Re: English is a crazy language

On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 21:39, Danny Wier wrote:
> From: "Tristan" <zsau@...>
>
> > > Other first-stage reformed words, most of these involving removed silent
> > > "gh": fite, laff, ot or aut (ought), eit (eight), coff, troff, caut
> >
> > My opinion is that it should be <ait>. <ei> has too many readings to
> > reliably expect one, indeed, 'either' can be either /aiD@(r)/ or
> > /i:D@(r)/! Also, I (and the people on Aussie forums etc. with dodgy
> > spelling) would prefer to spell 'ought' as <ort> but I can see why that
> > wouldn't be a common feeling ;)
>
> Any possible influence by "arse" by chance? ;) What would a Scotsman say?
No, I think it's more because of the spelling as it already is, the
initial <o> makes it seem more like an <or> /O:/ than an <aw> /O:/ (not
that there's any difference. Of course, there's also the fact that
<aw>/<au> can be pronounced /Q/ ('Aussie', for example) whereas <orC>
(C=non vowel) can only be /O:/ and that <or> is the more common way of
spelling /O:/. (Note: observations may only apply to my dialect. Your
mileage (kilometrage?) may differ.)

> > > I'm thinking of some sort of diacritic like a macron over one word to
> > > distinguish it from the other homograph. I was taught phonics in first
> grade
> > > by using numbers over letters and letter groups, so that the first
> "wound"
> > > was "wou^1nd" and the second "wou^3nd".
> >
> > For some reason, I doubt (dout?) English speakers would take very well
> > to diacritics. Take a look at the way they've already been practically
> > abolished! (It is my role in this cafe to announce that Dvorak has a
> > fiancee.)
>
> Well congrats Dvorak! And you found another one, "dout" for "doubt". Maybe
> not diacritics, but maybe adding extra letters. But there we are back at the
> silent letter spelling problem again. What are we gonna do people?
Abolish individual spelling rules and let spellers work it out for
themeselves, I say.


--
Tristan

Reply