English spelling

More orthography than spelling, but we have 3 effectively useless letters (c, q, x) and 3 sounds that don't have single letters to signify them (ch, th, sh). I propose using those letters to signify those sounds and using phonetic substitutes (k/s, kw, ks/z) to replace their current usages.

Yeah I realized it's my dialect, I'm from Minnesota

I think the vowels are the real problem. We have 12 distinct sounds more or less and all sorts of inconsistent ways to spell them

True. Harder to standardise across all English speakers though since vowels are where we differ most.

>bad dragon

Attached: 1554712956927.gif (200x153, 2.48M)

Even so there are mostly consistencies. We might all pronounce "her" and "girl" differently depending on accent, but they always rhyme.

In my case "bad" and "drag" don't rhyme but if there's already a standard I'd go with that

Yes. Use diacritics or invent new letters, but do something for your ugly language where one letter can have dozens of different sounds and we have to guess how to pronounce your shit.

Its very simpl, jast stablish fixed vowel valius laik in german. Acschually, it mey luk somhaw similar tu other germanic langueigs orthography so no nid tu du bigger cheings. For exampl, if Ai tray tu rid inglish aut laud bat pronauncing it laik in spenish it kainda saunds laik german. For exampl "laight" bicoms somthing laik "licht" and sou on

Consonants, on the other said, don't sim tu bi so affected bay saund irregularitis

using IPA

>nid
>rid

This is no better than what we have. You can be more consistent

Here's the problem:

coat
cut
curt
cot
caught
cat
Kate
kite
kit
key
cook
kook
cow
coy

All of these are different vowels, at least according to dictionary standards (a lot of speakers pronounce cot/caught the same but a lot don't)

Any attempt at writing English phonetically looks absolutely awful. The way English is written currently, as much as it often lacks sense, is rather pleasing to look at in my opinion.

There are patterns that can be standahrdized. We can keep the aidia that things like dubbling of consonents ahfects vowel prohnownciation. The hundred or so most commun wirds and suffixes can keep their old spelling. It still looks like shit at first but it woodn't be so bad

Wj kůd bjgin baj juziŋ süm letrz früm ðj Öld Iŋgliš ælfabet ðæt hæv faln aůt üv jus ænd ædiŋ nu glifs ænd dajakritiks tu difrenčjejt mör saůnds wiþ prjsiʒn. Silabik kansonnts kæn bj reprjzented wiþaůt æn atačd vaůl æz wel. Ðer iz also no njd för ðj letrz c, q, y, ænd x, nör dübld kansonnts. Üv körs ðjs lůks priti kamplikejtd ænd stupid.

The question is really, what written language would you like written English to look like? It could be done with Old English/Icelandic characters, which are well suited for English phonetics. But you could also use the more prevalent German system with its digraphs for fricatives and dipthongs. Polish digraphs or Slavic monographs like š and ž could also be applied. All depends aesthetic preference.

>Do you think English spelling should be reformed?
Yes, I do
if it's possible

>How would you do it?
I wish to change spellings to ones similar to pronounces
I can't remember English pronounces (´･ω･`)

ew

иyc cиpилик cкpипт фop ти инглиш лaнгидж

Dragon is not pronounced that way.

Hungarian has like 15 written vowels, we can do it too.

>laynguage
*laynguaj

Bring back þ, ð, ʒ, and ŋ.

Standardize the grammar first. Remove all exceptions and irregular forms. Standardize the spelling too. Fact: if your language can have spelling competitions, it is a shitty language.

That's not how you pronounce it. It's more like layngwij.

юз киpилик cкpипт фop вэ инглиш лaнгpидж
fixed

Cyrillic is pronounced with an s sound at the beginning, not a k sound.

ايڠليش شولد بي ريتن ويت ا موديفايد ءربيك سكريڤت

> ڠ
Nah

انفورتوناتلي دير ءيس نو ng ساون ءين ءربيك سو ا نيو ليتير ءيس نيديد

yeah what language is that

بيسد

Disgusting.

ءيتس ءيڠليش

Add some more vowels. Bring back þorn and eð. Reform words of Germanic origin to match pronunciation. Map words of French origin to Modern French conventions, words directly from Latin to Standard Italian conventions and Greek works to Modern Greek romanisation conventions.

I would expect it to look like a mix between Dutch, Icelandic and Danish. The modern Frisian languages are a sort of window into what English could have been today.

>Bring back þorn and eð.
Eʒ and eŋ too!

*længwidž

Bring back þ and ð
Also make everything written like it's spoken

>Ðer iz also no njd för ðj letrz c, q, y, ænd x
c was the original k in English so I'd swap all of those out. Removing c also makes your use of č strange.
y as a vowel is also an option.

Well, more like introduce, but yeah.
Not sure of a good solution for most of the "h" digraphs, ch, sh, gh, wh. You'd want them to make sense but you wouldn't want to lose too much of etymological content at the same time.

C can make "ts" sound

Less so than you'd think considering at least a couple of those are usually just diphthongs.

Why would I not just write "ts" in the reformed English case?

2 letters instead of 1 is gay

I think I can never pronounce the vowel bad correctly, I promise it like red cherry

True, but then you'd be on a hunt for every single consonant cluster in English and then making new letters for each. I'm not up for that challenge yet.

Anglos don't have the ц sound. They literally pronounce it ts, do it should stay that way.

Ai propouz jū model it āfter Latvian

Only kite, cow, coy are real diphthongs in that list. And in any case they are treated on equal terms with the other vowels in our current spelling so we have to sort them all out together

gh is silent and wh is just pronounced as a w.
sh and ch can be ś and ć.

>Well, more like introduce, but yeah.
Well, it was in Scottish English...

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBASED

Vai dont ju đust vrajt de vej ju spik? Mač izijer.

Ezh and Yogh aren't the same thing though?

*Waj dont ju džust rajt đi wej ju spik? Mutš izijr.

You will never save your awful French creole. Just give up

Why should the Latin be Italianized?

Impressively autistic post, I rate 10/10

Бaжoль нa гyй :DDDDDD

Бидopac :DD

Attached: download (25).jpg (225x225, 8K)

It'z fējrlī īzī tū pu̇t tūgēđer ēj werkiŋ fōnētik rajtiŋ sistem for Iŋgliʃ wiþ đī amau̇nt uv Læten Jūnīkōd kējrekters avējlebl. Ōu̇ld Iŋgliʃ orþagrefī alrēdī pōzēsiz multipl glifs đæt ku̇d bī adæpted for ēj madern Iŋgliʃ fōnētik ælfabēt. Đīz inklūd đī friketiv kansōnents "Đ" ænd "Þ" ænd đī vau̇l "æ." "Ŋ," frum đī IPA iz alsō ēj gu̇d ʧojs. Aj þiŋk đī prinsepl uv "wun lēter tū wun sau̇nd iz ajdīel hīr.

what's with all the macrons?

the script was made by a greek missionary kirillos

I thought they looked nicer than other diacritics in this context. ī for /i/ and i for /J/, ē for /ɛ/ and e for /ə/, ū for /u/ u for /ʌ/ and u̇ for /ʊ/, ō for /o/ and o for /ɔ/, a for /ɑ/ and æ for /æ/

macrons are used to indicate a long vowel
to - tu
too - tū

kōt
kut
kert
kat
kat
kæt
kējt
kajt
kit
kī
ku̇k
kūk
kau̇
koj

Yeah I know, but the funny thing is, as kids, Americans are taught that /i/ is "long e," /u/ is "long o," and so on, so it kinda works out in its own stupid way. Plus other diacritics just look bad here

what do you call /i:/ and /u:/?

We don't have actual vowel length contrast

To lower the hurdle of L2 acquisition somewhat, but you can make a case for turning those into French equivalents too I guess.