English needs more letters.

Seriously, there's all this cool shit out there like Þ, Ŋ, Ɔ, Ƣ, and Ѧ, and we're limiting ourselves to A through Z? Come on!

I'm not sure of what use could be Ѧ and Ƣ since English lacks these sounds...

>>1
Agreed. We шould at least get letters for some of ðe common phonemes ðat digraphs are uжually used for, lackiŋ letters as ðey currently do. Perhaps in ðis þread we could begin a reform.

I'd love to see þorn come back as a symbol in the English languaџe, but I don't þink we need many more symbols; what's wrong with /ng/, for instance?

>>4
Ŋ is probably superfluous. Why did you use џ when j is the same? It would make more sense to have neither, and use dж. We do need þ, ð, ш, and maybe ж.

>>5

Hold over from fucking with the German language, my bad.

Would be good if English used just ðe þ and ð of ðe new letters. People will finally realize that voiced and unvoiced dental fricative are different sounds. Though and through will be spelled ðough and þrough.

Agreed partially.

Latin alphabet only works really great for ONE language: Classical Latin.

That "put H after letter and OMG we have a cool new sound" shit started with Greek loanwords. Greek had aspirated stops (ϕ, θ and χ - sounded like English Pit, Till and Kill, contrast with sPit, sTill and sKill). in English, aspirating or not isn't a great shit, but in Greek it DOES make a difference. Latin borrowed Greek words, but hadn't the letters for them... solution: "aspirated P, T and C is now PH, TH and CH).

It was logical at the time, but Greek evolved. PH started to sound like Food, TH like English THink and CH like Scottish loCH. The digraphs not only remained but grow in quantity: Occitan and Portuguese uses NH and LH, English uses SH...[+]

It's OK to use that -H digraphs shit in Portuguese or Occitan because H is mute in those languages. However, not in English. Worse: English allows end-syllabe T, P, S... compare THink and caTHouse, SHampoo and grasSHopper, PHylosophy and uPHill.

But it's not the greatest English spelling problem, however... Great Vowel Shi(f)t is worse.

When English spelling was more or less defined, fOOt and fEEt sounded like fOHt and fEHt. WAS and HAS rhymed. bUt sounded like bOOt, and bOOt sounded like bOHt. The vowels shifted a great deal, look at the Wikipedia for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift

Is this the biggest problem? No. I can has more.[+]

The biggest and crazyest trouble in English spelling is INCONSISTENCY, guys.

Loanwords are great, they give a language flexbility. English is a Germanic language, with Latin and French borrowings. However, there are so much Latin and French words that they're spelled as if it were French and Latin!

It's plain retard that French uses "CE and CI sound like SE and SI", but at least it's ethymological: Latin /ke/ and /ki/ become French /se/ and /si/.

But, what about English? That palatization shit is part of Romance Languages. Not English. So, in English is not just "retardness", it's retardness, sillyness, pedantry and PLAIN BULLSHIT.

Wanna write Eng as a Romance lang? Pffffft, ok, but respell the native Germanic words. Was it done? NO.

SO, English uses two set rules for the orthography, the Romance and Germanic. And none of them fits English.

maCHine and CHurCH. Zeitgeist and Zero. boMB and coMB. THis and THink. pleaSure and Sure and Sorrow and... godS!

And, please, someone tells me WHY "iland" and "luve" are spelled as "iSland" and "lOve" - plain faggotry?

As I said, Latin alphabet works greats only for Classical Latin, but can be adapted to a non-Romance language like English. New letters would be GREAT, but they aren't even necessary.

English needs urgent respell. Make a dialects' study - some compromise with GA and RP would already works. Define how is spelled each phoneme. Make sure which alphabet will be used - I don't recommend Latin, however, it would work anyway, and with these steps, phonemes w/o letter will just stare at you and say "make me a samm... a digraph or a new letter". If you're too lazy to make new letters, reserve one inuseful (like Q, C, Y or X) to make only digraphs.

Or, continue with this archaic spelling. While the rest of the world is teaching his kids something useful (like grammar or literature or even phylosophy), yours are learning... HAW TO SPEL INGLISH.

Eŋliʃ needs more letters, riƣt.

Eŋliʃ
Forgetting a letter there?

>>13
In your world, maybe, but not in mine.

Should be Eŋgliʃ. Þere is still a g after þe ŋ.

>>12 and >>13

Well done, you two have managed to stumble on one of the problems with a standardised orthography, there are subtle but important geographically-based differences in pronunciation.  I would actually go as far as to say it should be Iŋgliʃ for where I live.

>>9

Ever notice how in all your examples the examples of T an H being separate sounds are when the T is at the end of a syllable and the H is at the beginning of one?

I like ð and þ. I þink we need þose.

>>15
You might want to use eth for the word there. Standardizing the other way would be counterintuitive.

>>17
Implying ere's any way to tell “th” as in “hothead” from “bother” if you don't already know.

>>16
Me too, which is why I only replaced certain digraphs, and did not attempt phonetic spelling overall. But where do people lose the g in that word?

>>18
Don't you mean ðose?

>>18
Your post just proved þat þere better be only one letter.

>>21
But ðere are two sounds.

>>22
People have trouble distinguishing þem. Besides I don't like how ð is a d wiþ diacritic, especially in þe uppercase form.

>>17
(Forgot my tripcode ¬¬ )
Yes, I noticed. However, orthography should make syllabication clear, not not the other way.

>>16
As rule of thumb: if a considerable number of speakers make the distinction or add the sound, include it in the word.
Using "word" as example: spelling "wod" would be a tard thing - GA still uses -r in coda.

>>22
I would vote for using dhis, dhat, dhe. No additional letters, just one more pigraph. What do you think?

>>23
People only have trouble because the ortography renders both the same.

>>25
I þink it's dumb.

Look aþ me I'm þrolling /laŋ/ wiþ þe letter þ

>>23
Đat's no diacritic.

>>28
You can see Ð like D+diacritic or like another letter.
I þink it depends how much you use it.
If you use just Ð, it's a new letter.
If you use Ð, Ł, Ø, Ŧ, ðe bar is a diacritic.
(By ðe way, ŧ looks cooler ðan þ just for me? :D)

>>11
>phylosophy
>implying philosophy is useful
>spelled philosophy wrong
>dumbass

>>27
faggoð

I do með

>>25
No, no, no more digrafs. H is for aspiration. Let's keep it ðat waȝ.

>>33
Don't get rid of digraphs we already have a single letter for. ðhat's just confusing.

>>34
ðhat
Crap.

>>30
I did it. Spelled it wrong.
See? English spelling is confusing.
"Filozofi", what do you þink?

>>33
Dhat or ðat... both/boþ works well.

>>36
you so gay bruh

Ever notice how, in America, the "Zhu Zhu" "Zhu Zhu Pets" is pronounced, "Zoo Zoo?" That's because Americunts can't pronounce the Zh sound.

Iiŋliʃ speliŋ iz stupid.
Down wiþ pointles konsonant daigræfs.
Up wiþ ðe nu orþografii!

(Iz it just mi, or iz þis a kwait industrial wei ov speliŋ?)

>>38
I can pronounce that shit and I'm American