# Praktis betur speling heer



## Guest (Jan 13, 2012)

Wii duz Inglish speling hav tuu bee soo bad? If wee yuuz sum simpul nuu ruuls, wee kan spel funetiklee.

For vowuls:
a - "hat" (olsoo "car")
e - "met"
i - "sit"
o - "hot" (olsoo "all")
u - "hut"
aa - "face"
ee - "teen"
ii - "bike"
oo - "boat"
uu - "moon"

Plus:
uh - "book"

II hoop that cuvurs thu vowuls, but if Ii think uv mor that need tuu bee aded Ii wil duu soo.

For konsonants, just spel wut yuu heer. With wun udishun:
zh - "pleasure"
Olsoo, maabee it's best if wee continyuu tuu yuus "s" for plurahls eeven when it sownds liik "z", sins this iz u grumatikul kyuu.

Noot that "ch" "th" "sh" and "wh" ar stil uzd az beefor; but "ph" iz gon.

If yuu praktis reeding and riiting this waa it beekums naturul veree kwiklee. But at thu beegining yuu wil probublee maak lots uv mistaaks.

Hav fun!


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2012)

Bii thu waa, the reezun wii I thot uv this iz beekuz mii fiiv yeer old boy iz lurning tuu reed. If owr speling ruulz wur betur hee'd bee aabul tuu reed alredee.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Indeed, one of the mysteries of the English language is how words are spelled ... 

"would" is pronounced "wood" ... "cough" is pronounced "koff" but "rough" is pronounced "ruff". And how on earth did "two" get pronounced "too". 

Reely, theengz wood b eesyer if thay wur speld like thay sownd :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2012)

Not tuu bee tuu pedantik but this is fun:

Rilee, things wud bee eezeeur if thaa wur spelt liik thaa sownd.

Wun ishyuu uv cors iz that difrent peepul proonowns things difrentlee. But eeven with sum ahrbitraaree standurdiizaashun thu sistem wud bee much betur than owr kurent sistem.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Krummhorn said:


> Indeed, one of the mysteries of the English language is how words are spelled ...
> 
> "would" is pronounced "wood" ... "cough" is pronounced "koff" but "rough" is pronounced "ruff". And how on earth did "two" get pronounced "too".
> 
> Reely, theengz wood b eesyer if thay wur speld like thay sownd :lol:


If people from New York spelled things how they sounded to them, and people from Alabama spelled things how they sounded to them, and people from Liverpool spelled things how they sounded to them, and people from Glasgow spelled things how they sounded to them, and people who spoke English as a second language from Latin America or France or China all spelled things how they sounded to them, _no one_ would be able to understand the writing of anyone else.

Standardisation is good folks; and there's history buried in those funky spellings.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

English is indeed one of the weirdest languages when it comes to breaking our own spelling and phonetic rules.

I learned somewhere that technically, the word "often" should be pronounced as "offen," the t being silent. I had never known that, and now it feels wrong to say often, but offen sounds slangy? But technically that's suppose to be right somehow. The pronunciation of the t seems to be something originated for the sake of sounding more "civilized."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> English is indeed one of the weirdest languages when it comes to breaking our own spelling and phonetic rules.
> 
> I learned somewhere that technically, the word "often" should be pronounced as "offen," the t being silent. I had never known that, and now it feels wrong to say often, but offen sounds slangy? But technically that's suppose to be right somehow. The pronunciation of the t seems to be something originated for the sake of sounding more "civilized."


Hehehe, in the UK, "offen" is the most usual pronunciation, and if you say "often", it can sound like an affectation meant to make you sound posh.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Hehehe, in the UK, "offen" is the most usual pronunciation, and if you say "often", it can sound like an affectation meant to make you sound posh.


It's too late for me I guess.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2012)

Az yuu can see frum mii poosts, les than haf uv thu wurds in Inglish ar speld thu waa thaa sownd. Rathur than fiks thu problem, everii jeneraashun just pases thu buk tuu thu next jeneraashun. That's just u historii uv laaziines and eereesponsibilitee.

It duzn't hav tuu bee this waa. Bee thu chaanj! Start tudaa!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Standardisation is good folks;


Oonlee whin it maaks sens.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Klavierspieler said:


> Oonlee whin it maaks sens.


It always makes sense, it's just that some people can't be bothered to find where the sense comes from!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Ich weiß besser als die meisten Menschen, wo der Sinn kommt!


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2012)

Poledniitse - yuu mistaak thu konventshunol with thu korekt. Thaars nuthing siviliized or grand ubowt an arkaaik sistem that maaks noo sens but persists beekuz peepul ar tuu inflexibul tuu chaanj.

Keep in miind that thu peepul whuu deesiided on speling orijinolee wer praktiklee iliturit and surtanlee not kwalifiid to diktaat speling tuu ol fyuucher jeneraashuns.

Thaar ar betur waays tuu studee and preeserv historee than tuu chaan owrselvs tuu sensles konventshun.

Pee.Es. - Now Ii hav u problem - Ii kannot get this dam speling sistem owt uv mii hed. Ii'v ben thinking ubowt it al daa. And Ii stil kan't deesid if "all" shud bee "al" or "ahl" or "ol"!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BPS said:


> Poledniitse - yuu mistaak thu konventshunol with thu korekt. Thaars nuthing siviliized or grand ubowt an arkaaik sistem that maaks noo sens but persists beekuz peepul ar tuu inflexibul tuu chaanj.
> 
> Keep in miind that thu peepul whuu deesiided on speling orijinolee wer praktiklee iliturit and surtanlee not kwalifiid to diktaat speling tuu ol fyuucher jeneraashuns.
> 
> ...


There is no "correct"; it is all convention, but convention is what holds a language together. These words that we all use with each other _don't actually mean anything_! They're just strange symbols that correspond with strange vocal noises, and they all function only because each speaker of the language accepts conventional meanings.

With regards to spelling, at least in England, spelling _was_ much more flexible in the Anglo-Saxon period. People _did_ spell in accordance with their dialects and pronunciation because there was no force of standardisation in the country. However, with the increasing creation of books and increasing levels of literacy, it became apparent that standardisation would be a good thing because pronunciation-based spelling was untenable.

To spell words as they sound is as much an arbitrary convention as spelling words in line with their etymology. The advantage of etymological spelling is that it is grounded in an _unchanging_ history of the word. The reasons may not always be clear, but spend five minutes digging and an unusual spelling makes sense. With a pronunciation based system, the sounds of words do change across accents - _significantly_ so - and the sounds of words change over time even within a single given accent.

So, really, though it presents an initial obstacle to the lazy speaker, the current system of spelling has the advantage of staying the same no matter how accents change. Your alternative, if standardised, would become obsolete within a matter of years, or would have to be constantly changing in accordance with pronunciation, making slightly older texts illegible.

I know you're only playing, but people who genuinely argue this rile me.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Probably been posted before

spell chequer


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2012)

Poledniitse - it's hard tuu argyuu aa kownterfactuual, but I think yuu grooslee ooverestimaat thu problems uv a reeviisd sistem. Kleend up speling sistems seem tuu work wel for senturees baasd on exampuls liik Poolish. Alsoo thu Inglish uv toodaa is far mor homojenus than it was wen kurent speling wuz establishd. Noot alsoo that peepul whuu proonowns Inglish difrentlee duu soo in u faarlee konsistent manur, soo that eeven if thaa wur misproonownsing thu words, thaar speling wuhd often (posh!) bee korekt. Fiinalee, eeven if difrent speekurs spel things difrentlee, yuu wil probablee be aabul to understand them since yuu will bee aabul tuu heer in yor miind whut thaa ar riiting.

Ii alsoo think yuu ooverestimaat booth the los uv etimilojikal informaashun and thu valyuu uv that informaashun. Etimilojikal reelaashunships ar reetaand in spooken az wel az riten form. Az for the valyuu uv thu lost informaashun, what exactlee iz thu valyuu uv thu speling uv "one" "two" or "eight". And how much uv that informaashun wuhd bee lost wuns thu speling wuz "wun" tuu" and "aat". Oonlee triveea wuhd bee lost. Whuu kaars what tiipseturs thot three hundred yeers ugoo? In anee kaas, thoos whoo doo kaar can just studee thu old sistem.

Alsoo doon't underestimaat thu gaans uv a kleener sistem. Tuu much tiim is waasted on lurning speling - partikuularlee for peepul lurning Inglish az u sekond langwaj. Impruuvd speling ruuls wuhd maak Inglish mor aksesibul and thus mor worthee uv its status az u gloobul langwaj.


----------

