To bring this thread back to Esperanto, which is the focus of lernu , one issue I have noticed over the years, especially among English speakers, is that various international auxiliary language learning documents indicate to pronounce 'x' as in word 'y'. I have noticed this even among supposed learning documents for Esperanto itself. However, word 'y' may be, often is, pronounced differently in different parts of the world in different dialects. Might this be similar with different forms of French in different parts of the world (say Montreal versus Paris, Lyon, Brussels, or Geneva)?

Yes, English is "weird" with respect to its orthography, but for that very reason, as well as with other languages which have varying dialectal pronunciations, educational materials must be carefully targeted to their audiences. An Esperanto learning book for, say, British speakers, may not be fully satisfactory for Canadian / American speakers who speak a slightly varying dialect.

Tempodivalse:

Alkanadi:And don't forget: 'I' before 'E' except after 'C' unless the word is "weird".

Or: receive, perceive, deceive, conceive ....

That's an unhelpful rule because there are almost more exceptions to it than regular words. I don't know why this is taught.

Huh? Receive, deceive, etc... How are these exceptions? "I before E, except after C" (or when sounded like A, as in "neighbor" and "weigh" ). I have found this rule very helpful; the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is "weird", and that is easy because "'weird' is weird".

Christa627:

Tempodivalse:

Alkanadi:And don't forget: 'I' before 'E' except after 'C' unless the word is "weird".

Or: receive, perceive, deceive, conceive ....

That's an unhelpful rule because there are almost more exceptions to it than regular words. I don't know why this is taught.

Huh? Receive, deceive, etc... How are these exceptions? "I before E, except after C" (or when sounded like A, as in "neighbor" and "weigh" ). I have found this rule very helpful; the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is "weird", and that is easy because "'weird' is weird".

My error! Don't know what I was thinking...

This whole thread is the number 1 reason why I started learning Esperanto.
It's so clear to us native speakers, but you could fill volumes with all the ridiculous rules and exceptions in the English language.

I think most people don't even know these rules like "I before E except after C". For me it's always what looks or sounds right.

Number one scare I think is that Esperanto spiral out of control into dialects and nobody will be speaking the same international language

Alkanadi:This stuff must drive English learners crazy

> 5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

> 6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert
> in the desert.

> 7) Since there is no time like the present,
> he though it was time to present the present.

YES it does. Especially the examples 5 and 6 and 7 are highly faulty. Why? Since they unnecessarily boast with the dick. Learn Esperanto ... oops ... does not solve the problem

JES tio veras. Precipe la ekzemploj 5 kaj 6 kaj 7 estas fusxegaj. Kial? Cxar ili sennecese fanfaronas per la kaco. Lernu Esperanton ... ups ... ne solvas la problemon

Tempodivalse:I think the changes would have to be more widespread, especially if one is aiming for more or less phonetic consistency ...

Consider the words "bother" and "father". The initial vowel sound is the same. If we want consistency, which spelling of that sound should take precedence? And what about "bather" and "lather", which all use different starting vowels?

There's probably a clever workaround for some of this that involves using doubled letters to express one vowel (like ae, oe, ue in German for ä, ö, ü). That way you could represent most of the 13 so vowels in English. The consonants are less of a problem.

Then the purist crowd will come into play and accuse you of "defacing" the language, despite the current orthography having almost no redeeming value to the learner, used only because of centuries of historical precedent.

(OK, so I'm projecting a bit in that last sentence. )

Doubled letters would be perfectly acceptable by me. Phonetic spelling would introduce more written ambiguity for many words, but if I can tell the difference in normal speech then writing should be no different. With computers this change will virtually have no effect on productivity, since older folks can just have autocorrect convert their "traditionally" spelled text. Children learning spelling would hardly be saddened by their loss. The hardest hit would be those who have spent a great deal of time learning spelling, but (insert canned phrase about omelets and broken eggs).

Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.

kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.

Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:

--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.

Some people would probably throw up a little when they read that. But, aesthetics are subjective.

People had the same problem with the 1918 reform of Russian, which removed five letters and modified multiple inflection endings that were no longer pronounced as written. But they got used to it, eventually, with only a few holdouts in the diaspora continuing to use izhitsas and yats and yers until the late 40s.

Tempodivalse:

kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.

Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:

--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.

No, no! MINE!!!!

Dher is no wa yuu wood be aybl to convins the grammur natseez to disaarm dhemselvz. Am I rite? Just rite down yur rispons heer.

orthohawk:

Tempodivalse:

kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.

Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:

--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.

No, no! MINE!!!!

Dher is no wa yuu wood be aybl to convins the grammur natseez to disaarm dhemselvz. Am I rite? Just rite down yur rispons heer.

Noo! Riit it liik dhis!

>Dher iz noo waa yuu wud bee aabl tuu kunvins dhu gramr notseez tuu disorm dhemselvz, dhoo.

Singgl vawel foor shoort sawnd, dubl vawel foor long; udhr sawndz ii kan eksplaan laatr.

Christa627:

orthohawk:

Tempodivalse:

kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.

Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:

--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.

No, no! MINE!!!!

Dher is no wa yuu wood be aybl to convins the grammur natseez to disaarm dhemselvz. Am I rite? Just rite down yur rispons heer.

Noo! Riit it liik dhis!

>Dher iz noo waa yuu wud bee aabl tuu kunvins dhu gramr notseez tuu disorm dhemselvz, dhoo.

Singgl vawel foor shoort sawnd, dubl vawel foor long; udhr sawndz ii kan eksplaan laatr.

Christa627 yuu get mii voot.
Just wun kwestion, whii dhe dubl g in singgl?