As fun as these spelling reforms are to consider, there are issues I didn't touch on in the video: Sometimes an S is not an S, but should it remain one? Would the plural of "table" be "tablez" or "tablz" while hat and cat for example are still pluralized as "hats" and "cats"? Things also start to get messy with thorn and eth when both are acceptable pronounciations. For example, "paþs" and "paðz" are both acceptable ways to say the plural of "path". This starts to veer into the territory of accent/dialect differences where both cases are correct in their own right, and imposing a single spelling would not be universally helpful. On the topic of the Q, maybe it would just be easier to get rid of Q in favour of K and replace all "QU" with "KW". Would the other additions actually solve more problems or would they just be a bit annoying? I don't know :shrug: I'm sure there are many potential issues I haven't considered, but I think we should be open to discussing potential changes (not necessarily these ones), even if the new way might look weird at first.
At 1:44 you used to represent the solitary velar nasal in _“getting”_ and the velar nasal + voiced velar plosive in _”english”_. This means that in your system represents both /ŋ/ _and_ /ŋg/.
Plurality would just be the same word as singular. Try it out! Turns out the s for plural is wholly unnecessary. You can just start to use word that way and no matter how many time you'd be tempted to add an s it just isn't needed as the context is sufficient to know what the word mean. See 'deer' for how we already started to improve english this way. See 'fish' for where we are on the fence. Unless I said something like 'the dog ate the cat' and you'd be wondering if there were more than one of either I guess.... but that's just a setup for meme and joke material so call it a win.
extra changed that i think will make it better: Q actually makes a ''k'' sound since its paired with ''u'' so its sounds like ''kw'' so i can just remove the letter entirely and replace it with a K, this is better since it will also work with words borrowed from Arabic containing the letter question = kuesion queue = kiue queen = kueen X doesnt have its own sound, so i think lets make it used for the ''gh'' if it has a sound lets just add the letter A before the I in words like mIght, rIght, sIght i should also remove the silent G, so the words become maixt, raixt, saixt Lets also add the letter Æ for the ''Æ'' sound cat = cæt bat = bæt Lets also add the letter ''ø'' for the ''oo'' sound tooth = tøþ or tøð goose = gøes flood = flaød And lets add the letter ''Å'' for the ''U'' sounds in words like Under, Umbrella, so they become Ånder, Åmbrella
I independently came to a similar conclusion as you recently: * Added č, š, ž, and ŋ like you did, but left c and s alone. * Did the same q reform. * Used ť for /θ/ for consistency and to prevent visual ambiguity between Þþ and Pp, and Ðð with Dd; left the more common /ð/ alone as th. * Renamed w from "double-u" to "wynn", after Ƿ.
And let me suggest as well that we dont need to have two types of upper and lower case of alphabet. Only one functions 100% efficiently. You might ask what about the proper names. Well, perfect question- and the solution is also very easy. We can only agree on a symbol to come before the proper names showing them belong to a specific Pearson or a place. For instance: ~david moved from ~london to ~tokyo. See! The (~) symbole does the job perfectly. I am always advocating reforms on alphabet and languages.
Ðis is how mi spelling of Englisch wold loke. Right off ðe bat, I’m adding ð and þ as måst wold. I’m also adding ðe å character as seen in ðe continental Scandinavian languages. Ðe å wold måstly be ðere for ðe oh sound, as many of ðem originally were pronounced wiþ ðe ah-sound, but ðen it heightened and became ðe oh sound, and ðats hwi we have ðe oa. Ånoðer þing to add is ðat I am restoring ðe Germanic umlauts, ä ö and ü. Men = män, fell = fäll, goose = göse, health = hälþ, foot = föte, green = gröne, fill = füll, mice = müce, etc. And hwile ðe ä wold remain ðe e or i sound, ðe ö and ü wold be changed to ðeir original sound before ðey merged wiþ e and i. Ðe schort ö wold be pronounced [œ], hwile ðe längþen ö wold be produced [yː] instäd of [øː] because ðis version I made is a åne ðats applicable wiþ ðe great vowel schift. Same goes for ðe ü sound. Schort ü is [ʏ] hwile ðe long ü is [ɔʏ]. Anoðer change is ðat ðe sh-sound is back to being spelled as sch like in German, and Middle English. Ðe ou in should and could is just o now. De long u is now spelled eu, as ðe true long-u in Englisch is ðe ou as in out, hwitch you can alså spell as just a u like wiþ ðe long I. Ðe wh is now spelled hw like in old Englisch. For ðe ü, you can alså euse ðe y letter, but ðen you wold have to euse ðe j for ðe y sound.
Closer. Still though why eth and thorn? They are only slightly different so maybe a caret over one. C could replace K, then Č for ch as you said.. I learned Cyrillic when I was young and created a few alphabets over the years for fun. Phonetic alphabets are ideal. You pinned a pist about dialects though: someone suggesting to use tablz instead of tabls. I suppose with a North American audience we might as well start spelling bottle, bodil as well 😂
Yeah the wide variety of different pronounciations for what is generally understood as the same word is kind of the main issue when trying to retcon a more phonetic alphabet.
Cyrillic is so much better for custom english phonetic alphabets. So many weird letters and tricks you can pull. If you try hard with the latin alphabet, it ends up looking like vietnamese lol
wait, the two pronunciations of "the" is an accent difference? I'd always thought the pronunciation is based on whether it's followed by a vowel or not.
My problem with using ŋ is that i pronounce the k or g after it, making ŋ pointless for me since ng and nk tells me the n sound is different and what sound to make after it
I see a bit of nit picking about pronunciation and accent/dialect. Emphasizing a simplified and standardized utilitarian alphabet is more important-- to me. Controlling for all the ways in which anyone could, or would, pronounce a word seems AB impossible task.
true, if you change the alphabet you will need to fix the spelling of words, which seems simple enough but then you find more and more problems, though i think a simpler english alphabet (utilises more accent marks to distinguish different letter sounds) and a spelling reform would be amazing, the likelihood of that being feasible to do seems quite difficult though i definitely think it is possible just will take a lot of work.
