Re: USAGE: No rants! (USAGE: di"f"thong)

> On 5/29/06, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> > Here's a poll:
> (P, Newton wrote:
> Ooh, polls are fun.
YES!!
>
> > 1) Do you think English spelling should be reformed?
> >
> >  [X] No, it should not be reformed
> >  [?] Yes, it should be reformed, but only slightly
> >  [ ] Yes, and we need a whole now spelling
> >  [ ] I don't care
>
Rather than should, I'd say _could_, but tinkering with one thing might open
the proverbial can of worms. Perhaps the best candidate for elimination is
"-gh", which happens informally already-- thru, thoro, -boro, nite, lite,
plow ~plough, bow ~bough; regularizing cough, tough, laugh, enough would be
a Good Thing....  but then site, mite, rite, bite et probably al. become
ambiguous.
>
> > 2a) Do you think English spelling is phonemic?
> >
> >  [ ] Yes
> >  [x] No
> >  [ ] I don't know
> >  [x] I don't care
> >
> > 2b) Do you think English spelling is phonetic?
> >
> >  [ ] Yes
> >  [x] No
> >  [ ] I don't know
> >  [ ] I don't care
>
P.Newton wrote, and I agree--
> It's also (partly) etymological, which is occasionally useful. (Though
> the usefulness of this device may be overstressed sometimes. But it is
> sometimes useful to see connections between e.g. photograph -
> photographic - photography, where the sound of the |a| is variously
> /A:/(?) - /&/ - /@/ in my 'lect.)
>
> > 3a) Do you think English spelling should be phonemic?
> >
> >  [ ] Yes
> >  [x] No
> >  [ ] I don't care
>
More like _probably_ not-- too many dialects, some of them major.
Theoretically I think a standard English Phonemic System could exist (it's
called "underlying forms" :-))) but then someone or other would have to
learn a lot of rules to get to their dialect.

> > 3b) Do you think English spelling should be phonetic?
> >
> >  [ ] Yes
> >  [x] No
> >  [ ] I don't care
> >
> > 4) Which spelling would you prefer for current 'laugh'?
> >
> >  [ ] laugh
> >  [x] laff
Would work, at least, for general American [læf] (ae lig)

> > 5) Who is the most important group of people you think of when
> >    proposing/rejecting a spelling reform?
> >
> >  [ ] People who can read already and just want to keep on reading
> >      undisturbed.  (This is probably the largest group of living
> >      people now).
Reform would be an absolute negative for readers.
> >
> >  [ ] L1 learners of English
Wasn't there an "Initial Teaching Alphabet"??? close to phonemic, but how
they related it to the spelling I don't know.

> >
> >  [X] L2 learners of English [This will be the largest group of people if
> > time is considered and we wait for 100 years.)
Yes, but it precludes that A LOT of books be reprinted.

> >
> > 6) How should one cope with different dialects?
> >
> >  [ ] By neglecting distinctions made in some dialects.
Perhaps

> >  [ ] By considering all distinctions made in dialects.
A total hash

> >  [ ] By using historical state of English and base the spelling on it.
a.k.a the present system. It's all the fault of those Irish monks back in
the Dark Ages :-)))))))))

> >  [x] By defining a standard dialect and use it regardless of variants.
OK, but lots of people are going to be unhappy.........

> >
> > 7) Have you thought about or (tried to) invent(ed) a spelling reform
> >    yourself?
> >
> >  [ ] Yes
> >  [x] No
> >
> > 8) Which other lang do think needs a spelling reform?
> >
no opinion on any of the candidates.

Replies