English Orthography Reform

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Ebon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 354
Joined: 02 Jul 2016 20:55

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Ebon »

MoonRightRomantic wrote:
Ebon wrote:Except that inate would then look like it's pronounced like irate, which I believe it is not. I also believe that exemption and except use a different sound, so that's misleading as well. And is blood pronounced like pod?
(YMMV, obviously, but that's how I learned it., Apologies if this is addressed in the handbook, but I don't have the time to dig through hundreds of pages right now.)
According to Google <innate> <irate> <blood> are pronounced /iˈnāt/ /īˈrāt/ /bləd/ in General American. There's no distinction between stressed and unstressed schwa and the vowels with macrons indicate long vowels affected by the Great Vowel Shift: <ā> <ī> are pronounced [ei] [ai].
Well... yes. That was my point. Innate and irate are pronounced differently. Spelling them the same way hinders text to speech, since you can't tell which is which from spelling, and it hinders speech to text since it's counterintuitive to spell different sounds the same.

Not that English orthography is great when it comes to this, but it's also not a spelling reform that's supposed to make things easier.
MoonRightRomantic wrote:
It may remove spelling errors to cut out schwas, but it'd make learning pronunciation a nightmare for anyone trying to learn English. How do you know it's excellent and not, say, excelnet if all you have is exclnt and you've never encountered the word before? There's no reason why it couldn't be excelnet- it'd be a valid English word if it existed.
There's also the fact that English students don't necessarily schwa when native speakers schwa (or can distinguish schwas from other sounds, or even know what a schwa is in the first place), so then you're left with memorising spelling even more than now.
That's why I think syllabic consonants should be indicated as such. Ideally <exlnt, govrnmnt, contnnt> should be indicated <exl̩n̩t, govr̩nmn̩t, contn̩n̩t>.
Which addresses a single issue I showed, and it also means I'd have to switch to an English keyboard configuration every time I want to type English, because that's not on mine. Inconvenient. I'm aware that it's impossible for a single configuration to cover every language, but it strikes me as silly to require a reconfiguration for a lingua franca that's this closely related to German.

Speaking of reconfiguration, in the hypothetical situation that this spelling reform becomes a thing, who's going to pay to replace literally every single English textbook? There was a spelling reform in German before I entered school, and when I finished I was still using textbooks with the old spellings. I doubt they've replaced them since, too. Schools, at least German ones, quite simply don't have the money to throw out and replace this many textbooks at once.

What about the other issues? You seem to be under the assumption that a) English students always schwa when native speakers schwa (I don't, and I'm not exactly learning English anymore), b) they can distinguish schwas from other sounds, c) they know what a schwa is.

You can teach them what it is, yes. But if I picked a recording of, say, excellent and asked if all Es are pronounced the same, I'm very certain that most of them would say yes. Once again, it would require rote memorisation of when not to spell vowels. From a German speaker's perspective, it would also be quite difficult to get used to vowels being spelled in this way. This does not make learning English easier in the slightest.
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 566
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic »

Relevant (I think) paper that was recently linked to in "Faculty of Language": English orthography is not “close to optimal"
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1080
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Xonen »

Ebon wrote:
MoonRightRomantic wrote:That's why I think syllabic consonants should be indicated as such. Ideally <exlnt, govrnmnt, contnnt> should be indicated <exl̩n̩t, govr̩nmn̩t, contn̩n̩t>.
Which addresses a single issue I showed, and it also means I'd have to switch to an English keyboard configuration every time I want to type English, because that's not on mine. Inconvenient. I'm aware that it's impossible for a single configuration to cover every language, but it strikes me as silly to require a reconfiguration for a lingua franca that's this closely related to German.
I don't see why being closely related would have anything to do with it; there are plenty of cases around the world where closely related languages are written with completely different scripts. Also, instead of switching layouts every time you want to type English, the obvious solution would be to update your main layout to include the underdot. For instance, I can type English just fine on my Finnish QWERTY layout, despite the fact that Finnish orthography doesn't use <q>, <w>, or several other characters included on it.
Speaking of reconfiguration, in the hypothetical situation that this spelling reform becomes a thing, who's going to pay to replace literally every single English textbook?
This applies to all reform ideas out there, and I'm fairly sure it's already been discussed a couple of times in this thread. Yes, stuff like this is one of the main reasons why I, for one, doubt any of the reform proposals discussed in this thread, or anywhere on the internet, has much of a chance of actually happening in the real world. It can still be fun and educational to examine and discuss hypotheticals from a purely linguistic point of view, though.

Also, what Justin Rye says.
What about the other issues? You seem to be under the assumption that a) English students always schwa when native speakers schwa (I don't, and I'm not exactly learning English anymore)
Well, then you're just pronouncing it wrong. [¬.¬] A spelling that would make it easier for a non-native speaker to tell how to approximate a native-like pronunciation would only be an improvement, surely?
b) they can distinguish schwas from other sounds, c) they know what a schwa is.
Obviously enough, you wouldn't need to call it a "schwa". For German speakers, you could just call it "like the <e> in Sonne" or whatever. For languages that don't have a schwa, you need something more creative, but it's no different from how languages are usually taught. In any case, the only way to really learn the proper pronunciation of a foreign language is to actually listen to it spoken, and practise.
You can teach them what it is, yes. But if I picked a recording of, say, excellent and asked if all Es are pronounced the same, I'm very certain that most of them would say yes. Once again, it would require rote memorisation of when not to spell vowels. From a German speaker's perspective, it would also be quite difficult to get used to vowels being spelled in this way. This does not make learning English easier in the slightest.
This strikes me as highly subjective and rather speculative, but... In my experience, even the, ahem, less linguistically-aware among us tend to be able to hear the difference between a stressed and an unstressed vowel, so if the rule is simply that unstressed vowels are not spelled, then it shouldn't pose that much of a problem. And I'm not sure why it would be that much more difficult to get used to than, say <i> for /aɪ/.

All of that being said, though, I'm not a fan of CutSpel. There is the fact that it's at least occasionally impossible to predict where the schwas should be placed from the spelling, and marking syllabic consonants would solve that problem only partially. Also, adding special extra symbols does kind of undermine the point of simplifying the spelling. And finally, not all native speakers use a schwa in every position that it seems to assume a schwa: continent is [kʰɑˑntʰᵻnənt], not [kʰɑˑntʰn̩n̩t]. (In fact, I'm not sure if it's even possible to pronounce two consecutive syllabic /n/'s without inserting at least a very short schwa between them, or without the whole thing becoming a single [n̩:] - which I'm fairly sure nobody actually says. But I guess that's beside the point.)
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1037
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Znex »

Xonen wrote:All of that being said, though, I'm not a fan of CutSpel. There is the fact that it's at least occasionally impossible to predict where the schwas should be placed from the spelling, and marking syllabic consonants would solve that problem only partially. Also, adding special extra symbols does kind of undermine the point of simplifying the spelling. And finally, not all native speakers use a schwa in every position that it seems to assume a schwa: continent is [kʰɑˑntʰᵻnənt], not [kʰɑˑntʰn̩n̩t]. (In fact, I'm not sure if it's even possible to pronounce two consecutive syllabic /n/'s without inserting at least a very short schwa between them, or without the whole thing becoming a single [n̩:] - which I'm fairly sure nobody actually says. But I guess that's beside the point.)
If anything, I feel like a simple apostrophe would be more obvious and easy to use.

eg. In my idiolect, continent => kontən'nt
Or in something approximating RP, continent => kontin'nt/kontïn'nt
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4094
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by qwed117 »

Still misrepresenting sources...
Spoiler:
My minicity is [http://zyphrazia.myminicity.com/xml]Zyphrazia and [http://novland.myminicity.com/xml]Novland.

Minicity has fallen :(
The SqwedgePad
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2257
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by clawgrip »

Continent is something along the lines of [kʰɑˑnɁn̩ənt̚] for me.

I agree though that if you have multiple syllabic consonants and schwas interacting, you need to mark where the schwas are. Still, as has been said, the question of where the schwas are varies among speakers.
MoonRightRomantic
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 153
Joined: 11 Feb 2016 23:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by MoonRightRomantic »

Znex wrote:
Xonen wrote:All of that being said, though, I'm not a fan of CutSpel. There is the fact that it's at least occasionally impossible to predict where the schwas should be placed from the spelling, and marking syllabic consonants would solve that problem only partially. Also, adding special extra symbols does kind of undermine the point of simplifying the spelling. And finally, not all native speakers use a schwa in every position that it seems to assume a schwa: continent is [kʰɑˑntʰᵻnənt], not [kʰɑˑntʰn̩n̩t]. (In fact, I'm not sure if it's even possible to pronounce two consecutive syllabic /n/'s without inserting at least a very short schwa between them, or without the whole thing becoming a single [n̩:] - which I'm fairly sure nobody actually says. But I guess that's beside the point.)
If anything, I feel like a simple apostrophe would be more obvious and easy to use.

eg. In my idiolect, continent => kontən'nt
Or in something approximating RP, continent => kontin'nt/kontïn'nt
Yeah, an apostrophe to indicate schwas/syllabic consonants is what I meant. I don't know why I used IPA diacritics there. But then there would be the problem of distinguishing reduced vowels/syllabic consonants from elisions.

E.g. the words excellent, government and continent become "ex'l'nt, gov'rnm'nt, cont'n'nt" under this spelling. On second thought it might be easier to indicate syllable breaks rather than individual phonemes.
clawgrip wrote:Continent is something along the lines of [kʰɑˑnɁn̩ənt̚] for me.

I agree though that if you have multiple syllabic consonants and schwas interacting, you need to mark where the schwas are. Still, as has been said, the question of where the schwas are varies among speakers.
I don't notice any difference between a syllabic consonant and that consonant preceded by a reduced vowel. There isn't a phonemic distinction in English that I'm aware of.
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2257
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by clawgrip »

If you're referring to me changing [n̩n̩] to [n̩ən], it's because [n̩n̩] is not clear. This could realistically be [n̩ː], [n̩Ɂn̩], or [n̩ən].

Also relevant is this:
Ebon wrote:It may remove spelling errors to cut out schwas, but it'd make learning pronunciation a nightmare for anyone trying to learn English. How do you know it's excellent and not, say, excelnet if all you have is exclnt and you've never encountered the word before? There's no reason why it couldn't be excelnet- it'd be a valid English word if it existed.
As I hinted at before, it's taking the most learner-unfriendly aspect of Arabic and applying it to English.
MoonRightRomantic
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 153
Joined: 11 Feb 2016 23:22

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by MoonRightRomantic »

clawgrip wrote:If you're referring to me changing [n̩n̩] to [n̩ən], it's because [n̩n̩] is not clear. This could realistically be [n̩ː], [n̩Ɂn̩], or [n̩ən].

Also relevant is this:
Ebon wrote:It may remove spelling errors to cut out schwas, but it'd make learning pronunciation a nightmare for anyone trying to learn English. How do you know it's excellent and not, say, excelnet if all you have is exclnt and you've never encountered the word before? There's no reason why it couldn't be excelnet- it'd be a valid English word if it existed.
As I hinted at before, it's taking the most learner-unfriendly aspect of Arabic and applying it to English.
This misrepresents cut spelling. Cut spelling only removes schwas that occur before lateral, rhotic and nasal consonants (i.e. r, l, n, m, and engma) because those are sonorants. Since excellent is spelled <exlnt> under cut spelling, then if you know the spelling rules it may be inferred that there may be schwas preceding only the <l> or the <n> and never following them. This means it may be mispronounced /eksəlnt/ or /ekslənt/ but never /eksəlnət/.

Yes, there should be a standard spelling for schwa. Do apostrophes not work? Cut spelling can't fix a problem it wasn't trying to solve.
User avatar
Aleks
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 01:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Aleks »

With my American English accent I say all as [ɔl]. Here is what I purpose which would be a small change to words.

all ball call fall hall mall tall wall
oll boll coll foll holl moll toll woll

Also the following words
alright always
olright olways

toll would need to be changed to tole though.
User avatar
mira
greek
greek
Posts: 759
Joined: 14 May 2016 11:59
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by mira »

Aleks wrote:With my American English accent I say all as [ɔl]. Here is what I purpose which would be a small change to words.

all ball call fall hall mall tall wall
oll boll coll foll holl moll toll woll

Also the following words
alright always
olright olways

toll would need to be changed to tole though.
But "hall" has no relation to the name "Holly" what-so-ever. The vowel in those words is far from an [o] found in words like "pot" or "pond".
website | music | she/her | :gbr: native :deu: beginner
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2080
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: USA

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by GrandPiano »

OTʜᴇB wrote:
Aleks wrote:With my American English accent I say all as [ɔl]. Here is what I purpose which would be a small change to words.

all ball call fall hall mall tall wall
oll boll coll foll holl moll toll woll

Also the following words
alright always
olright olways

toll would need to be changed to tole though.
But "hall" has no relation to the name "Holly" what-so-ever. The vowel in those words is far from an [o] found in words like "pot" or "pond".
[o] is a strange vowel to have it "pot" and "pond". The usual vowel for those words is [ɑ] in the US and [ɒ] in the UK.
User avatar
mira
greek
greek
Posts: 759
Joined: 14 May 2016 11:59
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by mira »

GrandPiano wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:
Aleks wrote:With my American English accent I say all as [ɔl]. Here is what I purpose which would be a small change to words.

all ball call fall hall mall tall wall
oll boll coll foll holl moll toll woll

Also the following words
alright always
olright olways

toll would need to be changed to tole though.
But "hall" has no relation to the name "Holly" what-so-ever. The vowel in those words is far from an [o] found in words like "pot" or "pond".
[o] is a strange vowel to have it "pot" and "pond". The usual vowel for those words is [ɑ] in the US and [ɒ] in the UK.
I'm not good with vowels, but (I'm probably wrong here) [ɒ] seems more like the vowel in "hall" or "port", and my vowels in "pot" and "port" a dramatically different.
website | music | she/her | :gbr: native :deu: beginner
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2080
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: USA

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by GrandPiano »

OTʜᴇB wrote:
GrandPiano wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:
Aleks wrote:With my American English accent I say all as [ɔl]. Here is what I purpose which would be a small change to words.

all ball call fall hall mall tall wall
oll boll coll foll holl moll toll woll

Also the following words
alright always
olright olways

toll would need to be changed to tole though.
But "hall" has no relation to the name "Holly" what-so-ever. The vowel in those words is far from an [o] found in words like "pot" or "pond".
[o] is a strange vowel to have it "pot" and "pond". The usual vowel for those words is [ɑ] in the US and [ɒ] in the UK.
I'm not good with vowels, but (I'm probably wrong here) [ɒ] seems more like the vowel in "hall" or "port", and my vowels in "pot" and "port" a dramatically different.
For me it's:

<hall> /hɒl/
<pot> /pɑt/
<port> /pɔɹt/

(I have the vowel [ɔ] only in the sequence /ɔɹ/, where it contrasts with /ɑɹ/ and could be considered an allophone of /ɒ/, and in the diphthong /ɔɪ̯/)
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 566
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic »

OTʜᴇB wrote: I'm not good with vowels, but (I'm probably wrong here) [ɒ] seems more like the vowel in "hall" or "port", and my vowels in "pot" and "port" a dramatically different.
Most people do have different vowels in "pot" and "port," but usually in the opposite direction from what you're indicating.

Roughly, the relative placement of [ɑ] [ɒ] [ɔ] [o] on a vowel chart is like this:

Code: Select all

             close 



front                o  back
                    ɔ
                   ɒ
                  ɑ
             open
Possible vowel phonemes that may be in this space:
GOAT
NORTH/FORCE (this would be "port")
LOT (this would be "pot")
THOUGHT(= NORTH/FORCE or LOT)
SPA (=PALM, FATHER)

In general:
SPA is realized with the openest/frontest vowel phoneme out of these, so it's almost always transcribed /ɑ/ (maybe /a/ or /ɒ/ in some accents)
GOAT is closer than THOUGHT is closer than (or the same as) LOT is closer than (or the same as) SPA
THOUGHT is backer than (or the same as) LOT is backer than (or the same as) SPA
In non-rhotic accents, NORTH/FORCE = THOUGHT; in most rhotic accents, NORTH/FORCE is somewhere around THOUGHT or GOAT.

For British English speakers, this space is mainly occupied by two phonemes, LOT and THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE. In general, LOT is opener and a bit fronter than THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE, so they may be transcribed as /ɒ/ and /ɔː/ or /ɔ/ and /oː/ respectively. (British English speakers do also have /ɑː/ as a distinct vowel, but it's completely unrelated in origin to the various o-like vowels and only used for SPA/PALM and BATH words.) GOAT is diphthongal and the initial element is generally fronted out of this sector of vowel space, but before syllable-final /l/ many speakers have a backer diphthong commonly transcribed as [oʊ].

For American English speakers, GOAT is not usually so fronted, and in some cases it may not be diphthongized in the same way or to the same extent as in British English, so it’s sometimes transcribed as /o/. LOT is merged into SPA for most speakers. For speakers who preserve the distinction between SPA/LOT and THOUGHT, the latter is generally closer or backer or rounder or more sulcalized, so they’re usually transcribed as /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ or /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ respectively. The merged SPA-LOT-THOUGHT phoneme used by speakers with the cot-caught merger is usually transcribed /ɑ/, although I believe I’ve also seen /ɒ/ used by some people. The NORTH/FORCE vowel may be identified with the THOUGHT vowel or with the GOAT vowel, or it may be transcribed differently from both using some system like GOAT = /o/, THOUGHT = /ɒ/, NORTH/FORCE = /ɔr/.
User avatar
mira
greek
greek
Posts: 759
Joined: 14 May 2016 11:59
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by mira »

Sumelic wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote: I'm not good with vowels, but (I'm probably wrong here) [ɒ] seems more like the vowel in "hall" or "port", and my vowels in "pot" and "port" a dramatically different.
Most people do have different vowels in "pot" and "port," but usually in the opposite direction from what you're indicating.

Roughly, the relative placement of [ɑ] [ɒ] [ɔ] [o] on a vowel chart is like this:

Code: Select all

             close 



front                o  back
                    ɔ
                   ɒ
                  ɑ
             open
Possible vowel phonemes that may be in this space:
GOAT
NORTH/FORCE (this would be "port")
LOT (this would be "pot")
THOUGHT(= NORTH/FORCE or LOT)
SPA (=PALM, FATHER)

In general:
SPA is realized with the openest/frontest vowel phoneme out of these, so it's almost always transcribed /ɑ/ (maybe /a/ or /ɒ/ in some accents)
GOAT is closer than THOUGHT is closer than (or the same as) LOT is closer than (or the same as) SPA
THOUGHT is backer than (or the same as) LOT is backer than (or the same as) SPA
In non-rhotic accents, NORTH/FORCE = THOUGHT; in most rhotic accents, NORTH/FORCE is somewhere around THOUGHT or GOAT.

For British English speakers, this space is mainly occupied by two phonemes, LOT and THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE. In general, LOT is opener and a bit fronter than THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE, so they may be transcribed as /ɒ/ and /ɔː/ or /ɔ/ and /oː/ respectively. (British English speakers do also have /ɑː/ as a distinct vowel, but it's completely unrelated in origin to the various o-like vowels and only used for SPA/PALM and BATH words.) GOAT is diphthongal and the initial element is generally fronted out of this sector of vowel space, but before syllable-final /l/ many speakers have a backer diphthong commonly transcribed as [oʊ].

For American English speakers, GOAT is not usually so fronted, and in some cases it may not be diphthongized in the same way or to the same extent as in British English, so it’s sometimes transcribed as /o/. LOT is merged into SPA for most speakers. For speakers who preserve the distinction between SPA/LOT and THOUGHT, the latter is generally closer or backer or rounder or more sulcalized, so they’re usually transcribed as /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ or /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ respectively. The merged SPA-LOT-THOUGHT phoneme used by speakers with the cot-caught merger is usually transcribed /ɑ/, although I believe I’ve also seen /ɒ/ used by some people. The NORTH/FORCE vowel may be identified with the THOUGHT vowel or with the GOAT vowel, or it may be transcribed differently from both using some system like GOAT = /o/, THOUGHT = /ɒ/, NORTH/FORCE = /ɔr/.
So my "pot" is [pɒt], my "port" is [pɔːt], my "goat" is [gəʊt] (almost - a little towards [ɒʊ]), and my "spa" is [spɑ]?
website | music | she/her | :gbr: native :deu: beginner
Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 566
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Sumelic »

OTʜᴇB wrote: So my "pot" is [pɒt], my "port" is [pɔːt], my "goat" is [gəʊt] (almost - a little towards [ɒʊ]), and my "spa" is [spɑ]?
That transcription would not surprise me coming from a British English speaker.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Salmoneus »

Sumelic wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote: So my "pot" is [pɒt], my "port" is [pɔːt], my "goat" is [gəʊt] (almost - a little towards [ɒʊ]), and my "spa" is [spɑ]?
That transcription would not surprise me coming from a British English speaker.
Yes, that's basically what you'd expect from SSBE.
Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 526
Joined: 28 Nov 2013 14:47

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Squall »

Because there are many dialects, the dictionary uses a "received pronunciation". So the spelling should follow the received pronunciation.

My reform:

Stressed
a: /ɜ ʌ/
ae: /æ/
e: /ɛ/
i: /ɪ/
ii: /i/
ao: /ɑ ɒ/
o: /ɔ/
u: /ʊ/
uu: /u/
ai: /aɪ/
au: /aʊ/
ei: /eɪ/
ou: /oʊ/
oi: /ɔɪ/
eu: /ɛʊ/

Unstressed:
e: /ə/
i: /ɪ/
u: /ʊ/

Helóu, duu yuu laik dhis nyuu sistem for speling inglish divelepd for meiking evrithing faor beter?
Dhaet iz rieli wanderful aend meikz dhe raiting imprúuv e laot bikóz it iz fenetik.
Yu mei sarch for iizier igzaempelz.
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1037
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: English Orthography Reform

Post by Znex »

Squall wrote:Helóu, duu yuu laik dhis nyuu sistem for speling inglish divelepd for meiking evrithing faor beter?
Dhaet iz rieli wanderful aend meikz dhe raiting imprúuv e laot bikóz it iz fenetik.
Yu mei sarch for iizier igzaempelz.
I can't help but read this with a Kiwi accent.
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
Post Reply