What about the use of diacritics (as in most European languages) or Dutch orthography for English (such as the use of doubled vowels to represent long vowels)? It can help standardize pronunciation, though it would no longer resemble English.
Reasons Why English is Hard to Learn
- Thread starter Akela
- Start date
I did my best to minimize diacritics in my own reform schemes, because I believe using too many would make reform an even harder sell to the popular masses. Both of my proposed systems, though, permit the educational use of acute accents for primary stress and grave accents for secondary stress, sort of like macrons in Latin. I'm not familiar with Dutch spelling, but I have toyed with vowel doubling to mark length. Currently, in RLS for instance, the vowels use syllabication cues to determine their pronunciation. Basically...
'a' = /ʌ/ in closed syllables, /ɑː/ in open syllables
'e' = /ɛ/ in closed syllables, /eː/ or /eɪ/ in open syllables
'i' = /ɪ/ in closed syllables, /iː/ in open syllables
'o' = /ɒ/ in closed syllables, /oː/ or /oʊ/ in open syllables
'u' = /ʊ/ in closed syllables, /uː/ in open syllables
A single consonant between two vowels is automatically presumed to be the onset of the second syllable rather than the coda of the first. The first syllable can then be closed if necessary by doubling the consonant or, in some cases, adding a silent 'h' after the first vowel. To lengthen a vowel in syllabic contexts that would otherwise make it short, the following digraphs are usedː 'ao' for /ɑː/, 'ei' for /eː/ or /eɪ/, 'ie' for /iː/, 'ou' for /oː/ or /oʊ/, and 'uw' for /uː/. Two more digraphs fill in the two remaining gaps in the English vowel inventoryː 'aw' for /ɔː/ and 'aa' for /aː/, the latter of which is very rare in non-rhotic contexts.
Why not follow historical development and let e.g. a = /æ/ in closed syllables and a = [eı] in open ones?
This particular scheme was intended from the outset to restore a more Romanized, pre-GVS vowel configuration. My other proposal, REO 5.8, uses a more characteristically English vowel arrangement, with closed-syllable 'u' = /ʌ/, open-syllable 'u' = /juː/, closed-syllable 'a' = /æ/, and open-syllable 'i' = /aɪ/.
Pronunciation is weakly phonetic? (scratches his head)
I’m happy that you have a sense of humour.
It occurred to me that keeping i/y distinction in scientific terms of Greek origin must not be crucial, since English spelling merges ο and ω in o (anthrop-), ε, η, and even αι in e (helio-, pediatrics) with no consequences.
But these are international spellings, created specifically for the information they hold. And, these standards of Latinization were set by the Romans.
If we change pterodactyl to, say, teruddactull, then what is the point of a Greek coinage?
If we change pterodactyl to, say, teruddactull, then what is the point of a Greek coinage?
I just wanted to say that i/y distinction is not vital. Likewise, a hundred years ago Russian alphabet had a few extra letters that made the spelling more etymological: in particular, special letters were used in borrowings from Greek. Later on superfluous letters were abolished, and nothing happened. Thus, ‘pterodactil’ wouldn’t cause any harm in the same way as ‘anthropology’ (and perhaps ‘style’) don’t.
If you argue for Englishness, why stick to Roman customs?
I by no means argue for the approach of Gregorius nor for any phonetical spelling.
If you argue for Englishness, why stick to Roman customs?
I by no means argue for the approach of Gregorius nor for any phonetical spelling.
Simply because this this the convention adopted by English speakers, which makes it English. This convention makes up a large part of the reason why we bother with Greek loanwords - they will be understood by scientists (in the broad sense) everywhere, since this convention is tied more closely to the alphabet than to the language.