I suggest to improve english transcription

Are there any system to simplify english in written forms so a person would be able to write a word haven't seen it before?
For instance:"van, tu, tri, fo, fayf, syks, seven, eyt, nayn, ten"? May be you know some linguist who has already done it?
It wud bi osom.

Attached: 15146696181440.jpg (640x640, 102K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ø)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

And also I wud layk to get rid of "th" sound. We ken use "t", "s" and "z" in appropriate places instead.
May be you know some such system?

I don't think there is a such system

Bat juu nou et iis iisi tu invent sats system juurselv

I'm cured, alright? Kozli, bliin.

>van, tu, tri, fo, fayf, syks, seven, eyt, nayn, ten

I perceive these as:
"van, tuu, tri, foo, faif, siks, seven, eit, nain, ten"

I mean you'd probably slowly be able to work it out but we've had a dictionary for hundreds of years and don't really update spelling

Your pronunciation is all fucked up

International Phonetic Alphabet.

it's called the international phonetic alphabet you fucking retards it existed for more than a hundred years

I don't want to invent a bicycle, bikoz I don't have appropriate degree and knowledge. But the world is so huge and there are so many crazy people, so I thought there must be one person who has already done it much better, than I would have done it myself. It's difficult, really, to create a complete system, which would looks naturally.

Chto ty nesёx voobxe?

But what would you use in places where "i" is necessary on its own?
And obviously we need to get rid of "w", replacing it by "u" or "v" (both, but in different places).

Attached: 4nJ16bfQ.png (512x512, 192K)

>tuu is long
>tri isn't
>???

He's talking about an English spelling reform though
Also having IPA for spelling would be interesting with all the vowel differences between dialects

You mean possibly the most phonetically consistent and logical on the planet? Yeah I guess that would seem fucked up to a english speaker

>don't really update spelling
You don't - I do.

>pronunciation is fucked up
>american flag

Thanks

No. it isn't what I mean. It's not enough to just change the letters, I want to simplify english and to save its nature. Its like with Java and Scala: Java has a lot of good libraries, but Scala is much more convenient. I want the "Scala version of english language",

Attached: 15041606041830.png (1117x825, 135K)

>English spelling reform
Thanks, bro! Now I know how it's called!

And how do you suggest to use "y"?
In my project y is use with yu ("you"), yo (your), ya (like in japanese "yamede"). I can't do the same with i. And we need the "i" sound itself.

jou, jour, ja

It would be EZ as fuck, just throw in a couple accents and use them. English doesn't have all that many sounds.

But my system is more simple.
And what would you use for j sound (in word like "challenge" or in japanese "daijobu"?) How would you write it? If you got one letter, you need to replace another and the process continue untill create the whole consistent system.

It is not convenient. I would like to use english in my own country (Russian Empire), if it had more simple, more accurate spelling. I would like to make english as common international language for all people around the world, the language must have more simple writing rules, so a person would be able to write it without knowing its writing before.

Attached: 15200694213620.jpg (499x499, 26K)

"write as you hear" rule - main basement for upcoming english writing reform.

I don't like this type of language policy. It supports extermination of diversity, and erases history. Either you end up with 20 different ways to spell every word, for each accent and dialect, or you end up with only 1 correct way of speaking, and everyone else lose all benefit from this reform or are forced to abandon their history and culture and contributes to destruction of linguistic diversity.

But being able to go from written to spoken is less problematic. It still has some problems, but you can have a way of writing that includes many accents and dialects, and people from different regions can simply have different pronunciation rules. This is the way it should be done.

I support some minor revisions to the written language, but not in a way that destroys diversity, enforces degeneracy, and erases history.

der iz no sač sistem user, ju hef tu mejk it jorself

riid, sit, buuk, tuu, hier, dei
men, amerika, wörd, sort, tuur, boi, gou
kät, bat, part, not, wear, mai, hau
pig, bed, taim, du, tshurtsh, ?, kilo, gou
faiv, veri, think, thi, six, zu, short, kasual
milk, nou, sing, hello, laiv, riid, vindou, jes
probably goofed some of them up but whatever
No it isn't, english J is like tsh or something, nothing to do with J

Attached: Phonetic_alphabet.gif (589x377, 10K)

>It supports extermination of diversity, and erases history.
I don't give a fuck of that shit. I suggest using the system internationally, nationals in their own countries can speak what ever the fuck they want. But internationally they must use the system.

> everyone else lose
only native speakers. The rest of the world (billions of people actually) wins.

I think there is. If I create it, it wont be successful, I am not a linquist. It should be a person who knows what to do, who has experience with different languages and the desire to do it at the same time.

>kät
Interesting choice, but why not just "ket" like in "men"? The same sounds.

>taim
But how will you discern "time" and for instance a name "t-a-i-m" with stress on the "i"?.It's not comfortable. "Taym" may be better?

>tshurtsh
Church? It's terrible.

>thi
What does it mean?

>six
We dont need x sound, because it can be replaced by "ks" and we can use the letter "x" like "sh": mixn (mission).

>Interesting choice, but why not just "ket" like in "men"? The same sounds.
>The same sounds.
Man is /mæn/, Men is /men/
Cat is /kæt/
Not the same sounds at all
Guess it depends on how much information you actually want to retain

just like how Thing and This don't have the same 'Th'
or how W is not pronounced the same as V

>"ket" like in "men"? The same sounds
Nope, however man should be written as män
>ut how will you discern "time" and for instance a name "t-a-i-m" with stress on the "i"?
Context?
>"Taym" may be better?
No, Y is an actual letter on it's own and it is not present in this word
>Church? It's terrible.
IPA is /tʃɜrtʃ/ , and ʃ is sh so I'd say it's a pretty decent approximation unless you want to just adopt IPA
>What does it mean?
The? I don't know my dude, it's just one of those little words you're supposed to sprinkle everywhere
>We dont need x sound, because it can be replaced by "ks"
Agreed, my mistake.
>and we can use the letter "x" like "sh": mixn (mission)
But why, if the point is to simplify things you should be getting rid of these kinds of letters

>Man is /mæn/, Men is /men/
This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to get rid of that shit.

>just like how Thing and This don't have the same 'Th'
>or how W is not pronounced the same as V
Fuck the "th" sound and fuck the "w" sound. They are disgusting and useless.

>Nope, however man should be written as män
Ok, sounds reasonable.

>Context?
"Taim, can you make me a favor and say what taim is it now?"


>Y is an actual letter on it's own
But it doesnt have its own sound. Its useless crap from history like W and TH.

>/tʃɜrtʃ/
It breaks the "one sound - one letter" rule. It doesnt make sense, if you break the rule.

>you should be getting rid of these kinds of letters
We can use them for "difficult" sounds. And it's much better, because we are already using them, we just need to add new meaning.

>But why, if the point is to simplify things you should be getting rid of these kinds of letters
But then "sh" has two pronunciations
one is ʃ, the other is S+H as two different sounds
using a different letter for it is better than a digraph

>>Context?
>"Taim, can you make me a favor and say what taim is it now?"
you could use the Chinese Pinyin way
Xian → one syllable
Xi'an → two syllables

>"Taim, can you make me a favor and say what taim is it now?"
Yes, this is a good example of how context works. And you know time is already pronounced as taim, so I don't really see how changing the spelling would create any confusion
>But it doesnt have its own sound.
It does, it's just not i or j, it's y
>It breaks the "one sound - one letter" rule.
So how would you spell church?
>We can use them for "difficult" sounds
How about the one sound one letter rule?

>one is ʃ, the other is S+H as two different sounds
Examples please

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is
unnecessary difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and
thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to
iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be
administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's'
instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would
resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k'
sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up
konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be
made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthousiasm when in the sekond year, it was
anounsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'.
This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty per sent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are
possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is
disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as
though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the
skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing
'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v',
vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o
kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of
kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls,
difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems
of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.

That is readable up until the end but still too much based on "germanic".

Everyone should just adopt the thing the finn is saying. Then the pronunciation would be the most optimal.

There would be nothing else than just reading the words out of the paper as they are written. No need to remember arbitrary pronunciation rules.

>o I don't really see how changing the spelling would create any confusion
I want a language what is not dependent on the context. The more information you get from one word, the better.

"Sharia law" and "Sh (not like "sh", but "s-h") aria like the land".
You are making things more difficult, not simple.

>it's y
No. In russian we have й sound, and I just suggest to replace it with Y. It's simple. What you suggest is not simple, it's the same english and why would we change anything if the result is the same?

>So how would you spell church?
For instance "Qoq". Q doesnt have it's own sound, it can be replaced by k, ku and so on. So we can use Q for Ch sound.

>How about the one sound one letter rule?
I dont understand you. These letters - Q, W, Y, X dont have its own sound, so we can use them to replace "difficult" sound like sh, ch (the rest we can just throw away).

>It does, it's just not i or j, it's y
You might be talking about a different sound than he is
Do you mean Y as Finnish Y, so like Ü in German?

Compound words like Hogshead, that is Hogs+head and not Hog+shead
I tried to find a better one but searching produces lists of 'words with sh'
We can argue context is enough but having a 1:1 perfect correspondence would be better I think

We could also use Š,Ž for sh/zh from slavic languages
this would also retain the relationship between them
as in Š is the same to S as Ž is to Z

>using 's' instead of the soft 'c'
>hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k'
Agreed
>'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'
Stupid, those are different sounds
> removal of double letters
which have always been a deterent to akurate speling
Stupid again, if something english has a problem not using doubles in written form despite them being pronounced as such
>silent 'e's
All silent letters should be dropped
>replasing 'th' by 'z'
Just why
>'w' kould be taken on by 'v'
And U
>unesesary 'o kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'
At least in some cases, yes
>Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters
Sure

>'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'
>Stupid, those are different sounds
But every 'PH' that comes from Greek is pronounced "F"
Unless you mean something different

>Stupid again, if something english has a problem not using doubles in written form despite them being pronounced as such
Do you have any examples?

Might not be useful. It can't be phonetic due to different dialects. You could easily make it far more consistent and intuitive but making such a change is a monumental task. It may not be worth bothering if you were to make it widespread (somehow), otherwise it's just a little project I'm sure dozens have done before. There are probably 'revised' or 'simplified' English languages actually, not just orthography.

it's intentional humiliation. And it shows how difficult it is to create consistent system. It's not just replacing words, it's creating a new language.

>For instance "Qoq"
Fuck. It should be norvegian "o" with "\" mark. (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ø)

Hej gajs

Ken łi dżast tok lajk dis nał soł dat damb amerikans and angloids get konfjuzd?

Attached: 1480886506650.jpg (699x485, 127K)

>I want a language what is not dependent on the context
Then you need more words
>"Sharia law" and "Sh (not like "sh", but "s-h") aria like the land".
what
>You are making things more difficult, not simple.
How so?
>In russian we have й sound, and I just suggest to replace it with Y.
That's J, I don't think english even has Y, just replace Y's with J or I
>So we can use Q for Ch sound
>Q, W, Y, X dont have its own sound, so we can use them to replace "difficult" sound like sh, ch
That's just adding unnecessary letters, IMO it's simpler to just use a combination of already existing letters for these

>Stupid, those are different sounds
We need to throw away one oa the sound in order to make the language more simple.

>It can't be phonetic due to different dialects
Fuck the dialects. We will choose the most simple for the whole world and use it, got rid of the rest useless dialects.

>Do you mean Y as Finnish Y, so like Ü in German?
Yeas, that is indeed Y
>We can argue context is enough but having a 1:1 perfect correspondence would be better I think
Well then IPA it is

>It may not be worth bothering if you were to make it widespread (somehow),
I can make it widespead, just trust me. But I need an appropriate system. I am unable to develop it on my own (it wont be accurate in my hands), so I was hoping somebody has already done it just for fun, like for college's project at language department.

De best fink ebałt sacz rajtink is dat ewriłan ken izli anderstend it eniłej, iwen if dej dont spik de posters lengłydż. Ewriłan eksept for de inglisz dat is, bikoz dejr brejns dżast kent hendul en ekczual fonetik rajtink system.

>But every 'PH' that comes from Greek is pronounced "F"
If it's pronounced as F it should be written as such, but F and PH are two definitely different things
>Do you have any examples?
*Duu juu hääv eni eksampels?

i don't understand this thread

Attached: 1512470323237.png (645x773, 87K)

>what
Ok, in Russain we have word "cхeмa" ( shema). If you will use "sh" as one sound, you will not be able to write the word.

>That's J,
But J is J, obviously. It has it's own sound. In russian it is Ж. Otherwise what would you use for Ж?

>That's just adding unnecessary letters
That's not adding, because these letters already exist in english, baka.

>norvegian "o"
O/Ö? Yeah I guess that's there too, so it should be tshootsh

d problem uit dat iz dat jor jus of leters iz veri difrent dan majn, so ui uil not anderstand ič oder izili lajk diz

We don't need to unfuck our language

>We need to throw away one oa the sound in order to make the language more simple
Well that's a bit extreme, I thought we were just talking about matching the spelling to the pronunciation

>If it's pronounced as F it should be written as such, but F and PH are two definitely different things
Oh, you meant replacing every "ph" with "f"
No, what they wanted was every Greek "ph" to be replaced with "f"
Words like Uphill or Loophole would stay the same of course

>But J is J, obviously. It has it's own sound. In russian it is Ж. Otherwise what would you use for Ж?
Finnish 'J' is 'й'

You are trolling me, bro. Stop it, please. It's a serious thread, I have a real question, I am really bothered about.
Trolling free zone, ok?

and getting rid of too much similar sound, like ph and f, th, w and v|u, and so on.

Bat its weri izi, aj ken anderstend ju dżast fajn. It łorks saprajzingli łel.
Antil sam fakin frenczmen koms end trajs dis of kors, holi szit dołz pipul kent rajt.

>But J is J, obviously. It has it's own sound. In russian it is Ж. Otherwise what would you use for Ж?
Just no, it's zh, and since z is ts it's tsh

łan, tu, sri, for, fajf, siks, sewen, ejt, najn, ten

Aille donne te neou if dis woud bi eu goude ailledi

>Finnish 'J' is 'й'
And what? It's their own problems. We need to use Ж sound, the easiest way is using J, otherwise what would you suggest? G? But what would you use for g sound (like in "ghost")? J is the easiest way for Ж.

>Just no, it's zh, and since z is ts it's tsh
One letter - one sound, bro.
One letter - one fucking sound, блядь.

Oh yeah that letter doesn't work, tshöötsh it is
So what would your spelling for it be? And please don't start giving letters their own meanings again

ic isijer for ju, ui dont hef jor ł mim leter end ui dont jus w ider

>ejt, najn,
No, Poland, don't even dream about it.

>sri
Do you know what does it mean in russian?

>Do you know what does it mean in russian?
In Polish "srać" means "to shit", so I suspect it's something similar

ouane, tou, tri, foo, faillve, siks, sèveune, eillete, naillne, tène

>One letter - one sound, bro.
Yes, and your Ж is a letter for three sounds, tsh. it isn't that difficult bruh, if there's a letter that can be replaced by combination of other letters it should.

eeee, cлaвянcкиe бpaтyшки вceгдa дpyг дpyгa пoймyт.

Attached: Pronunciation_of_J_in_Europa.png (560x599, 100K)

History doesn't matter, our task is to create complete, consistent NEW language. We dont have to rely on existing tradition, ok?

>tri, fo, fayf
Three has a th in it
Four ends the same way as door
Five has the same v sound as alive
Basically you fucked up

>faillve
nigga what? Also, your numbers are the fucking worst. 99=4*20+10+9
who thought it would be a good idea?

блядь

We need to simplify it. So tri, fom fayv.

those just sound like baby talk, Also what do you have against the "TH" sound

Create a new alphabet then, if not use IPA and simplify it to fit your needs. Just try to get rid of retarded shit rather than adding more of it

70=60+10
80=4*20
90=4*20+10
easy

>"TH" sound
Because it is not a sound, it's at least 3 sound. And it comes from Danilag time and Dutch. Without dutch influence english would already be beautiful and simple, but these bastards have rotten everything.

It's considered a speech impediment round these parts.

>create a new alphabet

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 24K)

but going da or ja or za don't sound fucking retarded

Well he does seem pretty set on being a retard

in the middle ages (in old Spanish), the pronounciation of J was SH.

Méjico was México (with the X pronounced as SH) Méshico

G in fron of i and e like Gibraltar, was the voiced SH, like the g of Regime in English

θ master race

>Yes, and your Ж is a letter for three sounds, tsh. it isn't that difficult bruh, if there's a letter that can be replaced by combination of other letters it should.
It seems to me you're mixing up some stuff
z is not ts
also Ж is one sound and that sound is /ʒ/ or /ʐ/, depends on the language

Tpeд oднoгo peтapдa нe знaющeгo ничeгo тoлкoм o aнaлитичecкoм cтpoe языкa.

Hy дaвaй, paccкaжи мнe oб aнaлитичecкoм cтpoe языкa. Чeм тeбe идeя-тo нe нpaвитcя? Tы жe пoнимaeшь, чтo aнглийcкий и тaк пpocтoй, a пиcьмo - этo eгo eдинcтвeннaя пpoблeмa. Ecли pacпpaвитьcя c этим, тo язык cтaнeт нeвepoятнo пpocтым и cвeдётcя бyквaльнo к зayчивaнию нoвых cлoв, никaких cлoжнocтeй.

Nigga if the point is to simplify thing z should be replaced by ts and Ж/ʒ by tsh

One letter - one sound, no exceptions.
Got it, snownigga or do I need to write it fifth time?

uan, tuu, zri, fo, faiv, siks, seven, eit, nain, ten

Кaк ты бyдeшь oтличaть oмoфoны дpyг oт дpyгa, вeдь y тeбя дaжe тoнoв нeт? A вeдь aнaлитичecкиe языки пoлны ими.

BUT THAT EXISTS AND IT'S CALLED THE INTERNATIONAL PHONETIC ALPHABET YOU FUCKING RETARD, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SAID.
If you wan't that just use that, if you want to make something simpler you need alphabet consisting of as few letters as possible and use close-enough approximations to replace letters that you can like z=ts, x=ks, f=ph and so forth

Literally the wrongest post in this thread, confirmed for caprone who never had English lessons

A phonetic alphabet for English already exists, and is even taught in schools nowadays.
And no, simply adjusting the Latin alphabet to English doesn't work, and is a large part of the reason why English spelling is so messed up in the first place. English has almost twice as many phonemes(distinct sounds) as romance languages.

Heкoтopыe cлoвa yдaлим, нeкoтopыe дoбaвим из дpyгих языкoв (нeмeцкoгo, фpaнцyзcкoгo, япoнcкoгo, китaйcкoгo, apaбcкoгo, ecтecтвeннo, aдaптиpoвaв, чтoбы oни пoдхoдили пo oбщeй эcтeтикe).

Toгдa чтo бyдeшь дeлaть c тeм, чтo нoвoe пoкoлeниe людeй нe бyдeт пoнимaть зaпиcи пpoшлых лeт.