Re: The 2nd language issue

From: Mark Odegard
Message: 844
Date: 2000-01-10

Alexander Stolbov writes: 
 
It's funny. In my eyes the English spelling system (unspoiled forms of imported words + absence of diacritics like in noble Latin) is the most charming and attractive peculiarity of this language (I'd add here also absence of causes and of gender in inanimates). However English phonetics (the way of reading written words) is as bad for me as beautiful is spelling.
 
I apologize in advance if my remark offends those who love English.

No apologies needed. This is the first time I've read anyone praising the English spelling system. I confess to an affection for it myself, but like just about any native-speaker of English, also damn it to utter perdition.
 
Relating written English to spoken English is difficult for even native speakers. For myself, there are a few words I learned twice -- the way it's pronounced, and the way it should be pronounced from the way it's spelled (as an example, I mentally greatly exaggerate the a-sounds in the word 'separate').
 
The largest impediment to any reform of English spelling is the naked fact that just about system adopted would leave a majority of native English speakers with a spelling system that did NOT reflect their dialect. The largest number of native-speakers speak my accent: American Midlands; but this 'accent' does not make up the majority of educated native-speakers. And if multiple spelling systems were adopted for each major dialect area, you will have effectively broken English into daughter languages.
 
My own thought here is that about the only thing that might work would be an syllabary where the vowels are only 'approximated' by a fierce system of diacritics that allowed each dialect area to read them by the way they do them. (The consonants are not the problem). An equally fierce system might be developed for the present orthographic regime, at least as an aid for E2L students.
 
Mark Odegard.