Making English into a phonetical language.

dxhound2005

This could be the future.

7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5! 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H 0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17, B3 PROUD! 0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.

Chuck Stone

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This could be the future.

7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5! 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H 0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17, B3 PROUD! 0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.

That was strange.

When I looked 1st I was like WTF? But when I got the first two words I raced through it with ease!

Reamer Fanny

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?

Wha ya on bout?

crystallove

to some extent， I agree，but cant totally agree...

bodhrandude

Somalga Tharg!

FTGFOP

dxhound2005 wrote: »

0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.

D0 7H353 'C3R741N P30PL3' H4V3 4 N4M3?

...

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This could be the future.

7|-|1$ |\/|3$$493 $3®\/3$ 70 p®0\/3 |-|0\/\/ 0µ® |\/|1|\|Ð$ (4|\| Ð0 4|\/|421|\|9 7|-|1|\|9$! 1|\/|p®3$$1\/3 7|-|1|\|9$! 1|\| 7|-|3 ß391|\||\|1|\|9 17 \/\/4$ |-|4®Ð ßµ7 |\|0\/\/, 0|\| 7|-|1$ £1|\|3 ¥0µ® |\/|1|\|Ð 1$ ®34Ð1|\|9 4µ70|\/|471(4££¥ \/\/17|-|0µ7 3\/3|\| 7|-|1|\||{1|\|9 4ß0µ7 17. ß3 p®0µÐ! 0|\|£¥ (3®741|\| p30p£3 (4|\| ®34Ð 7|-|1$.

FYP

Chuck Stone

justryan wrote: »

Wha ya on bout?

The Phoneicians. Great bunch of lads.

Eve_Dublin

crystallove wrote: »

to some extent， I agree，but cant totally agree...

Ah go on....


















..............please?

Toby Take a Bow

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Language is like an organism, constantly changing. Bar the half-hearted attempt by Americans to change some spelling of their words, attempts to officially change language tend to be disasters. And any attempt at 'creating' a global language is doomed to failure. English is the global language of today, and if a more simple language is required, that's what will evolve.

To attempt to sanction a new global English would be a disaster, mainly because we'd have to settle on one type of phonetic spelling and also the native speakers would have to relearn.

No thanks.

Exactly. Any 'artificial' changes to languages (with the exception of minor spelling reforms like they had in Germany) tend to fall flat. You can't compare the natural evolution of a language to purposely changing it to make it easier for learners. I don't really see the big deal that the spelling isn't easy to learn. Who said it had to be easy? Millions of non-native speakers have managed to learn to spell at an extremely high level, why can't the rest?

revell

Cianos wrote: »

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

I totally understand what you say. Let's do it;)

Batsy

Japanese is written using a phonetic alphabet.

Imagine writing the English language using the phonetic alphabet that we are familar with (the International Phonetic Alphabet) and that is similar to what happens in Japanese. But the Japanese use their own phonetic alphabet - the katakana alphabet - to write their language (in fact, Japanese is written in several alphabets - it also uses hiragana, kanji, and in some cases the Latin alphabet (rōmaji).

So when a Japanese person sees a katakana character they know for definite how it is pronounced. It cannot be pronounced any other way.

カ is pronounced "ka".

ヨ is pronounced "yo".

ボ is pronounced "bo."

And you can put katakana together.

e.g.

キ is pronounced "ki".

ヤ is pronounced "ya".

Put them together and you get キャ, pronounced "kya".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana#Table_of_katakana

The Japanese writing their words using the katakana alphabet would be like us using the International Phonetic Alphabet to write our words. So the word "London" would be written "ˈlʌndən".

spider guardian

Not the worst idea I've seen on boards. But it's not going to happen.

kylith

ball wrote: »

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

I think that's the nub and crux of the problem; there are so many accents which affect pronunciation that phonetic spelling would be all over the place.

There's a difference between 'd'ya no wha I meen' and 'ja no worra meean'. Having them both spelled 'do you know what I mean' makes more sense.

Artur Foden

Hey OP, if its any consolation I agree with you. However I don't think we will need to all sit around a table and consciously change the language, in 100 years (ok, maybe more than 100) time most people will speak an international english, with the language adapting to local local ways of speaking but still understandable to someone from thousands of miles away.

If you ask me strict rules on language do nothing but prevent the language growing.

edit: my fault for not reading the previous page, Toby Take A Bow has already said what I wanted to.

Toby Take a Bow

Axl Polite Nomad wrote: »

Millions of non-native speakers have managed to learn to spell at an extremely high level, why can't the rest?

Indeed. Maybe we need better TEFL teachers rather than calls for the language to be easier to teach.

Toby Take a Bow

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Indeed. Maybe we need better TEFL teachers rather than calls for the language to be easier to teach.

I'm a TEFL teacher myself and there are plenty of things I don't like about the job, but I don't think it's ever occurred to me to just change the language to make it easier. :pac:

Toby Take a Bow

Axl Polite Nomad wrote: »

I'm a TEFL teacher myself and there are plenty of things I don't like about the job, but I don't think it's ever occurred to me to just change the language to make it easier. :pac:

Hmm. I doubt your boss would go for it. Might make an interesting thread on boards though.

Lavezzi

English is a language that was created by butt-banging pederasts to take over the world. English is without question a dumbing down language and inherently anti-human. There's are legitimate reasons why everyone hates the British...

Columbia

I also teach English (in the Republic of Georgia) and it's a no for me. To teach pronunciation here at different times I have to use the Georgian alphabet (which I use as much as possible, for obvious reasons), the International Phonetic Alphabet, and occasionally in some situations I have to resort to the Russian alphabet.

I can see the difficulties that pronunciation throws up for students, but it would be an act of incredible violence towards the world heritage to bastardise humanity's most successful ever language.

--Kaiser--

When I was a teenager I actually devised a new method of spelling English words that was phonetic so that you always knew how a word was spoken, it worked something like this:

single vowel (u) = makes a short 'u' sound, like in cut
double vowel (uu) = makes a long 'u' sound like in shoot
single vowel (a) = makes a short 'o' sound like in hat
double vowel (aa) = makes a long 'o' sound like in hate
etc..
Also, all consonants had only one sound e.g
c = always a 'Ch' sound

Anyway, not long after that I read 1984. My new method reminded me of 'Newspeak'. Part of the charm of the English language is it's foibles and intricacies. If it was so mechanical and methodical it would lose some of it's magic

Snickers Man

stupidusername wrote: »

You can't come on here saying you teach English, and have a post full of mistakes, and expect to not not to 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 spelled differently to how they're pronounced.

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

As Ye Goode Booke says: "Take the mote out of your own eye, the better to see the speck in your neighbour's"

FTGFOP

Back at 'cha. 'Spelt' is perfectly correct.

smegmar

This might have been said before but please please please bring in the umlaut to the english language

the bandage was wound around the wöund

I don't want to read a book I have already reäd

the boy took a bite of thë apple

boards.ie is pretty good but After hours has alot of göbshïtes

Snickers Man

FTGFOP wrote: »

Back at 'cha. 'Spelt' is perfectly correct.

Only if you're talking about a type of wheat.

Snickers Man

On the larger point, didn't the great George Bernard Shaw leave part of his vast legacy, significantly buttressed after his death by the royalties from the musical My Fair Lady, to the production of a phonetic English dictionary?

Not much came of it.

Alun

Snickers Man wrote: »

Only if you're talking about a type of wheat.

Nonsense. "Spelt" is perfectly acceptable as the past participle of "spell" unless you're American.

Spelt is indeed correct

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

Only if you're talking about a type of wheat.

I don't know why people insist on saying this. Even my CELTA course trainer tried to claim it was correct. 'Spelt' is a perfectly acceptable way to form the past participle of the verb 'to spell'. Look at a grammar book sometime.

pickarooney

smegmar wrote: »

This might have been said before but please please please bring in the umlaut to the english language

the bandage was wound around the wöund

I don't want to read a book I have already reäd

the boy took a bite of thë apple

boards.ie is pretty good but After hours has alot of göbshïtes

That's a pretty bizarre way to use a diaeresis.

Enkidu

Actually English has phonetic spelling, if you're from the 13th century.:pac:

RichieC

no.

Herb Powell

Spelling it phonetically wouldn't be a great idea-the many accents of the English speaking world mean that the standard, correct version is probably easier.

Johro

Lavezzi wrote: »

English is a language that was created by butt-banging pederasts to take over the world. English is without question a dumbing down language and inherently anti-human. There's are legitimate reasons why everyone hates the British...

...but the English language is not one of them.

Snowie

Biggins wrote: »

Say wha?

what shes trying to say is sod the silent letters and bits that require 6 years in oxford and dumb it down to make it easier for every one...

Fine bye me...

stoopidd lingo prefer speaking then writing :cool:

Eve_Dublin

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

what shes trying to say is sod the silent letters and bits that require 6 years in oxford and dumb it down to make it easier for every one...

Fine bye me...

stoopidd lingo prefer speaking then writing :cool:

Snow Monkey, found this article today in Time magazine that might interest you and others discussing this topic. Very relevant to the discussion (and you specifically as I know you have dyslexia)

http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/02/are-americans-more-dyslexic-than-italians/

up for anything

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

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?

That is one of the silliest things I have ever read here and that's saying a lot.

Eve_Dublin

up for anything wrote: »

That is one of the silliest things I have ever read here and that's saying a lot.

Jesus, then you haven't been spending enough time in here then, evidently.

cosmicfart

Havent the Americans already done this


is it colour or color?

Underline read squiggle reveals answer!

up for anything

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Jesus, then you haven't been spending enough time in here then, evidently.

I did say one. :P

I think this says it all about English.

ETA: Just spotted the prounced!

Capt'n Midnight

L.O.
L.O.
R.U.B.C?
S.V.R.B.C.
L.O.
L.O.
F.U.N.E.X?
S.V.F.X.
F.U.N.E.M?
9.
I.F.C.D.M.
V.F.N.10.E.M.
A. V.F.M.
R.
O.
C. D.M.
O.S. V.F.M.
O.K. M.N.X.
M.N.X.
F.U.N.E.T?
1 T.
1 T.
O.K. M.X.N.T.
M.X.N.T.4.1.

dxhound2005

LOLOAQIC

I82QB4IP

cocoshovel

a i u e o

Catari Jaguar

ghici can spell "fish"

unfortunately

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, slough and through.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead: it's said like bed, not bead -
for goodness' sake don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat
(they rhyme with suite and straight and debt).

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother,
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there's dose and rose and lose -
Just look them up- and goose and choose,
And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword,
And do and go and thwart and cart -
Come, I've hardly made a start!
A dreadful language? Man alive!
I'd learned to speak it when I was five!

smegmar

cherub rock wrote: »

ghici can spell "fish"

Please tell me where you heard this. I was explained something similar at one point (Ghoti pronounced as fish) but I forgot the exact explanation. I'd like to know it again.

pickarooney

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

L.O.
L.O.
R.U.B.C?
S.V.R.B.C.
L.O.
L.O.
F.U.N.E.X?
S.V.F.X.
F.U.N.E.M?
9.
I.F.C.D.M.
V.F.N.10.E.M.
A. V.F.M.
R.
O.
C. D.M.
O.S. V.F.M.
O.K. M.N.X.
M.N.X.
F.U.N.E.T?
1 T.
1 T.
O.K. M.X.N.T.
M.X.N.T.4.1.

That was a bit of a slog but I'm glad they all got the breakfast they wanted in the end.

smegmar

smegmar wrote: »

Please tell me where you heard this. I was explained something similar at one point (Ghoti pronounced as fish) but I forgot the exact explanation. I'd like to know it again.

tough - gh - f
women - o - i
initiate - ti - sh

unfortunately

pickarooney wrote: »

That was a bit of a slog but I'm glad they all got the breakfast they wanted in the end.

A more enjoyable form perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWMcRlE1mQ