Yet another Hacker News

13 points jruohonen 4 hours ago 27 comments

java-man 4 hours ago | parent

Yep.

  For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

  Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

  Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

http://www.i18nguy.com/twain.html

dang 1 hour ago | parent

Not Mark Twain, but (believe it or not) Dolton Edwards in Astounding Science Fiction, Sept 1946.

"Dolton" was an amusing pseudonym. See this thread from a few years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23587507

cyberax 1 hour ago | parent

> Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

It actually looks pretty good. It's written for comical effect, but it highlights nicely how _bad_ English orthography is.

darkwater 23 minutes ago | parent

It's basically how Spaniards and Italians would spell English :D

jcmontx 5 minutes ago | parent

As a native Spanish speaker, I agree

vp4nkov 33 minutes ago | parent

kinda reminds of dutch

andai 1 hour ago | parent

See also: Quikscript, optimized for handwriting (but suitable for printing also).

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/quikscript.htm

And the excellent official Quikscript manual:

https://www.omniglot.com/pdfs/quikscriptmanual.pdf

The guy who invented it is called Read. Nomen est omen!

---

See also, re: Reforming the English lexicon: Uncleftish Beholding

https://msburkeenglish.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010...

GolfPopper 56 minutes ago | parent

Interesting. It makes me think of J.R.R. Tolkien's Tengwar script:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengwar

nine_k 42 minutes ago | parent

But the large majority of texts is now typed, not handwritten. I'd optimize a writing system for fast, easy, error-resistant reading. The Latin script reads easier than this, despite its known problems, maybe because Quickscript lacks the 27 centuries of refinement.

If I were to pick an existing script, that would be either Hangul or Tengwar (with vowels). Tengwar already has an English mode, and Hangul would likely need a few adjustments, following its general principles.

flkiwi 54 minutes ago | parent

Exhibit A: queue. Five letters to make the sound of the first.

goodmythical 26 minutes ago | parent

But that's not always the sound it makes.

"Queue" is not pronounced as the sound that the 'q' in "quick" or "quack" makes.

My favorite is "ghoti"[1] which is pronounced as "fish" because of:

gh, pronounced /f/ as in enough /ɪˈnʌf/ or tough /tʌf/; o, pronounced /ɪ/ as in women /ˈwɪmɪn/; ti, pronounced /ʃ/ as in nation /ˈneɪʃən/ or motion /ˈmoʊʃən/.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

readthenotes1 6 minutes ago | parent

Huh? How do you pronounce the name of the first letter of the word queue, and how does that differ from when you pronounce the word queue?

advisedwang 40 minutes ago | parent

What do "regular" writing systems do when different dialects use different sounds for the same word? Do different people write the same word differently? Or are people forced to confirm to a standard dialect? Both seem bad.

asibahi 28 minutes ago | parent

The usual answer is that they pretend these differences dont exist and use one blessed (maybe artificial) dialect.

torben-friis 22 minutes ago | parent

Using Spanish as an example:

People learn a deterministic way to sound a word at school, same for everyone. The very fact of having that as part of education tends to stabilise the language to a degree: I can read 16 century poems and stuff sounds the same and rhymes perfectly.

Most local variations and accents will deviate in semi standard ways: For example, southern spaniards will usually use the same sound for S and C (which in Spain's Spanish is the famous 'lispy s' sound). So in general people are aware of what is part of the standard and what is a local characteristic.

Our educative system makes a point of those variations explicitly not being 'wrong', but sometimes in practice there are ideological debates about this stuff: For example, people might self police in media by adapting to the standard, which in turn draws criticism for "reneging of their identity").

ginko 14 minutes ago | parent

German picked a random Central German dialect as Standard German and went with that.

amdsn 5 minutes ago | parent

Both happen, my guess is that it is more common to have a written standard that just doesn't match some dialects. Sometimes you will have multiple standards, which is usually due to politics/history.

An example where the same words are written differently is Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin. One dimension among several that dialects there vary along is the development of a vowel from a common ancestor Slavic language into /e/, /i/, or /(i)je/. This leads to a variety of spellings for some words such as "vreme/vrime/vrijme" (time). It's made even more complicated by the variation crossing borders and even not being consistent within one people. For example standard Serbian has /e/ and the /(i)je/ since Bosnian Serbs mostly use the latter, Bosnian and Croatian use /(i)je/, and /i/ is technically not in any written standard but still exists and can be found in colloquial writing.

Personally if I were to design a writing system from scratch I don't think going "full regular" is all that it's sometimes made out to be. You can lose clues about common roots between words. That said keeping historical spellings forever can also be confusing. Russian Cyrillic has had a number of reforms to trim things that had become redundant/not pronounced anymore. English could use some of that as well, but the extreme variety and lack of a central writing system authority makes that hard.

Veserv 33 minutes ago | parent

If they really want to reform English spelling, they should write a spell-checking library in every major programming language that builds on every major platform and can be easily integrated into chat, message, and mobile keyboard applications which defaults to “English 20xx”, but still supports default English.

All it would need to do is not highlight “improved spellings” as incorrect in “English 20xx” mode at the start. Then it could slowly turn the knob as they see increasing usage.

If you want to do even more then you can implement speech-to-text and transcript generators that default to “English 20xx”.

goodmythical 19 minutes ago | parent

But which English 20xx to use? The one that spells the phenomenon of our eyes rendering electromagnetic radiation as "colour" or the one that renders the same as "color"?

Grey or gray?

Is the building adjacent to the one across from you "kitty-corner", "katty-corner", "kitty-korner" or "katty-korner"?

Is the small freshwater crustacean a crayfish, crawfish, or crawdad?

Says who, mind you? Why would facebook adopt some FOSS English 20xx when it could implement it's own for advertising alignment purposes? What are the odds that google and facebook both land on identical implementations?

ninalanyon 22 minutes ago | parent

A problem with all English spelling reform is that it is often intended to be phonetic and usually favours the pronunciation of the person proposing the change another is that it makes homophones also homonyms.

Where I come from in the South West of England bath has a long a and so does castle but in the North East they both have short a. Which one should the orthography reflect? What about house? Pronounced almost to rhyme with mice in some quarters and moose in others.

What do you do about Shrewsbury when even the locals don't all agree on how it is pronounced? Will Scots get to spell the name of a large aquatic mammal as hwale to more closely match the pronunciation? One positive change might be that in England the word wales would be reserved for the animals and we would all start referring to the country as Cymru.

If spelling reformers want to spell words differently then they should just do it the way that English has done for centuries, just do it. If you prefer to write labor rather than labour then do so. If you would rather write jeeny than genie go ahead. After all as mentioned in the article there is no English Academy to tell you not to. If others agree then the written language will adjust.

My Norwegian teacher was adamant that Norwegian is pronounced as written despite knowing perfectly well that almost every valley here has a different accent or even dialect. Norway gets away with it only by declaring that the two official forms are merely standardised written Norwegian; no one actually speaks bokmål or nynorsk.

simonbuilds 22 minutes ago | parent

A fun idea but I think someone that learns the language and invests enough time into it would find no reason to have the "f" removed from sufficient, they just accept it as it is and never think twice about it

glitchc 15 minutes ago | parent

This is a good start, albeit I don't share the author's enthusiasm for eliminating letters that are used in sounding out the word. I would rather we focus on popular words and remove any ambiguity in how someone would speak them if they read it for the first time. I think it is essential for the future of English that people communicating online (using text) can avoid the ambiguity in how the receiver would read and speak their message. For that reason, truncating smaller words to use fewer letters while retaining how they sound is far more valuable.

As an example, bothering with miscellany is a waste of time. Almost no one uses it when writing a tweet or a text message. It's a bigger bang for buck to change words like through to thru or knife to nyfe and so on.

jcmontx 13 minutes ago | parent

Rough, tough, though. One single letter change each time and you get a completely different sound. It's atrocious.

adzm 10 minutes ago | parent

> Rough, tough, though. One single letter change each time and you get a completely different sound.

Rough and tough do rhyme...

Squibby00 6 minutes ago | parent

Do rough and tough not rhyme in your dialect?

adzm 3 minutes ago | parent

y did u take all nite to drive thru the rain?

card_zero 3 minutes ago | parent

I like spelling reform a little bit, but I like etymology more. Knight tells us about Middle English knyght, from a time when they had actual knights riding around, and they pronounced every letter in the word, same as with its Germanic ancestor knecht. Sophistry has a ph because it's Greek and that represents the letter phi, which really was pronounced that way, an "aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive" like spitting. So you get historical context, Germanic knights, Greek Sophists (originally teachers of excellence and virtue). Then there's a bunch of words that break the customary i-before-e rule: deceive, conceive, perceive, receive. By putting the e before the i, those are all telling us the same thing about Norman French grammar, but I forget what, and whatever it was it's a grammatical rule that we never even used in English. So I'd be happy for that one to be reformed. I guess I support slight change.