Til indholdet
Svare

10 Reasons why English is Weird

af Alkanadi, 30. apr. 2015

Meddelelser: 90

Sprog: English

robbkvasnak (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 00.54.09

I was born in the USA and so despite the fact that my first language is German, I am also a native [American] English speaker. I wrote my dissertation in English and taught TESOL at the university for 8 years. Despite that I often have to check spelling when writing English which is a pain and which is very time and thought consuming. When writing German or Esperanto or even Turkish which I do not speak fluently, I only very, very rarely have to check. And the problem with English is that it is getting worse and not better. American English spelling is, however, already an improvement over British English spelling - in fact, British English spelling sometimes just looks childish to me - I will never try to learn it and I am glad that I have no need for it.

eshapard (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 02.17.56

Tangi:
eshapard:Still, the Shaw alphabet is far better than what we have now.
Seriously? In what manner writing ʃ with a Shawian letter (which is not even in BMP) is better than writing it with two plain letters 'SH'?
sh isn't always ʃ. e.g. hogshead. Having separate symbols means you don't have to memorize exceptions.

How are s and h any plainer than any other letters? (And what's BMP?)

Tangi (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 02.23.40

eshapard:sh isn't always ʃ. e.g. hogshead. Having separate symbols means you don't have to memorize exceptions.
So what? How's on Earth 'hog's head' forming one word is an 'exception' to sh=ʃ?
How are s and h any plainer than any other letters? (And what's BMP?)
They are included in the standard Latin alphabet./See Wikipedia.

Tangi (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 02.30.06

robbkvasnak:Despite that I often have to check spelling when writing English which is a pain and which is very time and thought consuming.
You need to learn to read better.
I only very, very rarely have to check.
Because you've learned them from spelling.
As there are more non-native speakers who learn English visually than native ones, its orthography is a non-issue.

eshapard (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 02.41.00

Tangi:So what? How's on Earth 'hog's head' forming one word is an 'exception' to sh=ʃ?
Because it's pronounced like hogz-hed; not like hog-shed. The 'sh' in hogshead is not ʃ.
How are s and h any plainer than any other letters? (And what's BMP?)
They are included in the standard Latin alphabet./See Wikipedia.
I see, so you think the Shavian alphabet is not better because it's not based on latin characters. Some consider that a strength as it means a switch to Shavian would be a clean break from our old way of spelling... less temptation for old spellings to creep in. I'm pretty ambivalent about it.

Shavian is in unicode, btw. I don't see that as having anything to do with how good a writing system is. If you think having characters in plane 0 of unicode makes a writing system better, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. ridulo.gif

Switching to Shavian is in many ways impractical, but I see that as a separate matter.

orthohawk (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 02.50.49

eshapard:
Because it's pronounced like hogz-hed; not like hog-shed. The 'sh' in hogshead is not ʃ.
But if it were supposed to be pronounced "hog shed" the last half would be spelled "hed" and not "head."

eshapard (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 03.05.12

orthohawk:
eshapard:
Because it's pronounced like hogz-hed; not like hog-shed. The 'sh' in hogshead is not ʃ.
But if it were supposed to be pronounced "hog shed" the last half would be spelled "hed" and not "head."
Yes, there is a clue that this is an exception to the sh = ʃ rule. That doesn't make it any less of an exception.

Tangi (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 05.58.14

eshapard:this is an exception to the sh = ʃ rule.
S+H is different from SH, so I have no idea what are you trying to convey.

eshapard (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 06.58.38

Tangi:
eshapard:this is an exception to the sh = ʃ rule.
S+H is different from SH, so I have no idea what are you trying to convey.
Yes, the S+H sounds are different from the SH sound. But no one has been talking about changing the sounds of English (have they?); just the spelling. This whole exchange we've been having has been about an alternative alphabet.

The rule in English is that the letters sh when spelled together are pronounced as ʃ.

Hogshead is not spelled with an s+h (it's not spelled hogs+head), it is spelled with an sh. Yet this sh does not follow the pronunciation rule; it's an exception.

FYI, hogshead is not some word I made up; it's a unit of measurement. If you don't like it, there's mishap and mishandle; all words spelled with an sh and no sh sound.

Exceptions like these are why I think it's better to have a letter specifically for the ʃ sound (as Esperanto does -- ŝ), than to use a two-letter combination such as sh. Apparently Zamenhof felt the same way.

Isn't that exactly what you asked me about in the first place; why use one letter rather than two for this sound?

Tangi (Vise profilen) 5. jun. 2015 07.46.03

eshapard:Exceptions like these are why I think it's better to have a letter specifically for the ʃ sound
When you read the English words, you know whether they are compound. You separate the mis- prefix automatically and the written 'sh' disappears. Those letters are no longer 'written together', s goes to mis, and h to hap/handle.

Why not have a specific letter for it? It is not rational, as there is no English morpheme which has /-sh-/ sounds. Extra letter for sh is just superfluous.

Tilbage til start