The various national news organizations seem to find an "offical" pronounciation. I don't hear much of a difference from nationwide broadcasts out of New York verses local broadcasts out of Southern California. Before that, publishers started "standardizing" spelling which has spread across the country. If an orthography was made with spelling un-standardized and communication was desired, there are enough nationwide communication organizations that would influence pronounciation and spelling so that each country would at least have a semi-defacto standard spelling and pronounciation. Locals could use non-standard spelling for their own uses. Most likely the "official" pronounciation would serve as a mark of education, just like "official" spelling does today. There are jobs which don't require you to be able to spell one word correctly, but an interviewer will assume "uneducated" and be less likely to give you a job for which you show complete competence for. Those that can switch to the official pronounciation, and use the phonomic spelling associated with it, would get the job. Of course sometimes showing that you are a local gets you the job instead. If English spelling is regularized, maybe those that could misspell it right would get those jobs. > i was kind of wondering, since everyone pronounces their words > difrently when they standardise the spellings whos pronounciation > would we go with?