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.