RiotNrrd:I don't even see any miles/kilometers combo-roadsigns any more like I used to back in the day.

I have found a few in New Hampshire, IIRC.

The population hated it so much that the law was eventually repealed and we went back to spelling it the way God intended.

Oh well, at least now we know whose fault it is...

The abundant irregularities of English annoy me quite often, but I wouldn't know how to start reforming it. It's not just the spelling, it's also the pronunciation and the general weirdness (why are there Latin or Greek plural rules floating around?).

I've heard good points against a reform; the first is that the written language is, in a way, uniting all those countries and territories whose accent or pronunciation might be mutually unintelligible. I tend to agree, however this of course can change. The tiny nation of Anglophilia might decide that by introducing a new spelling system alongside the traditional, children might learn more words in less time, and might have an advantage in learning other languages. There already are cases of two distinct writing systems for the same language, see Norway.

The second point is that if you introduced a new spelling system, you'd have to go back and learn the old one anyway to understand old books and writings. This is also true, but in a way this already happens. I am Italian and I can read and (mostly) understand without much pain my own language from the thirteen century; and I can generally guess correctly how it was pronounced. I have been told that it's not that easy with English.

All these points aside though, I sense that the main problem is cultural pride. I think that English native speakers, in general, do not feel that there is a problem, and while they profit of the current status of English as a world language, they still think of it as their own. They certainly won't change it if a foreigner tell them to do so. As RiotNrrd showed, they won't change it even if one of their own will tell them to do so.

There is a good chance that in a few years, English will be superseded, internationally, by Spanish or Chinese or Japanese; and while the problem, at least for the international level, will have mostly disappeared, ironically, this could make it easier for English to improve.

Just my € 0.02

English superseded?
Impossible - that is as likely as E-o becoming the international second language!

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying that there's a good chance.

Before ~1915 nobody would have ever thought that French was going to be supplanted by English (well, with the exception of England, perhaps).

mnlg:There is a good chance that in a few years, English will be superseded, internationally, by Spanish or Chinese or Japanese..

So far as I can tell, it is Chinese, Japanese and Spanish speakers who are doing their best to learn English. Thus the trend is in the opposite direction.

This thread reminds me of a very similar discussion that went on in the French forum at lernu. I saw many of the same arguments going around - French has complicated spelling and is not phonetic (though not to such an extent as English). The counter-arguments were very much the same, that French pronunciation is different around the world, and that written French provides the link between the different places that speak French.

Regarding regional pronunciation, I do not support regularization of pronunciation in national languages. I like the variety presented by regional pronunciations. Regional pronunciations are also a treasure trove for linguists who are studying the evolution of a language.

Regarding other languages that have spelling reforms, what you have to realize is that their changes are really minor in the grand scheme of things. German was already basically phonetic; they just decided to change a few spellings. The problem with English is that we would be building a brand new phonetic spelling system, from scratch. Norwegian did this, as someone already mentioned, and now they have two writing systems - the older one based on Danish, and one based on Norwegian pronunciation. These two systems are in use in parallel. I am sure that you have to learn both if you are Norwegian, and that each Norwegian feels more comfortable with one system or the other. It is not an easy situation, and they are only one country with a relatively small population. But the English-speaking world has far more speakers, is ruled by many governments, and has deep spelling irregularities. Writing English phonetically would essentially require re-working our alphabet. English is estimated to have between 40 and 50 phonemes (sounds), depending on who is counting. Italian has 27, German has 25. French has around 40, depending on who is counting. It is much harder to devise a phonetic writing system for so many phonemes, than it is to devise one for a language with very few.

So let's say we came up with a new English alphabet to accommodate all of these phonemes - we would then be in a position where you are required to learn both old and new systems (like Norwegian), or else you couldn't read old texts at all (like Turkish, which switched from Arabic to Latin script). Is this really an advantage?

I am personally happy with English spelling as it is. I like how you can see the origin of words by the spelling, and I feel like the soul of the language would be yanked out if you were to completely rework the spelling. And I don't think English should be the international language anyway, so I have to say that I don't care that much how hard it is for foreigners to learn it. Maybe if it were even harder, people would stop learning it and choose another "international language" that's easier to learn and phonetic? Hmmm...

erinja:I do not support regularization of pronunciation in national languages. I like the variety presented by regional pronunciations.

I cherish local languages and dialects; but they should go hand in hand with a common language, to be shared and used by all; we as Esperanto speakers should know that Technically this already exists, as someone pointed out; American English has a standard variation, used in the media and elsewhere, with the purpose of being more easily understood by as many people as possible. This standard variation is not strangling or jeopardizing the local speeches, though, right?

I am sure that you have to learn both if you are Norwegian

No. According to what I have been told, starting from grade school, every pupil picks their preferred (written!) language and from that moment on, that's what he or she will use. The other will become a secondary subject. However they are so close that every native speakers can understand both without too much effort. Actually if I remember correctly, in Norway you are taught in school according to your local dialect. University professors are allowed to teach in the local dialect if they want to. Local news (except in the Oslo area) are also broadcast in the local dialect. All of this would make Norwegian the common language of all, in a way. The national television does not use dialects, not because they are considered inadequate, but to avoid having to choose one.
(Norwegians are welcome to correct me in case of inaccuracies)

Writing English phonetically would essentially require re-working our alphabet.

Yes, and as said, it can have its advantages, even if only for international, or, let's say, "inter-community" usage.

Is this really an advantage?

We could ask the Turks.
The point is that it might be. Both systems can coexist.

And I don't think English should be the international language anyway, so I have to say that I don't care that much how hard it is for foreigners to learn it.

I tend to agree, but now that's what it is, and its spelling system is undoubtedly an obstacle in the way of learning it. Not necessarily for foreigners only.

I'm not saying I'm all for a reform, I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view it would make sense, and it could be useful. I'm not completely convinced by the counter-arguments. On the other hand, I am aware that the matter is only partially linguistic; there are political and cultural aspects that have a considerable weight and I find it highly unlikely that it will ever happen.

mnlg:

Erinja:Is this really an advantage?

We could ask the Turks.
The point is that it might be. Both systems can coexist.

Very true! That reminds me of the shock I had when I learnt that sanskrit doesn't have an attributed alphabet, but instead accepts many of them without really being too worried about the question.

On the other hand, I simply can't imagine a language like French being like that: the prononciation of certain words vary depending on what is surrounding that word, forcing either inconstant spelling depending on the words around (which historically wasn't the chosen option), or else irregularities between spelling and prononciation (French actually do also have our fair amount of them). What I'm coming at is that not any language could easily move towards a totally (or even mostly) regular spelling: other aspects of the language might end up suffering from the new rules and it might actually be easier to simply keep the old imperfect but widly known system in place instead of re-starting it all from scratch. Even in the impossible case where English would be moving towards a new alphabet altogether, I believe there is still a chance for this new system to be just as complicated as the previous one.

Just my 2 cents...

This standard variation is not strangling or jeopardizing the local speeches, though, right?

Erm, yes. Dialects are being flattened in just about every language, I believe. As a Scot, I can really hear the difference between how I speak and how my grandparents spoke. I've lost a lot of the distinctively Scots vocabulary and grammatical structures my grandparents used, and speak in a much more anglicised way.

I am sure that you have to learn both if you are Norwegian

No. According to what I have been told, starting from grade school, every pupil picks their preferred (written!) language and from that moment on, that's what he or she will use. The other will become a secondary subject. However they are so close that every native speakers can understand both without too much effort.

The 2 variants of written Norwegian are indeed very similar - if you know one, you can understand the other without difficulty. However, in Norwegian schools, pupils not only have to read both, but write both. They get one grade in their "main form" and one in their "side form", but both grades carry equal weight. (The 85% of Norwegian kids who have bokmål as their main form almost universally detest having to write the other form, nynorsk, with a consuming passion.)

My answer is yes (but it will not happen in a million years!)

I love the English language, but utilitarian its spelling is not.

Of course, studying a new language can make you see your "old" language in new ways, and one of the things that struck me when I started learning Esperanto was that I knew how to pronounce any Esperanto word the very first time I ever saw it.
With English, the spelling is not always reliable, and even if you sound it out correctly, you have to guess at where to put the emphasis.
I come across (English) words I know all the time but which I don't know how to pronounce because I've only read them, not heard them spoken.

Two early examples from childhood:
1. I used to pronounce "naive" as "knave."
2. I used to pronounce "horizon" with exactly the same emphasis as the first three syllables of "horizontal."

davidwelsh:

I am sure that you have to learn both if you are Norwegian

No. According to what I have been told, starting from grade school, every pupil picks their preferred (written!) language and from that moment on, that's what he or she will use. The other will become a secondary subject. However they are so close that every native speakers can understand both without too much effort.

The 2 variants of written Norwegian are indeed very similar - if you know one, you can understand the other without difficulty. However, in Norwegian schools, pupils not only have to read both, but write both. They get one grade in their "main form" and one in their "side form", but both grades carry equal weight. (The 85% of Norwegian kids who have bokmål as their main form almost universally detest having to write the other form, nynorsk, with a consuming passion.)

There is actually an ongoing discussion about this in Norway. A few days ago, people from my school were running around collecting signatures against the obligatory side form (in this case nynorsk).
I don't find it very problematic having to learn two written languages, nor do I think much about it. I almost never read nynorsk outside class anyway.
The two forms also have logical phonetics, because Norwegian (both forms) goes through writing reforms all the time (the last one was in 2005). When we adapt loan words, we always "norwegianize" them after they have been around for some time:
French "chauffeur" - Norwegian "sjåfør"
English "interview" - Norwegian "intervju"

I think English badly needs a spelling reform, but I doubt it will happen in the near future.