sound the same. That will certainly increase the frequency of homonyms.

It occurs to me that in English, one might have to differentiate between "a" as in "can" and "e" as in "end". (The first is formed in the back of the mouth, the second in the front of the mouth.)

Possible solution:

- "e" always prounounced like "e" in "end".

- "a" always prounounced like "a" in "dark".

- "ae" always pronounced like "a" in "can".

That should reduce the number of homonyms to manageble proportions. :)
 
7. “Ou” is always pronounced like “ou” in “would” or “oo” in “cool”.

Just to highlight that this still runs into dialect issues and regional changes - I pronounce "would" and "cool" with completely different vowels
 
Hi, I like lurking, but since we just arrived at my favourite pasttime - reforming spelling of the languages I speak - I can't help myself, but add my ideas.
Generally, when I'm thinking about reforming spellings, my rules are:
-Get rid of silent letters
-Keep old spelling intact, as far as possible
-vowels should be standardised (having 10 different spellings for onw vowel is insane. It might be acceptable, if you want to avoid some homophone situations, or similar reasons)

Such rules work in German, which already has a spelling that is fairly phonemic, and French, which has a needlessly complicated spelling, but still one which corrsponds to the language (despite its endless silent letters).
In English, we need to completely overhaul the vowel system. Since we can't have a phonetic spelling, su to various varieties, we'll have a phonemic spelling, which hopefully incorporates some of the larger differences between the standard varieties.
Anyway, here are my ideas and an example:

/iː/ <ii>; street -> striit; sea -> sii
/ɪ/ <i>; in -> in; this -> dhis
/uː/ <uu>; doom -> duum
/ʊ/ <u>; look -> luk
/ɑː/ <aa>; palm -> paam
/æ/ <a>; bat -> bat
/ʌ/ <a> with double consonant after it; but -> batt
/e/ <e>; bet -> bet
/ɔː/ <oo>; thought -> thoot
Brit: /ɒ/ Am: /ɑ/ <o>; hot -> hot
Brit: /ɑː/ Am: /æ/ <ah>; dance -> dahns
/ɜ˞/ (in non-rhotic varieties, the 'r's remain unpronounced, but still written) <er>; worker -> werker
/ə˞/ <er> but unstressed
/ə/ gets no own letter. Unstressed letters are pronounced as schwa and therefore some old spelling can be retained
/aɪ/ <ay>; like -> layk; night -> nayt
/eɪ/ <ey>; break -> breyk; face -> feis
/ɔʊ/ or /əʊ/ <ow>; know -> now; no -> nou; show -> show
/ɔɪ/ <oy>; joy -> joy
/aʊ/ <aw>; house -> haws

Also, i though about consistently writing the strong forms, even though they're not pronounced (the difference between <of> strong: /ɔf/ weak: /əv/ )

I'm also in favour of capitalisation of nouns like in German. I think English spelling would really get something out of that.

And now two excerpts from The Great Gatsby:

Evri Wann sasspects himself of at liist wann of dhe cardinal Verchuuz, and dhis iz mayn: Ay am one of dhe fyu onest Piipel dhat Ay hav ever nown.

An Instinct toward hiz fyucher Gloori had led him, samm Mannths bifor, to dhe smool lutheran Colej of St Olaf's in saddhern Minesowta. Hi steyd dher tuu Wiiks, dismeyd at its ferowshus Indiferens tu dhe Drammz of hiz Destini, tu Destini itself, and dispayzing dhe Janiter'z Werk widh wich hi was tu pey hiz Wey thru.

Just my ideas. And now I'm back to the shadows :)
 
One of the problems of a spelling reform for English of any variety is that the dialects already have a lot of diversity phonemically, especially in vowels. There's no single reform that would be accurate for all dialects, even in the part of the colonies that would become the OTL US
 
A reformed spelling that is based on any dialect of English would be more phonemic for most dialects, so one does not need to get hung up on details. The current spelling with all its oddities work, so why should not a better one do so as well?

In this case, we have the objective of making American different from English, so there are fewer dialects to consider than if we should reform all varieties of English.
 
furthermore ... Standardized Languages are relatively new, previously each and every village and region had their only dialect ... the Standard is 'merely' the officially pushed language, so if say a spelling reform pushes say the English used in Maryland, then that would slowly but surely become the standard of which everyone else is either speaking, or speaking a dialect of
 
Top