Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!gh
From: gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Rationalizing English
Message-ID: <400@utai.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 12:40:14 EST
Article-I.D.: utai.400
Posted: Tue Mar 26 12:40:14 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 13:38:00 EST
References: <376@tekchips.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 32

>      Can anyone tell me about work that has  been  done  to  rationalize
> English? The first area that I am particularly interested in is  a  phonetic
> alphabet based on the present 26 letter alphabet.

> John Ollis

You seem to mean English spelling rather than English as a whole (and certainly
English syntax is already very "rational" compared to most other Western
languages).  While English spelling could undoubtedly be "improved", a fully
phonetic spelling is impossible.

The great advantage of English spelling as it presently is is that it is the
same all over the "English-speaking" world.  If Americans (from the northern
and southern states), the English, the Australians, and all the others all
started spelling phonetically according to their local pronunciations, the
result would be a big mess.

If you a fairly standard North American English, you probably pronounce the
words `don' and `dawn' essentially the same.  If you spell them the same, you
will confuse the Australian to whom the vowels are completely distinct.  If
the Australian spells `draw' and `drawer' the same (since to him/her they are
homophones), how will you react?  What about the Bostonian `park' and `pack'?

The point is that since there is no standard English pronunciation, there can
be no standard phonetic spelling.  Any compromise would simply result in a
different set of irrationalities.

	Graeme Hirst

-- 
\\\\   Graeme Hirst    University of Toronto	Computer Science Department
////   utcsri!utai!gh  /  gh.toronto@csnet-relay  /  416-978-8747