5 ms·
That falls apart in year 2, where it fails to recognize that in many dialects, "w" and "wh" are distinctly different. And that's the problem in general with rea
by stan_rogers 7y ago
That falls apart in year 2, where it fails to recognize that in many dialects, "w" and "wh" are distinctly different. And that's the problem in general with real proposals for English spelling reform: exactly whose English should we be spelling in? Consider, for example, the word laboratory. Labritori, leboratri, or maybe something else? You don't even need to cross the Atlantic to run into difficulty.
- jhanschoo 7y agoIt's possible to design an orthography that distinguishes between phonemes that most speakers distinguish, and the accept all variants (here e.g. lebretri, leboratri) as valid spellings. After all, we already have variant pronunciations reflected in spelling with some common words e.g. (dreamt, dreamed), (knelt, kneeled), (lit, lighted).
- corey_moncure 7y ago>"w" and "wh" are distinctly different Right. Rather than eliminating letters, I'd go the other direction, and add more letters to account for the the various digraphs.
- DonaldFisk 7y agoThat's right. However, some letters are silent, or words are homophones, in all accents of Standard English: rite, write, right, wright could all be spelt rite (and disambiguated by context); the k could be dropped from knight, knave, and knee; the 'b' from debt, doubt, and subtle, and the 'l' from could, should, and would. These changes would work for all accents. There are probably several hundred words whose spelling could be reformed.
- meruru 7y ago>exactly whose English should we be spelling in I know we'll never be able to choose one, but any dialect would be fine to standardize on.