Unifon

Speakers of Old English adopted and adapted the Latin Alphabet around
800 AD. For a brief moment in time, they had an adequate representation of the Anglo Saxon tongue as spoken in South West England. The Latin Sound-Symbol correspondences survived until around 1500 when the pronunciation of the long vowels moved away or diverged from their written representations. Such shifts are not that uncommon as languages evolve. To retain some semblance of the Latin alphabet, the spelling has to change. This is the way that many written languages have retained their continuity with the Latin alphabet. Present day English has a certain level of continuity with respect to the short vowels and the consonants, but the long [or free vowels] are out of sync.

Dan P. wrote: Great God almighty! Gus! You’ve .. said something I can relate to...I always found the notion of a ‘one-and-only-correct-spelling’ extremely patronising. As though bad spellers were always a bunch of stupid hill-billies. And there’s also a hell of a lot of discrimination going on against ‘bad’ spellers.

I believe teaching a more or less logical system can make up for this notion of one correct way to write a word. If the system is taught well, spelling will vary according to the individual’s pronunciation.

Dan,

Dan, it sounds like you are a free speller;-) [see www.freespeling.com].

There is a good reason for standardized spelling. Speed readers do not read sound sign by sound sign. They read word-signs and sometimes larger pattern regularities. There is no way to prevent heavy readers from adopting this superior strategy. It is simply more efficient.

The down side is that it takes a significant amount of time to memorize word-signs or lexical symbols. Basically you have to memorize the dictionary. In English you can say everything that can be said with about 1000 words. [see BASIC English]. More importantly most people use 1000 words to express themselves 90% of the time.

The whole language people had a point. Those who can read a string of meaning signs are more efficient readers than those who can only read by stringing together sound signs. One can go from a string of sound-signs to a word pronunciation to a

As Valerie pointed out, the only problem is that a strictly logographic approach requires you to look up or just guess the pronunciation and meaning of every unfamiliar word-sign. Children usually have a 4000 word speech vocabulary so if they had a way of sounding-out a word, they could probably identify it with a spoken word they already knew. Typically, when they are starting out, their vocabulary of sight words is less than 300. There are a lot of 18 year olds that are semi-literate because they were taught that reading is guessing the meaning of unknown words. They can read the 300 most frequent words as word-signs but they never progressed much beyond this 3rd grade reading level.

Sir James Pitman's hope was that by defining [i.t.a.] vowels in terms of key words that this could be avoided and that dialects would not show up in the spelling. a as in axe, o as in pot, ar as in car, etc.

The other alternative is to base spelling on a known dialect such as NBC English. This would be the standard spelling and pronunciation. This would not mean that everyone would read text the same as an NBC commentator. People would generally switch to their regional dialect. Occasionally they might spell in their native dialect but not too often. The bad spellings today are not related to dialect. They are related to such factors as (1) where to put in the silent letters (2) where to use double consonants and (3) not knowing how to sound spell. Perhaps over 40% of those who try to write have only a vague idea of what letters and combinations relate to which sounds. --Steve

There are two related but not identical goals for a new orthography
<or a way to represent spoken English.

<1. One goal is simply to get as close as Italian, about 85% phonemic
<compared to about 7% for present day written English. This would be
<close enough to accelerate the teaching of literacy.

<2. The other goal, articulated by you, is to get as close to 100%
<phonemic as possible.

<This goal may be counter productive for a standardized spelling of
<English. The more accurate your phonemic description, the larger
<the problem of having a workable pan-dialect solution.

<In the case of Bob's use of an accented o for oU. I don't see why
<this is anything more than a symbol change. It need not imply a
<different phonology. �Steve

DAN WROTE: Thanks for your comments. I agree with you, also that the ultimate representation of the o-diphthong is debateable. In order to put the sound in the right category, I do believe it has to be recognised a diphthong as well as the back equivalent of the front mid diphthong in <great>. In any new orthography they ought to be represented by similar symbols or related set of graphs. For example if you have <�> for /OU/ in �mode� = <m�d>, you ought to have <�> for /eI/ in �made� = <m�d>; or <moud>/<meid>; <moed>/<maed>; or a more tradspel <moad>/<maid> etc.

I still think you ought to know phonologically what exactly you are trying to represent with whatever letters.

DanSpl: Thanks for juur koments. Ai egrii widh ju, oolsou dhat dhi yltimet reprezenteisjen ov dhe ou-difthong iz dibeitebl. In ourder tu put dhe saund in dhe rait kategri, ai duu biliiv it haz tu bi rekegnaizd e difthong az wel az dhe bak ikwivelent ov dhe frynt mid difthong in <great>. In eni njuu orthogrefi dhei oot tu bi reprezentid bai simeler simblz or e rileitid set ov graafs. For igzaampl if ju hav <�> for /OU/ in �mode� = <m�d>, ju oot tu hav <�> for /eI/ in �made� = <m�d>; or <moud>/<meid>; <moed>/<maed>; or e mour tradspel <moad>/<maid> etc.

Ai stil think ju oot tu nou fonelodjikli whot igzaktli ju aar trajing tu reprezent widh whotever leterz.

DAN WROTE: David, I like your spelling system. It�s fun and uses letters from Old English, which was one of my special areas for a while. The only thing that looks weird to me is the letter �ash� in combination with another vowel letter. This would have been unusual in Old English as well. Takes some getting used to.

What are your rules for spelling /k/?

Otherwise I think it works well, and is fairly interdialectal.

UK

DAVESPL: Pliez c�ul St�la. Ask heur tu bring �iez �ings wi� heur from �e stour: Six spuuns ov fr�sh snow pies, faiv �ik sl�bs ov bluw chiez, �nd m�ybie a sn�k for heur br��er Bob. Wie �ulsow nied a sm�ul pl�stik sn�ik �nd a big toy frog for �e kids. Shie c�n scuup �iez �ings intu �rie r�d b�gs, �nd wie wil gow miet heur W�nsd�y �t �e tr�in st�ishion. M�ik shuur tu l�t heur now ��t from ��ir wie wil gow raund �e pier tu woch �e bouts. Perh�eps shie wud laik tu sie a horer film tun�ht.

US

Pliez c�ul St�la. �sk heur tu bring �iez �ings wi� heur fram �e stour: Six spuuns av fr�sh snow pies, faiv �ik sl�bs av bluw chiez, �nd m�ybie a sn�k for heur br��er Bab. Wie �ulsow nied a sm�ul pl�stik sn�ik �nd a big toy frag for �e kids. Shie c�n scuup �iez �ings intu �rie r�d b�gs, �nd wie wil gow miet heur W�nsd�y �t �e tr�in st�ishion. M�ik shur tu l�t heur now ��t from ��r wie wil gow raund �e pir tu wach �e bouts. Perh�eps shie wud laik tu sie a <hourer film tun�ht.

UK

W�nss �p�n a taim, �e biuutiful dohter ov a gr�it majishian wonted mour peurls tu put am�ng heur tr�zhers. "Luk �ruh �e c�nter ov �e muun w�n it is bluw," s�d heur m��er in anser tu heur cw�schion. <"Yuw miht faind yowr hart's dezaier." �e princ�ss laft, bec�uz shie <dauted �iez weurds. Inst�d, shie uezd heur im�jin�ishion, �nd muuvd <intu �e fotografy bizness, �nd tuk picchers ov �e muun in c�ler. "Ih <perciev moust ceurtenly ��t it is �ulmoust hoully wait," shie �oht. <Shie �ulsow faund ��t shie cud m�ik en�f m�ny in �it m�n�s tu bay heurs�lf tuw l�vly hiuuj niuw juuels tuw

<US

W�nss �pohn/�p�n a taim, �e biuutiful dohter av a gr�it majishian wanted mour peurls tu put am�ng heur tr�zhers. "Luk �ruh �e c�nter av �e muun wh�n it is bluw," s�d heur m��er in �nser tu heur cw�schion. "Yuw miht faind yuwr hart's dezaier." �e princess l�ft, bec�uz shie dauted �iez weurds. Inst�d, shie uezd heur <im�jin�ishion, �nd muuvd intu �e fotagrafy bizness, �nd tuk picchers av �e muun in c�ler. "Ih perciev moust ceurtenly ��t it is �ulmoust hoully whait," shie �oht. Shie �ulsow faund ��t shie cud m�ik en�f <m�ny in �it m�n�s tu bay heurs�lf tuw l�vly hiuuj nuw juuels tuw.

�nt�l �e l�it 19� s�ntery Ingglish �ulsow uezd �e veurb bie wi� �e
past/p�st partisipel ov (s�m? �ul?) intr�nsitiv veurbs tu fourm �e
peurfekt t�nsses.

�e progr�siv t�nss is a r�lativly riesent dev�lepment in Ingglish,
from abaut �e taim ov �e raiter J�in Austen. ��ir is now progr�ssiv
t�nss in Sh�ikspier, for ex�mpel/ex�empel.

<��t �e progr�siv t�nss �nterd �e spouken l�ngwij long befour �e <riten l�ngwij is �ndautedly truw, �nd in s�nss ��ir h�v bien <tr�isses ov it sinss Ould Ingglish taims. M�ny konsider �e pr�zent <partisipel (-ende) in �e Ould Ingglish and Midel Ingglish pieriods <wos uezd mour �z �n �jektiv ��n �z a veurb �ow it's probably a <spliting h�irs des�shion. �e develepment tu a veurbel t�nss probably <h�s v�irius soursses. �e meurjer ov �e pr�zent partisipel (ende) �nd <noun s�fix (ing). �e loss ov pr�pozishion on in fr�izes laik 'Ih �m <on h�nting' -Ih �m a-h�nting - Ih �m h�nting. Haw m�ch influ�nss <British h�d Ih down't now.

�e progr�siv t�nss siems tu h�v a str�inj distribiuushion in Indo-
Ueropiean l�ngwijes. It's pr�zent in Ingglish, b�t Ih'm not shuur if
in �ny ��er Jeurm�enik l�ngwij, in Sp�nish �nd Pourtugiez b�t not
Fr�nch.

D�ivid