Making English into a phonetical language.

Eve_Dublin

I know people are gonna give me some serious jip over this suggestion but how would you feel if English was to be made into a phonetical language?

English is the language of international communication and business but it's spelling is beyond bizarre and makes zero sense a lot of the time making it unnecessarily difficult for learners. Native speakers of English are now the minority speakers of the language and even we make a balls of our spelling nowadays and if we can't even get to grips with it, what hope do learners have? The hours we spent at school doing pointless spelling tests for what real reason? If we spelt the language phonetically, it'd still be the same language just without the stupid silent letters and inconsistancies in pronunciation of vowel sounds, for example and we'd save a ****e load of time teaching something that actually has importance in the real world.

I teach English to Spaniards and I can't tell you how much trouble they have getting their heads round pronunciation and spelling and it seems like a massive waste of time and for what? Are we just keeping these pointless spellings of words to be difficult and more "high brow"? To give the language more depth where none exists?

I'm not talking about simplifying it to txtspk, but just more consistancy in spelling so people know how it's pronounced just by looking at it.

What say you?

Biggins

Say wha?

Saila

dat sounds lik a bad ida

Oranage2

FDs opjpfsrew esfopfnfkvb ofep f kfvdnlv dkslfjirri44545jjspof feopfdsfsj lkdfjifn ojpeba.

Bobby Baccala

11234 23348283 937372 1234332 !!!

Cianos

If we wer to mayk it fonetikal weed hav to spell words lyk dis wich I think suks

yew mite hav ah proh blemm wit pee pull miss speh ling tings like "deh rob bur wants tew nig her stuff"

For some reason there's a problem with that sentence.....

Eh dit: Ak tew all ee, dis is a great way tew dee feet de sen sore ing fill ter for words like fuk and kunt

the groutch

001100
010010
011110
100001
101101
110011

mikemac

k OP, wut ev4 u fink

bnt

You're about 200 years too late. Many of the spellings in "American English" are the direct result of an attempt to make English a bit more phonetic and easier to spell. They first appeared in Noah Webster's Dictionary in 1828: "color" vs "colour", "humor" vs "humour", and so on.

stupidusername

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I know people are gonna give me some serious jip over this suggestion but how would you feel if English was to be made into a phonetical language?

English is the language of international communication and business but it's spelling is beyond bizarre and makes zero sense a lot of the time making it unnecessarily difficult for learners. Native speakers of English are now the minority speakers of the language and even we make a balls of our spelling nowadays and if we can't even get to grips with it, what hope do learners have? The hours we spent at school doing pointless spelling tests for what real reason? If we spelt the language phonetically, it'd still be the same language just without the stupid silent letters and inconsistancies in pronunciation of vowel sounds, for example and we'd save a ****e load of time teaching something that actually has importance in the real world.

I teach English to Spaniards and I can't tell you how much trouble they have getting their heads round pronunciation and spelling and it seems like a massive waste of time and for what? Are we just keeping these pointless spellings of words to be difficult and more "high brow"? To give the language more depth where none exists?

I'm not talking about simplifying it to txtspk, but just more consistancy in spelling so people know how it's pronounced just by looking at it.

What say you?

You can't come on here saying you teach English, and have a post full of mistakes, and expect to not have them pointed out

On topic - I would say I can't imagine it would save that much time in the classroom really. Besides, there are many languages with words that are spelt different to how they're pronounced.

Also I quite like that it's not as basic as to have every word spelt as it's pronounced.

mikemac

I post on an American sports forum and get my offence/offense and defence/defense pointed out
Yes, boards.ie is the only forum with posters who pick out spelling, sad people

Maybe one day there won't be so many differences with the Yanks

Biggins

mikemac wrote: »

...Maybe one day there won't be so many differences with the Yanks

All the more reason then, to keep using good spelling/grammar then!
(So they can understand us, and we them)

4zn76tysfajdxp

Any language that has a diverse vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words and is immensely widely spoken across the world by billions of people must have a lot going for it, even if it's not as easy to teach as you like. Finnish is a phonetic language, how many people do you see trying to learn that?

OneArt

I suppose its a good idea depending on how much you want to change. But seriously though, wouldn't it make more sense to just teach the phonetic alphabet in schools?

I honestly don't understand why people never learned it from a young age. It was only until my first year in college that I understood what those funny Greek-looking letters were that one found in the dictionary.

ball

You ever try read an Irvine Welsh book? He writes phonetically in a Scottish accent. It's mad confusing

cml387

Millions of people have learned English over the years.

Maybe you need a new approach op?

kowloon

Wasn't there a movement for simplified English before?
And then there's Esperanto.

Conor108

It would solve situations like these I guess:cool:

1. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

2. We must polish the Polish furniture.

3. He could lead the team to victory if he would get the lead out.

4. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

5. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present to his mother.

6. When the shot came near, the dove dove into the bushes.

7. The medical insurance was invalid for the invalid.

8. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

9. The buck does funny things when the does are present.

10. The sewer in the shirt factory dropped a spool of thread down into the sewer line.

11. To help with planting, the farmer taught his prize sow to sow.

12. The wind was too strong for us to wind the sail in.

13. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

From here

Fluorescence

Nope. Firstly it would be an enormous undertaking to get current English speakers to switch over - we recognise words by their shape and length, not so much by their actual spelling. It takes forever to read something spelled out phonetically, because we literally have to "sound it out". No thank you.

Secondly, most languages aren't perfectly phonetic. Why would we massively inconvenience billions of people just so some newcomers to the language find it a tiny bit easier? That's just silly. I don't moan about learning Swedish or French, which aren't particularly phonetical either. It's part of the territory of learning a new language.

Then, of course, there's the fact that I just find written English aesthetically pleasing (daft as that probably sounds). I love my language the way it is. If I had to look at everything spelled phonetically I think I'd find it quite upsetting. It wouldn't have the same elegance

Ouchette

Which accent's pronunciation would you base it on?

You'd have to either base it on one or have everyone writing in their own accent. Wouldn't even be able to communicate with people from Cork by getting them to write it down then.

maglite

Proposal form a year or two ago.. Op Might be on to something

The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).

In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c." Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik emthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like fotograf" 20 persent shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "w" by " v".

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Native speakers of English are now the minority speakers of the language and even we make a balls of our spelling nowadays and if we can't even get to grips with it, what hope do learners have?

First of all, we "make a balls of our spelling" because nobody is bothered. That's why. Give children a love of reading instead of the tv and they'd pick it up much more easily. Stop this whole movement of "I'll spell how I like and who cares if I'm incoherent because I knew what I meant".
Secondly, the same is true for many languages out there. Native speakers of many languages complain about how awful other native speakers are at spelling and grammar. A french friend of mine could rant at length about it.

I teach English to Spaniards and I can't tell you how much trouble they have getting their heads round pronunciation and spelling and it seems like a massive waste of time

Why are you even teaching them then?

The King of Moo

It's a good idea in principle, and would probably clear up more confusion than it would create, but I have an illogical love for the English language and all its inconsistencies and confusion.

Having taught English myself I appreciate how confusing it can be for learners and am very grateful that I never had to learn it as a second language.

But I love its irregular charm and flexibility .

Capt'n Midnight

just spell words in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet

As of 2008, there are 107 letters, 52 diacritics, and four prosodic marks in the IPA, so we would need bigger keyboards on everything.

IcedOut

1st of all u have to make phonetical phonetical

Eve_Dublin

stupidusername wrote: »

You can't come on here saying you teach English, and have a post full of mistakes, and expect to not have them pointed out

On topic - I would say I can't imagine it would save that much time in the classroom really. Besides, there are many languages with words that are spelt different to how they're pronounced.

Also I quite like that it's not as basic as to have every word spelt as it's pronounced.

But not every non-phonetical language is used as the standard international language though and yes, it would save time in pronunciation classes for learners who have phonetival languages. It wastes time for definite. It is the number one biggest problem for Spanish learners. You might like it but it's irritating for learners.

Ooooh my pride! Damn you! 4 mistakes is not many...I only made one....inconsistency...the other were typos...at least I was consistent in my consistent misspelling of consistent...geddit?

And that is a case-in-point, we've just wasted time discussing my spelling mistakes and I'm a native....how do you think it feels for someone from Singapore, for example?

Eve_Dublin

bnt wrote: »

You're about 200 years too late. Many of the spellings in "American English" are the direct result of an attempt to make English a bit more phonetic and easier to spell. They first appeared in Noah Webster's Dictionary in 1828: "color" vs "colour", "humor" vs "humour", and so on.

But they didn't go far enough in my opinion!

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

...how do you think it feels for someone from Singapore, for example?

What kind of question is this? I'm learning german and I fully expect to make a bunch of mistakes when I'm learning. Because I am learning.
Maybe we should reform all those other pesky languages? Musical language as well? It's a bit tricky to pick up all those clefs so let's do away with them.

If someone from Singapore or anywhere else is too precious to learn something they can't get right first time, then let them stop. We're not reforming a whole language because a learner makes mistakes.

4leto

Its how the language formed, it didn't form from a single source like most languages but evolved kept and discarded from other languages. It is a mix of Anglo Jute Saxon Celtic Norse French Latin and anyone else that settled in the British mainland. So instead of different languages forming what you got was a great intermingle, which is why english has so many nuances.

It has the most words of any language it reached it millionth word sometime last year, but most us will speak or know no more the 20,000 words.

But to spite what the OP says it is still one of the easiest languages to learn and communicate in to spite its nuances, its structure is simple, there is no feminine or masculine rules, the noun usually follows the verb, and so much more.

Try learning Japanese or Arabic the structures seem illogical. Are you going for a pint can be inverted to A pint you going, something like that.

Eve_Dublin

First of all, we "make a balls of our spelling" because nobody is bothered. That's why. Give children a love of reading instead of the tv and they'd pick it up much more easily. Stop this whole movement of "I'll spell how I like and who cares if I'm incoherent because I knew what I meant".
Secondly, the same is true for many languages out there. Native speakers of many languages complain about how awful other native speakers are at spelling and grammar. A french friend of mine could rant at length about it.

I made spelling mistakes in my original post and I was and still am a fierce reader. Do you not think people are lazier simpy because of spell check in all electronic devices?

Yes, other native speakers complain about spelling mistakes among other native speakers but these are not languages used as the standard form of international communication and business. The Spanish don't complain about it half as much as we do, for example. Nowhere near as much.

Why are you even teaching them then?

Because I enjoy it and it's the only work I can get at the minute. Nothing about your job bugs you, no? It doesn't bug me enough for me to give up...I'm simply commenting on how frustrating it is for them

losthorizon

Most of the English words used in America are actually the old English words that we used to use here We changed they didnt. For example autumn is a recent introduction. Hundreds of years ago English people would have said Fall.

Eve_Dublin

Ouchette wrote: »

Which accent's pronunciation would you base it on?

You'd have to either base it on one or have everyone writing in their own accent. Wouldn't even be able to communicate with people from Cork by getting them to write it down then.

The North County Dublin accent, of course.

Eve_Dublin

ball wrote: »

You ever try read an Irvine Welsh book? He writes phonetically in a Scottish accent. It's mad confusing

I've read all of them and am well used to it at this stage. It takes a chapter or two to get into it. They wouldn't be half as good if he didn't.

I've never heard anyone say 'phonetical language' - isn't it phonetic?

Anyway, people have been talking about this for years and tbh, I think it's a stupid idea. All languages have their difficulties. English spelling is crazy, but it's simple in many other ways. I just don't like this idea that if something is difficult, we should just dumb it down. Why can't people just learn how to do it properly? I know many people who learned English as a second language and whose spelling is excellent, including many people who don't even use the same alphabet. Your Spanish students have problems with English spelling and pronunciation because they're lazy and have the 'I can't do it, it's impossible' mentality towards anything requiring a bit of hard work and perseverance. Tell them to stop whining and accept that English isn't going to change to accommodate them. There's no reason why they shouldn't spell and pronounce words at a high level if you teach them well (phonetics on the board, pronunciation drills, focus on rhyming words/homophones/homonyms, spelling bees..)

Eve_Dublin

Alessia Plump Sludge wrote: »

Any language that has a diverse vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words and is immensely widely spoken across the world by billions of people must have a lot going for it, even if it's not as easy to teach as you like. Finnish is a phonetic language, how many people do you see trying to learn that?

I love the English langauge and the more I teach it, the more I love it but the more I understand the frustrations of learners. I don't think it's relatively complicated and inconsistent spelling system is what makes it the international language of communication though. I think it's the least appealing thing about it.

d.a.r.r.a.g.h

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I know people are gonna give me some serious jip over this suggestion but how would you feel if English was to be made into a phonetical language?

English is the language of international communication and business but it's spelling is beyond bizarre and makes zero sense a lot of the time making it unnecessarily difficult for learners. Native speakers of English are now the minority speakers of the language and even we make a balls of our spelling nowadays and if we can't even get to grips with it, what hope do learners have? The hours we spent at school doing pointless spelling tests for what real reason? If we spelt the language phonetically, it'd still be the same language just without the stupid silent letters and inconsistancies in pronunciation of vowel sounds, for example and we'd save a ****e load of time teaching something that actually has importance in the real world.

I teach English to Spaniards and I can't tell you how much trouble they have getting their heads round pronunciation and spelling and it seems like a massive waste of time and for what? Are we just keeping these pointless spellings of words to be difficult and more "high brow"? To give the language more depth where none exists?

I'm not talking about simplifying it to txtspk, but just more consistancy in spelling so people know how it's pronounced just by looking at it.

What say you?

You spelt inconsistencies wrong.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I made spelling mistakes in my original post and I was and still am a fierce reader. Do you not think people are lazier simpy because of spell check in all electronic devices?

No, I don't. I think people don't care and they're being lazy.

Yes, other native speakers complain about spelling mistakes among other native speakers but these are not languages used as the standard form of international communication and business. The Spanish don't complain about it half as much as we do, for example. Nowhere near as much.

So you want a language used as a standard form of international communication and business to be dumbed down and revised into some arbitrary system?

Because I enjoy it and it's the only work I can get at the minute. Nothing about your job bugs you, no? It doesn't bug me enough for me to give up...I'm simply commenting on how frustrating it is for them

Not to the degree where I think the entire system is pointless, no.

I don't think it's relatively complicated and inconsistent spelling system...

it's means it is
its is the possessive

Eve_Dublin

I've never heard anyone say 'phonetical language' - isn't it phonetic?

Well I'm mixing it up a bit.

Anyway, people have been talking about this for years and tbh, I think it's a stupid idea. All languages have their difficulties. English spelling is crazy, but it's simple in many other ways. I just don't like this idea that if something is difficult, we should just dumb it down. Why can't people just learn how to do it properly? I know many people who learned English as a second language and whose spelling is excellent, including many people who don't even use the same alphabet. Your Spanish students have problems with English spelling and pronunciation because they're lazy and have the 'I can't do it, it's impossible' mentality towards anything requiring a bit of hard work and perseverance. Tell them to stop whining and accept that English isn't going to change to accommodate them. There's no reason why they shouldn't spell and pronounce words at a high level if you teach them well (phonetics on the board, pronunciation drills, focus on rhyming words/homophones/homonyms, spelling bees..)

[/QUOTE]



I give them a crash course during the year but I don't have time to go into indepth pronunciation classes and I'd be fired if my two hours a week were based around that. I'm supposed to teach business English to busy workers...practical English they need and I simply don't have the time.

How do you know my students are lazy?? They're not in the slightest. They work long hours (longest in Europe) and focusing on the mad pronunciation of the English language is not top of their agenda. And they don't whine or complain, they simply don't have the time to get to grips with the erratic spelling that many non-natives can't even get to grips with (for whatever reason) and it's one of the things that frustrates them.

Many English learners, if not most, learn English for practical purposes and not for cultural reasons or for "love of the language", like learners of French might. Many learners even resent having to learn it. I think there's a good case to be made to simplify the spelling of Global English whose vocabulary has has been simplifed from Native English to a large degree anyway (less use of phrasal verbs, for example).

Eve_Dublin

No, I don't. I think people don't care and they're being lazy.

I don't believe that's the case for all people. Me, for example. I made an human error in my last post that you pointed out and not a mistake through lack of not knowledge and I'm far from lazy.

So you want a language used as a standard form of international communication and business to be dumbed down and revised into some arbitrary system?

No, the spelling.

it's means it is
its is the possessive

I'm aware of that. I made an error. Seriously, what point are you proving here? That's a little pathetic...

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

What kind of question is this? I'm learning german and I fully expect to make a bunch of mistakes when I'm learning. Because I am learning.
Maybe we should reform all those other pesky languages? Musical language as well? It's a bit tricky to pick up all those clefs so let's do away with them.

No, that's not what I'm saying. People working in business are expected to have a decent level of English, not German. You're learning German for pleasure I'm guessing? Most people are not obligated to learn German. Most learners of English are obligated to learn it and many of them resent that. I believe Global English should be simplified in the area of spelling to make it easier for busy workers and students etc. to learn and then we can get on with the important task of actually communicating instead of pointing out people's spelling mistakes and presuming their "lazy and don't care" because of them. Too many presumptions made on human error.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I give them a crash course during the year but I don't have time to go into indepth pronunciation classes and I'd be fired if my two hours a week were based around that. I'm supposed to teach business English to busy workers...practical English they need and I simply don't have the time.

You don't need in-depth pronunciation classes. Any 'difficult' word should be spelled phonetically (and the learners should copy it down phonetically). That doesn't take much time and the benefits of learning the correct pronunciation before bad habits set in outweigh those of learning an extra word or two.

How do you know my students are lazy?? They're not in the slightest. They work long hours (longest in Europe) and focusing on the mad pronunciation of the English language is not top of their agenda. And they don't whine or complain, they simply don't have the time to get to grips with the erratic spelling that many non-natives can't even get to grips with (for whatever reason) and it's one of the things that frustrates them.

I meant lazy learners. Any student who says 'wah, this is too hard' is a lazy learner. It's not Arabic. It's not Chinese. It's a European language with the same alphabet as their own language - yes, the spelling is inconsistent, but that's the way it is. They save time in other ways (like not learning loads of conjugations for every verb).

Many English learners, if not most, learn English for practical purposes and not for cultural reasons or for "love of the language", like learners of French might. Many learners even resent having to learn it. I think there's a good case to be made to simplify the spelling of Global English whose vocabulary has has been simplifed from Native English to a large degree anyway (less use of phrasal verbs, for example).

If they don't want to learn it properly, they don't have to. There is plenty of material in 'simplified English' already. Native speakers are incredibly tolerant of non-native mistakes and mispronunciation already. I don't see why it should be dumbed down any further.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I don't believe that's the case for all people. Me, for example. I made an human error in my last post that you pointed out and not a mistake through lack of not knowledge and I'm far from lazy.

Of course it's not the case for all people, I'm speaking in general terms here. Making typos has nothing to do with the language though.

I'm aware of that. I made an error. Seriously, what point are you proving here?

I'm not proving a point. It's the second time you made the mistake so I thought you'd like to know the difference, since it's a mistake a lot of people make.

FTGFOP

We'd need more letters or symbols to modify the current letters if we were going to do it. How many distinct vowel sounds in English? More than five anyway.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. People working in business are expected to have a decent level of English, not German. You're learning German for pleasure I'm guessing? Most people are not obligated to learn German. Most learners of English are obligated to learn it and many of them resent that. I believe Global English should be simplified in the area of spelling to make it easier for busy workers and students etc. to learn and then we can get on with the important task of actually communicating instead of pointing out people's spelling mistakes and presuming their "lazy and don't care" because of them. Too many presumptions made on human error.

Schoolchildren are obligated to learn French/German/etc and resent it. Nobody is changing the languages just for them.
Your reasons are getting more thin and more bizarre as we go on.

TheBegotten

If you want a phonetic language then try learning Irish. Anyone who ever did Honours Irish will know the distinctive sound of songs or poetry as Gaeilge. Get the fádas down and it's no bother.

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

Schoolchildren are obligated to learn French/German/etc and resent it. Nobody is changing the languages just for them.
Your reasons are getting more thin and more bizarre as we go on.

No, same reason I gave at the beginning. English is the global language spoken by millions and millions of people. It's necessary to learn unlike French/German etc. They've simplified the vocabulary for Global English to save time, why not do the same for the spelling? It would save a huge amount of time. That's my main point. Not sure what's bizarre about the idea just because it doesn't float your boat.

I know when it's and its are used and I've known since I was maybe 10 years old and I teach it every day. I made a human error as I do quite often writing multiple posts quickly on this internet forum and it doesn't need to be pointed out to me like I'm a simpleton but thanks anyway :rolleyes:

confusticated

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

No, same reason I gave at the beginning. English is the global language spoken by millions and millions of people. It's necessary to learn unlike French/German etc. They've simplified the vocabulary for Global English to save time, why not do the same for the spelling? It would save a huge amount of time. That's my main point. Not sure what's bizarre about the idea just because it doesn't float your boat.

I don't see how it would save time if the native English speaker they're communicating with spends twice as long trying to decipher what the non-native speaker is saying. Especially if their accent means the "phonetic" English isn't phonetic to them.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I know when it's and its are used and I've known since I was maybe 10 years old and I teach it every day. I made a human error as I do quite often writing multiple posts quickly on this internet forum and it doesn't need to be pointed out to me like I'm a simpleton but thanks anyway :rolleyes:

I don't think you're a simpleton. Lots of people make lots of mistakes, you don't have to take it so personally :rolleyes: It was a couple of lines appended to the end of my post ffs. Making a simple grammatical error OR typo doesn't mean you're stupid or a simpleton. :mad:

Captain Chaos

TheBegotten wrote: »

If you want a phonetic language then try learning Irish. Anyone who ever did Honours Irish will know the distinctive sound of songs or poetry as Gaeilge. Get the fádas down and it's no bother.

Ye sure. Bhi me = ve may. Phonetic my eye.

FTGFOP

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Ye sure. Bhi me = ve may. Phonetic my eye.

You're being a bit bearlacentric there. The 'bh' sound is consistent, that's more the point.