[Development] OT: English phonetic spelling

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 2017-03-27 12:44, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> [quite OT, but I'll pile on... - just for fun]
> 
> On Mon, March 27, 2017 17:43, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Iä, thät güst lûks wråŋ. Yf wi wÿr tu ëvÿr du süch thyŋz, ai
>> wûd müch
> 
> Let me propose the more "Jusfull" "Jäh" - which is somewhat easier to read.

Huh. That's a good point... although there are no silent letters, so it
would be "jä", not "jäh". (Also: "jusfûl"; "ful" → fool, "fûl" → full.
In fairness I didn't use 'û' in the original example :-).)

>> räthÿr swytch holsel tu ü kümplitli fünëtyk spëlyŋ üf
>> ëvrithyŋ. Ai häpyn
>> tu lüik thys systûm wych ai ëm dëmünstretyŋ hir ;-).
> 
> Are you using Gaelic pronunciation on "lüik"? The only way my tongue seems
> able to pronounce this is with an almost silent "i".

Since I don't know what the "Gaelic pronunciation on 'lüik'" *is*, I
can't answer that :-).

Note also "ü" as an article; it is pronounced as in "thumb" ("up",
"what", etc.). The "üi" (as in "bike") is a rather strange dipthong.

>> ...and, correct me if I'm wrong, but German is generally spelled how it
>> is pronounced, yes?
> 
> Yes, German is almost completely phonetic - except for very few loan words
> that have not completely assimilated yet. But there are efforts under way
> to send them on an integration and language course, now that they've
> gained asylum and are proven to be mostly harmless.

:-D

> In short: even completely phonetic languages with reforms that make the
> language even more logical and phonetic provide ample opportunity to screw
> up the spelling of several generations while also providing for futile,
> but heated, discussions and some bloody noses.

Heh. Aaaaaaand... we won't talk about accents :-). Strictly speaking, a
rigidly phonetic spelling would differ in spelling, perhaps
dramatically, depending on region. (On the other hand, it makes
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FunetikAksent really easy and
accessible.)

-- 
Matthew