Some consistent spelling would be nice.

Ah, Aa, or Ae?

C or S or K or Q?

Telescope or Telahskohp? oh is long or short? voiced or ..

But mostly things like..

Th or Dh?

Voiced versus non-voiced.

IE or EI or what ever? 

Receeve or Recieve or Receive? 

Is it German in Origin, Norse, Anglo-Saxon or Yiddish of origin?

Or maybe just go with how to make it easier for non-speaker and like to be able to learn how to spell it and go from there?

S or C for the s sound?

Caution or Kawshun? or Kahshun? or what? 

I do like how a Rabbi c.1920 looked and seen that Hebrew was to become a living language once again, and instead of doing what English and like has done, by adopting words from other languages to include "alien" sounds and like, and structure, instead using forms native to Hebrew (or so I understand) created the bases of modern Hebrew spoken in Israel..  Rabbinical Hebrew did not have words for many things but it had the bases and like.. 

Telescope - far see, yes? Farsee in English? I know on another Conlang group FolkSpraak they was working on the idea of if Anglo-Saxon-Jute Old English had envolved and not been modified, modified in part due to many Foreigners who had land in England the Kingdom, and then later when the dictionary writers, instead of using native words and like, took French and like ones, since many was still having issues with the moving from French and Latin to English. Last time French was used normally in an English law court was c.1600? Was it to preserve the old adoptions or cause they could not force the whole country to speak French or Latin, after all Latin was the language of the Church and the Church was no longer the Roman one but the Church of England, yes?

King John by his stupidities and losing his lands in France, did England a major favor. But thats a topic of another list, namely English Constitutional Law and like.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Zach Wellstood 
  To: Mike Adams 
  Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:27 AM
  Subject: Re: Regularizing Spelling of English?

  Personally, I love that English doesn't erase the traces of history that each word carries in its spelling. So, I would be against spelling regularization and reform. Just as brief examples, the psy- in psyche and related words betray their Greek origin, whereas the reformed spelling would be <saiki> or something. That's simply erasing an important part of its linguistic identity. 

  Moreover, to tackle spelling reform I think you'd simply need to deal with more problems than it's worth. What do you do about differing stress patterns in words of different linguistic origin? 


  A purely phonetic spelling reform would be imperfect, since these words would appear to be entirely different: 


  How would you treat the various unstressed vowels? English schwa can really be realized centrally or more like epsilon (near-open near-front unrounded) or as bar-i (open high unrounded). 

  And I'm sure the issues like these will keep popping up. Just seems like an aimless and unwarranted endeavor when people have been getting on just fine with it for ~500 years. 


  On Jan 23, 2014 8:00 AM, "Mike Adams" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    Anyone doing any work on how to get English spelling to be more regular and not the mess it is?

    English one of the worlds easiest language to learn how to speak but one of the hardest to learn how to spell..

    th and dh for example.

    Or Q, C or K or C and S?

    ti or sh?

    I often use Q for a hard Q like my Inpiaq speaking friends.

    I blame some of the isuues on many that was not ready or willing to give up speaking French and/or Latin..

    I like how modern Hebrew was done, to use elements already in the language and not have to borrow Greek or Latin words for words in modern English.

    Telephone - Far Speak?Or could it be Far speaking in English or what?