Potential English Language Differences

Personally, I enjoy etymology, and like it when languages like English and French preserve spellings that reveal the word's origins. To me, a lot would be lost if we were to adopt purely phonetic spelling. Whenever I see attempts at rendering English purely phonetic, it looks hideous.

Yes, English spelling/pronunciation can be challenging for non-natives (and sometimes natives), but all languages have their crosses to bear.

It only looks "hideous" because we have been taught to think of it as completely improper.

The only thing that would be lost is the difficulty of learning how to spell properly (and this counts for native speakers as well).

And it's not like there won't be old dictionaries and books to give a glimpse of what spelling used to be.
 
Personally, I enjoy etymology, and like it when languages like English and French preserve spellings that reveal the word's origins. To me, a lot would be lost if we were to adopt purely phonetic spelling. Whenever I see attempts at rendering English purely phonetic, it looks hideous.

Yes, English spelling/pronunciation can be challenging for non-natives (and sometimes natives), but all languages have their crosses to bear.

No, actually the spellings often obscure etymology. For example, the words rain, day, and nail used to have Gs that vocalized and turned into Is in Late Old English. In contrast, Latinate words with silent Gs haven't pronounced these Gs for longer, going back to Vulgar Latin or shortly after. To say nothing of various silent letters that have no etymological reason to be there, like the s in island.
 
No, actually the spellings often obscure etymology. For example, the words rain, day, and nail used to have Gs that vocalized and turned into Is in Late Old English. In contrast, Latinate words with silent Gs haven't pronounced these Gs for longer, going back to Vulgar Latin or shortly after. To say nothing of various silent letters that have no etymological reason to be there, like the s in island.

True - English spelling is a mixture of a lot of things. But to adopt a purely phonetic spelling would obscure far more of its etymology.

It only looks "hideous" because we have been taught to think of it as completely improper.

The only thing that would be lost is the difficulty of learning how to spell properly (and this counts for native speakers as well).

And it's not like there won't be old dictionaries and books to give a glimpse of what spelling used to be.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I prefer to keep English spelling alive, not buried in old dictionaries. I like its quirks.

U r free 2 uz uthur spelling formz if thatz what u prefur.
 
Last edited:
True - English spelling is a mixture of a lot of things. But to adopt a purely phonetic spelling would obscure far more of its etymology.



We'll have to agree to disagree.

I prefer to keep English spelling alive, not buried in old dictionaries. I like its quirks.

U r free 2 uz uthur spelling formz if thatz what u prefur.

And what purpose does preserving entomology serve that makes a switch to phonetic spelling (combined with an alphabet reform, English sorely needs that too) a bad idea?

You also didn't type it phonetically. The phonetic version is: Yu ar fri tu yuz ədhər speliŋ formz If dhaetz wət yu prəfər.

That was the amercian version, here is the British: Yu a fri tu yuz ədhə spelIn fo'mz If dhatz wət yu prəfə.
 
And what purpose does preserving entomology serve that makes a switch to phonetic spelling (combined with an alphabet reform, English sorely needs that too) a bad idea?

Not sure what the study of insects matters here. ;)

I am arguing for the status quo. If you don't value historic/etymological spelling, that's fine, but you are calling for hundreds of millions of people to have to re-learn how to read and write English words. The burden of proof that this is "sorely needed" is on your end.

It's true that some schoolchildren have struggles with spelling, but most manage to overcome it. All of the self-proclaimed "poor spellers" that I know, as an adult, do in fact spell the vast majority of words correctly. When they do make mistakes it's generally along the lines of inverting the occasional pair of letters, or getting homonyms confused, neither of which normally interferes with understanding. With the widespread use of spelling checkers nowadays, this is largely a moot point anyway.

That was the amercian version, here is the British: Yu a fri tu yuz ədhə spelIn fo'mz If dhatz wət yu prəfə.

You mean, that is an American version and a British version. Neither country is close to being uniform in terms of its English pronunciation, and any "phonetic" respelling will only work for certain dialects.

It's best to accept that English has become like Chinese, where there is a written form that more or less everyone understands, while the spoken forms are all over the place.
 
Last edited:
Top