A - a
B - b
(C -c has been removed because it is useless)
D - d
E - e
F - f
G - g
H - h
I - i
J - j
K - k
L - l
M - m
N - n
O - o
P - p
(Q - q has been removed because it is useless)
R - r
S - s
T - t
U - u
V - v
W - w (renamed "wynn")
(X - x has been removed because it is useless)
Y - y
Z - z
Þ - þ (thorn)(this letter makes the "th" sound as in "the")
Ʃ - ʃ (esh)(this letter makes the "sh" sound as in "should")
Ŋ - ŋ (eng)(this letter makes the "ng" sound as in "singing")
Am I right or am I right???
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-22 7:58
Actually, ð makes the "th" sound in "the." Þ makes the "th" sound in "think."
And if you're really going to revise the alphabet, you should revise the spelling first.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-22 13:43
owned
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-22 15:01
Spoilers: It's not the alphabet that needs revising, it's the phonology and orthography.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-22 16:05
You forgot the interrobang ‽
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-28 4:24
>>1
dont take out "q"
just make it so that you dont have to add u afer
The last three are unnecessary. The h as a sound modifier is fine. Seems you saw no need for a 'ch' symbol.
Getting rid of the redundant letters would be sensible except the cost would outweigh the benefit. It's only three, it's not going to save much memory in character sets. It might make learning spelling a tiny bit easier.
Before anyone mentions it, reforming the spelling based on pronunciation would go nowhere fast. There are a million varying accents for English with different pronunciations.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-28 15:44
ʃould I stay or ʃ I go?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-29 6:27
>>7
thats 2 letters, which is the same length as "qu"
>>8
Yeah, and that's why English fails, too much bloat and you can't reform it because it will fuck up backwards compatibility and all the variants that are around. Kinda like the x86 instruction set.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-29 14:58
Let's just all switch to Russian as the main global lingua franca.
>>17
good thing no one is hiring you to reform the writing system.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-02 10:25
How about we stop using an inferior language like English altogether?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-02 10:33
>>19
I think English has a pretty easy grammar (way easier than my native language's grammar) with a good amount of both germanic and latin words. That makes English a great language for international communication.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-03 14:43
>>20
The problem with english is, it's bloated. What makes it good for communication is, that every fucking person knows it. English grammar is highly irregular, vocabulary is non-uniform and grotesquely redundant, and spelling is a wreck from all sorts of rules assorted from everywhere etc.
Kinda like the Ottoman Turkish language, but they reformed it after they realized no one else was speaking it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-03 15:36
>>17
So what, you want a letter for every one syllable to make it shorter to type? Yeah sounds great, then we'll have like 10 fucking thousand letters just like Chinese
Koreans probably have the best alphabet system, it's like they stack a bunch of letters on each other to create a word, so a syllable only takes up one space, yet anyone can read it, not to mention, you know where a syllable ends or starts, unlike English in many occasions
>>22
i was only saying that "qu" could be made shorter by taking away the useless "u", it woulds still have the same sound.
however i fully agree about the Korean alphabet. Once you can read it well enough to recognize syllables instantly (as opposed to sounding it out) it makes it insanely fast to read too
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-04 10:50
>>21
I particularly think that this "bloat" or redundancy, is pretty useful, you can choose among many ways how to express yourself.
My only beef with English is the pronounciation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-04 11:10
Ai personali think it wud bi best if everi thing was speld foneticali yuzing thuh 26 leterz wi haf tu chuz from.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-04 11:32
Aj tink Inglisj sjudd bi ritten juzing de Norvidsjen ælfabett ænd pronæunsd wit a Norvidsjen æksent.
>I particularly think that this "bloat" or redundancy, is pretty useful, you can choose among many ways how to express yourself.
English is not Russian, Finnish or Arabic or whatever you seem to think.
The three latter languages allow for dynamic, creative ways of expressing oneself.
English, on the other hand, is just *bloated*. Fat, redundant and simply bloated.
>>26 >>28
Nou, yuu bouth aar roong. Inglish shud bii rittön wit tö Finish ortaagräfi insteed end pronaunsd laik Finish. Tät wei it iis kliörör end mats betör.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-06 13:55
Ol of yu ar vrong, İngliş şud biy vritın akording tu Törkiş ortografi and pronavnsd vit e horrid törkiş eksent, it iz fonetik end silibılz are pronavnsd sepırıtliy so it iz kliyır for evriyvan.
You could do that for many letters, like I said, following your example, we could have like 10,000 letters
Q is just kw in most examples
let's make 'com' a new letter because it could be shorter, so com = c
let's make pu[pyu] a new letter because it could be shorter, so pu=q
let's make ter a new letter because it could be shorter, so ter=x
ok guys, so what does cqx read as?
Q doesn't need to be revised it just needs to be scrapped
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 1:39
>>34
then you will have to create another letter in its place fool
Don't I know you from the flat earth forums awhile ago?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 15:08
Why get rid of X? Let's use it for /ʃ/ instead of Ʃ.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 16:22
Xut up, xitpuxer. Xeex.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 18:08
Áj fink inglis sud bí riten jüzing -- ó, sit, dér iz nó þ in disz álfábet (áj szupóz jü kud üz "th", thó). In ádisön, it luksz fuking wírd. Át líszt /dʒ/ iz ízi tü reprizent, thó.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 20:26
I think English should be written using English, how about?
J̬oz̬ sistemz az̬ sili. J̬uz δə J̬uz̬älik Fənətik Älfəbet insted. Džəst luk ät häu̯ kul it luks!
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-16 19:39
>>63
Nonsens, the skript Ä diväzd iz simplï mór efišwnt end fankšwnwl, the simpwl glič konsɵrning the letwr 'w' wil sún bï rïzolvd ven Ä fänd a rïplësmwnt for the vavwl.
Agreed. This change in the alphabet is much needed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-16 21:48
This change is mainly about the sounds, not the alphabet. As it is, the alphabet itself is fine, I can write these words you are reading with it, and it is understandable; thus, there is no problem with it. Case closed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 0:13
>>65
Dú jú think this duz not luk gë? Ä, tú, sudjest júziŋ "ə" fór thə tónləs unstresd văwəl. Its a bit hard to täp, thó.
Alsó, jú júz "nav" for "now" -- isənt that ambigjúus? Äv júzd "ă" tú reprizent it hïr, althó Ä dónt think haviŋ a siŋəl letər pɵr văwəl is nesəserilï a gud thiŋ... Thɵr ar far tú meni văwəls in this langwidj! I alsó think "langwidjiz" iz a bit clumzi, but I dón't nó wat thï altɵrnativ iz...
>>62
Djust to ček, šudənt this bï ritən "reprizentid"? Ov kórs, this häläts a probləm... Difərənt däalekts sumtäms prónăns the sëm wɵrd in difərənt wëz. Hă dú langwidjiz with fonïmik órthografïz handəl this, apart from not haviŋ this probləm in thə fɵrst plës?
Bónus points: cănt thï amănt ov erərz Ä aksidentalï mëd in this póst.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 13:23
>>68
(I'm restricted to standard character map at the moment, and can't be bothered to copy-paste, so I unfortunately have to type this post in the old, redundant, ancient way)
Having a single letter for every vowel might not be a good thing, yes, but I believe at least for the most commonly used ones there should be discerning characters, and with the usage of diacritics this could be expanded easily.
The second issue, is a far greater one - and some of the errors I made are indeed related to the way I pronounce those words. Maybe an approach similar to standard german could be taken, a centralized version would correspond to the standard, with a standard speech stemming from it - the other dialects would not be represented as directly - they still would have resemblance, I suppose, but there is only so much that could be done. The problem with this, however, would be deciding what the "central" version is.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 16:48
there is too much printed material and too many speakers of english
it will never be reformed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-17 17:11
>>70
thanks a lot for that information, captain obvious, that clears things up.
I have an alphabet called Nyu Inglıš. Phonetic spelling, 30 letters, influenced by Old English, IPA and even Turkish.
Aa Ææ Åå Bb Dd Ðð Ee Əə Ff Gg Hh Iı İi Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Rr Ss Šš Tt Þþ Uu Vv Ww Yy Zz Žž
Well, I think as far as spelling, it could be reformed to a degree -- the ideal would be to have one letter per sound. So perhaps you could replace the H following the C,S,or T with an accent over the letter as is sometimes done with Eastern European languages. So The Shoe is on The other foot = T`e S`oe is on t`e ot`er foot. And maybe replace the vowels with their latin equivelent, so oo = u, and so on.