Sporočila: 62
Jezik: English
darkweasel (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 11:36:08
Bemused:English spelling has been changed by decree.This is not a spelling change, but a change of the whole word.
I remember when the word inflammable was changed to flammable in order to remove potentially dangerous misunderstanding.
naamatt (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 12:30:59
vejktoro (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 12:39:00
Bemused:If ya ever get a chance, go to St. Brides, Newfoundland.
As for which dialect or accent to base a phonetic spelling on, I would vote for the accent of County Cork in Ireland, it is very pleasing to the ear and sounds almost as though a person is singing as they speak.
Before someone accuses me of bias, I am not Irish, and I am not connected in any way with the Irish. However I have mixed with people from many places and have heard accents from many places.
Absolutely gorgeous dialect.
Not sure it could ever be writ. Ya'd have to paint a picture or something.
Mustelvulpo (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 12:58:12
Bemused:English spelling has been changed by decree.Not really. "Inflammable" is still a valid word, it wasn't removed from the vocabulary. The main problem was that, although both words have the same meaning- combustible, many people mistakenly took the them to be opposites and believed that "inflammable" was a synonym for "fireproof." (consider "invisible") Some manufactures of combustible products chose the word "flammable" for their warnings, others chose "inflammable, " adding to the confusion. In the interest of public safety, it was decided (and made a law in many places) that material capable of bursting into flames would be labeled only as "flammable" and "inflammable" would no longer be be used.
I remember when the word inflammable was changed to flammable in order to remove potentially dangerous misunderstanding.
marcuscf (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 17:25:18
jchthys:there is the very real problem of regional variants.Is there a variant where "tough", "though" and "through" rhyme?
Fenris_kcf (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 18:33:35
I think "slough" is my favorite one.
BenjamenoPoeto (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 19:29:27
naamatt:I voted no, since I think it'll make the English language soulless. My English isn't that well; I'm not a native speaker and I'm sure it would have been much easier for me to learn English if it was phonetic - but does it really worth it? Revising the English spelling would delete a whole history.I agree completely with you. The English language is a beautiful language and nothing about it needs to change. However, it's the absolute worst possible candidate for an international language, which is why I'm an Esperantist.
sudanglo
- Prikaži profil
- Država: Združeno kraljestvo Velike Britanije in Severne Irske
- Sporočila: 5731
sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 05. april 2012 19:32:15
It isn't fit for humans now,
John Betjeman
orthohawk (Prikaži profil) 02. september 2012 17:13:55
jchthys:Third, there is a deeper linguistic problem—that of morphemes versus phonemes. Take the word ‘telepathy’, for example. If this were spelt telépəθi (to adopt just one possible phonemic orthography), the connexion between it and téləpǽθık isn’t nearly as apparent—but the morphemes tele and path remain unchanged.I hear the same kind of thing about "their, there, and they're" and your and you're, etc. but i'm not sure if this is really a valid point. For example, consider the three "dherr"'s; when we SPEAK them we rely on context to tell us which one is meant.
Same way with talepathe and telapaethik: We just need to keep the etymology in mind, and anyway I don't think they'd be so different that nobody would fail to realize they were related. But all that being said, I think that loss of such "relational transparency" is a small price to pay for the gaining of the ability to read in a week rather than a year or two.
orthohawk (Prikaži profil) 02. september 2012 17:22:33
naamatt:I voted no, since I think it'll make the English language soulless. My English isn't that well; I'm not a native speaker and I'm sure it would have been much easier for me to learn English if it was phonetic - but does it really worth it? Revising the English spelling would delete a whole history.Rubbish. Did Turkish and Swahili and Malay "lose their souls" when they switched from the Arabic alphabet to the Latin onoe? Did the Central Asian ones when they switched to the Cyrillic? A language's soul is not in the spelling/alphabet.