5 ms·

Thə prablem with a sistəmatic, fōnetic chānj in Inglish speling is that it rāsəs thə questyən of wat acsent tū fāvər. Fər an Əmerican en Ōhīō, this transcriptsh

Thə prablem with a sistəmatic, fōnetic chānj in Inglish speling is that it rāsəs thə questyən of wat acsent tū fāvər. Fər an Əmerican en Ōhīō, this transcriptshən prabablē māks səm sens, wuns yū get past thə shwa. I dout an Inglishman or ēvən ā Nū Yorkər wud fīnd it yusful.

Majestic121 4y ago
That is surprisingly easy to read, even though I'm not a native English speaker
- Claude_Shannon 4y ago
  Same
- posterboy 4y ago
  But this is not phonetic. The Is in "Inglish" are hardly the same in any dialect. And it doesn't solve the problem on the graphematic level. It ought to allow anyone to read the chosen dialect phonetically. But it suffers from an arbitrary choice of glyphs, so I have no idea how to pronounce eg. an (an actual problem I have pondered today is a-typical). Conversely, if the spelling ought to be predictable for language learners, you are probably better of learning Mandarin (^_^)
getoj 4y ago
Thr is anthr wy, whch ws dscvred ntrlly by early intrnt usrs: txt spk essntlly rduces englsh spllng to an abjad lk Arbc. Lk Arbc, Englsh is vry cnsnant hvy, and dialctl dffrnces are almst entrly vriashns n vwl qualty, so an abjad is the prfct wrtng systm fr us. The perfect English abjad would use diacritics to mark vowels and some clever way to identify syllable boundaries (so you can distinguish ideal from idyll). But alas, we’re probably stuck with an alphabetic script forever.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > ntrlly This one took a moment. (It's "naturally", not "neutrally" or "entirely".) The rest is surprisingly readable.
  - memling 4y ago
    Vowels were a later addition to many semitic languages as one example. Not sure that it would work so well in tonal or vowel-heavy languages but information is denser in consonants (no real surprise, I guess, given that they outnumber vowels).
    - rippercushions 4y ago
      Hawaiian has entered the chat
    - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
      Vowel signs, not vowels themselves.
skrause 4y ago
Spanish has as much accent variation as English and has managed to develop a reasonable spelling where you know how to pronounce a vast majority of words just by reading them. The spelling doesn't have to be phonetic, just consistent. It should work for English, too.
- jaza 4y ago
  Nope. Spanish dialects vary mainly by consonant sounds, for example, the lisped ("fervefa") vs non-lisped ("servesa") sound in words like "cerveza", and the standard ("yamas") vs Argentine ("shamas") sound in words like "llamas". The vowel sounds - "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u" - are extremely consistent throughout the Spanish speaking world.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  English has a larger vocabulary and no diacritics (that anyone bothers to use), leading to more homophones as a consequence. Different spellings help to disambiguate.
yosito 4y ago
As someone from Ohio, I can confirm.
ccheney 4y ago
"Thee proplem weth a systhemateck, fhoneteck chaigne en Englush speleeng es thet et raeses thee questeon uv wut aksent to faivor. Fer an Americon en Oheo, thees transkriptshon probubly maeks sum sens, wunce yu get paest thee skwaw. I daut an Engleshman or eaven a Nue Yorcer wud fynd et ueseful." please rewrite it but this time with a Southern drawl "Th' proplem weth a systh'mateck, fhoneteck chaigne en Aynglsh speln iz thayt et raeses th' questyun uv wut aksent ta fayver. Fer a Amur'can down yonder in Ohayo, thees transkripshun prahbly maeks sum sens, wunce y'all git past th' skwaw. Ah daut an Engleshman or ev'n a Nue Yorcer wud fynd et much ueseful." - GPT-4 / https://sharegpt.com/c/Q5DW1wg
euroderf 4y ago
(prioritizing few "unforced" spelling changes or accent marks) The problem with a sistematic, fonetic chainj in English spel'g is that it rases the question of wot axent to favor. For an American in Ohio, this transcription probably makes som sence, wonce yu get past the shwa. I dout an Englishman or even a Nu Yorker wùd fiynd it úsful.

Majestic121 4y ago

That is surprisingly easy to read, even though I'm not a native English speaker

Claude_Shannon 4y ago
Same
posterboy 4y ago
But this is not phonetic. The Is in "Inglish" are hardly the same in any dialect. And it doesn't solve the problem on the graphematic level. It ought to allow anyone to read the chosen dialect phonetically. But it suffers from an arbitrary choice of glyphs, so I have no idea how to pronounce eg. an (an actual problem I have pondered today is a-typical). Conversely, if the spelling ought to be predictable for language learners, you are probably better of learning Mandarin (^_^)

getoj 4y ago

Thr is anthr wy, whch ws dscvred ntrlly by early intrnt usrs: txt spk essntlly rduces englsh spllng to an abjad lk Arbc. Lk Arbc, Englsh is vry cnsnant hvy, and dialctl dffrnces are almst entrly vriashns n vwl qualty, so an abjad is the prfct wrtng systm fr us. The perfect English abjad would use diacritics to mark vowels and some clever way to identify syllable boundaries (so you can distinguish ideal from idyll). But alas, we’re probably stuck with an alphabetic script forever.

duskwuff 4y ago
> ntrlly This one took a moment. (It's "naturally", not "neutrally" or "entirely".) The rest is surprisingly readable.
- memling 4y ago
  Vowels were a later addition to many semitic languages as one example. Not sure that it would work so well in tonal or vowel-heavy languages but information is denser in consonants (no real surprise, I guess, given that they outnumber vowels).
  - rippercushions 4y ago
    Hawaiian has entered the chat
  - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
    Vowel signs, not vowels themselves.

skrause 4y ago

Spanish has as much accent variation as English and has managed to develop a reasonable spelling where you know how to pronounce a vast majority of words just by reading them. The spelling doesn't have to be phonetic, just consistent. It should work for English, too.

jaza 4y ago
Nope. Spanish dialects vary mainly by consonant sounds, for example, the lisped ("fervefa") vs non-lisped ("servesa") sound in words like "cerveza", and the standard ("yamas") vs Argentine ("shamas") sound in words like "llamas". The vowel sounds - "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u" - are extremely consistent throughout the Spanish speaking world.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
English has a larger vocabulary and no diacritics (that anyone bothers to use), leading to more homophones as a consequence. Different spellings help to disambiguate.

yosito 4y ago

As someone from Ohio, I can confirm.

ccheney 4y ago

"Thee proplem weth a systhemateck, fhoneteck chaigne en Englush speleeng es thet et raeses thee questeon uv wut aksent to faivor. Fer an Americon en Oheo, thees transkriptshon probubly maeks sum sens, wunce yu get paest thee skwaw. I daut an Engleshman or eaven a Nue Yorcer wud fynd et ueseful." please rewrite it but this time with a Southern drawl "Th' proplem weth a systh'mateck, fhoneteck chaigne en Aynglsh speln iz thayt et raeses th' questyun uv wut aksent ta fayver. Fer a Amur'can down yonder in Ohayo, thees transkripshun prahbly maeks sum sens, wunce y'all git past th' skwaw. Ah daut an Engleshman or ev'n a Nue Yorcer wud fynd et much ueseful." - GPT-4 / https://sharegpt.com/c/Q5DW1wg

euroderf 4y ago

(prioritizing few "unforced" spelling changes or accent marks) The problem with a sistematic, fonetic chainj in English spel'g is that it rases the question of wot axent to favor. For an American in Ohio, this transcription probably makes som sence, wonce yu get past the shwa. I dout an Englishman or even a Nu Yorker wùd fiynd it úsful.