- Some hard decisions
- Short vowel problems
- Dealing with homonyms
- Dealing with dialects
- Rules and conventions
- Emending the spellings
- The Inglish spellings of English words
- Parallel paragraphs in the Inglish and English spelings
- A dissenting voice (Bryson)
- The advantage uv the Inglish dictionaries
- Developing the emended orthography
- Closing thoughts
Selected bibliography and resources.
The problems with the English spellings began with the laissez faire attitude of the scribes responsible for the development of the Middle English and Modern English formats in the 11th through the 17th centuries; an attitude that prevailed until the publication of the King James version of the Bible established a de facto standard in the 17th century. The standardization situation changed in the 18th century when Samuel Johnson's dictionary essentially 'froze' the 'Modern English' version of the English spellings. Unfortunately, the English spellings have remained unchanged since then, while the language has continued to drift, as languages are wont to do. The end result is that today less than 7% of the English spellings represent the sounds of speech, which forces English dictionaries to include pronouncing elements, lest we be at a loss to know the 'proper' pronunciation.
The disparity between the oral and the written forms of Modern English forces learners to memorize spellings; spellings that often have little or no relation to the speech values of the symbols used. That's too much to ask of many users of the language who lack the ability to cope with the inconistencies of the written language. Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NASL) conducted under the aegis of the United States Department of Education in 1992 revealed that in spite of mandated education through at least the eighth grade, roughly 20% of the 191,289,000 adults residing in the United States at the time were illiterate, and that another 27% were functionally illiterate, unable to perform the kinds of written, documentation, and quantitative tasks often required in business and industry. Very similar data were found in a study in Canada at about the same time, and there's no reason to believe those percentages have changed significantly since, as a new USDE survey conducted in 2002 in the U.S. confirms. The English literacy problem won't go away until we simplify the English spellings so that the written form of the language unambiguously represents the sounds of English speech.
The emendment conditions
Due to the widespread use of the English language, we need to emend the current lexicon, rather than developing a new or significantly altered lexicon. The simplest, most direct emendment process begins with weeding out the surplus symbols in the symbol set, as was indicated on the opening page. An attached text discusses the selection process in some detail, if you're interested. Note that, except for the tth and zh, all of the Inglish symbols are carry-overs from the English symbol set, and except for the aa and ae, the speech sounds they represent are speech sounds they represented in the English symbol set.
Some demanding decisions: Many emendment decisions were straightforward, such as the decision to omit silent letters. Other decisions required considerable study; among them, whether to continue to use the magic-e or to use digraphs for the long vowel speech sounds. The magic-e creates serious learning and use problems, and may be in large part responsible for the high levels of illiteracy in English-speaking countries. Its use also requires the use of digraphs where the magic-e doesn't work, plus doubling consonants and other gimmicks to avoid the appearance of the magic-e where it isn't intended. It became apparent that dropping the magic-e would very much simplify the orthography, making it easier to spell words properly; for example, after dropping the magic-e, "hammer" can be spelled "hamer," and be perfectly clear to someone versed in the Inglish spellings. Note slso, that after we drop the magic-e, we don't need to insert a middle dot in "hamer" to avoid the appearance of the magic-e. That is a major factor in the emended spellings
When texts are compared texts using the magic-e versus using digraphs for the long vowel symbols, there is no significant difference in length or overall appearance. Besides which, the simpler structure of digraph-based texts makes that approach an outright winner; from both the standpoint of skills acquisition and ease of use The immediate improvement in the legibility of texts was quite evident. [Sample texts that compare the use of digraphs to the use of the magic-e are provided immediately following the English-Inglish comparison texts in Part II of the website, if you're interested.]
Another decision was how to decide between the c, k, and q, which reduntantly represented the same speech sound. It was easy to drop the q because of its infrequent use, and then when trial runs of texts using the k revealed that it unduly changed the look of texts, opting to use the c was easy.
Because of a shortage of symbols to represent the short vowel speech sounds, and the desire to not invent new symbols, the a, e, i, o and u short vowel symbols will represent two short vowel speech sounds, one when the vowel starts a syllable or falls within a syllable, the other when it stands alone in or ends a syllable. To make the distinction between them in texts, Inglish will place a middle dot (·) before and after the vowel symbol when the vowel stands alone within a word, after the vowel symbol when the vowel ends a syllable other than the last syllable, and before the vowel symbol when the vowel starts a syllable other than the first syllable. The absence of the middle dot indicates the vowel speech sound blends with that of the surrounding consonants. There is an added bonus to use of the middle dot, in that it can be used in those instances where it is necessary to identify syllable boundaries that are otherwise obscure.
[At this time, the middle dot must be created by either by holding down the ALT key while typing '0183' on the computer keypad of most computers, or by inserting the · numeric character reference (the ALT key approach having the advantage of showing the middle dot in your script). Should the Inglish spellings be accepted as the new standard, computer fonts can be emended to incorporate the middle dot. Until then, the effort is very definitely worth the result it produces.]
Another problem with the short vowels is that the /a/ and /o/ short vowel speech sounds shift when the a or o is followed immediately by an /ng/ or /r/ speech sound. The speech sound of the a before the ng is more nasal than before other consonants, but is 'close enough for government use,' while the a before the r represents an /ah/ speech sound, thus "ahr," etc. The speech sound of the o becomes /au/ before the ng and r, so we substitute the au, thus "raung," "aur," etc.
The close similarity between the unstressed speech sounds of the short vowels caused problems among the English scribes, who tended to latch on to one of them somewhat haphazardly, rather than listening closely enough to distinguish between them. This prompted lexicographers to infer that their speech sounds were the same, which we feel they are not. The misuse of the short vowel symbols is one of the major contributors to the problems people currently have with the English spellings. The Inglish spellings will avoid this ambiguity and use the symbol that best represents the speech sound. Inglish will also eschew the use of the schwa, which, thankfully, is not an element of either the English or Inglish symbol sets.
The importance of congruency: The key to proper spelling is to spell words that sound alike to look alike. English sometimes spelled same-sounding words to look alike, sometimes did not. Inglish always does. For example, the English spellings "ate," "date," "fate," "grate," "hate," "late," "mate," "pate," "rate," "sate" "state," look alike and sound alike, but they differ from "ait," "await," "bait," "gait," and "wait," which also look alike and sound alike. Because Inglish drops the magic-e, the "ate" group becomes "aet," et al, and because in Inglish the long vowel symbol is the "ae," the "ait" group becomes "aet," et al. Then, because "grate and "great" sound alike, both become "graet," while "eight" becomes "aet," freight" becomes "fraet," "weight" becomes "waet," etc. Those words that acquire added meanings as a result of respelling them to match their speech sounds, such as "aet," and "graet," take their meaning from the context in which they are used, just as they do in speech.
We're so used to seeing, "Thank you," that it doesn't occur to us that both words are misspelled; the "thank" because it has the sound heard in "rang," et al, and the "you" because it has the sound heard in "blue," et al. When we look for congruency between the look and sound of words, it's obvious that they need to be spelled "thangc" and "yue."
More congruency examples: The English spellings "for," "nor," "or," and "tor" look alike and sound alike, but differ from "bore," "core," "chore," "fore," "gore," "lore," "more," "ore," "pore," "shore," "sore," "tore," "whore," "wore," and "yore," as well as from "boor," "door," "floor," and "moor," all of which have the same root speech sound. Moreover, there's an added problem in this particular case, in that the o customarily shifts to an /au/ speech sound when it precedes an r. This makes the proper spellings, "faur," "naur," "aur," "taur," "baur," "caur," "chaur," "daur," etc., etc. Note also that "morning" becomes "maurning," "mourning" becomes "maurning," "war" becomes "waur," "warning" becomes "waurning," etc., etc.
The essence of the congruency paradigm is that syllables must be spelled alike when they sound alike. This provides a useful check when questions arise as to the spelling of a word or words. For example, the "ad," "bad," "dad," "fad," "had," "lad," "mad," "pad," "rad," "sad," and "tad" spellings all look alike and sound alike in English, but the word represented "wad" sounds more like the words spelled "bod," "god," "hod," "mod," "nod," "pod," "rod," and "sod," so is misspelled, the proper spelling being "wod." Similarly, while "ash," "bash," "cash," "dash," "gash," "hash," "lash," "mash," "rash," "sash," and "trash" all look alike and sound alike, "wash" represents a very different speech sound, one akin to "bosh," "gosh," "josh," and "nosh," so should be spelled "wosh."
The flip side of use of the congruency paradigm is to avoid accepting spellings that look alike, but don't sound alike. For example, the English spellings "here," "there," "where," and "were" look alike, but, since they don't sound alike, must be spelled "hir," "thair," "wair," and "wur." Also, the spellings "close," "dose," "hose," "lose," "nose," "pose," and "rose" all look alike, but don't all sound alike, so they need to be respelled, and because of the demise of the magic-e, they become "cloes" or "cloez," "does," "hoez," "luez," "noez," "poez," "roez," while the spellings "bough," "cough," "dough," "slough," and "through" must become "bou," "cauf," "doe," "slou," "slue," or "sluf," and "thrue."
The sound-alike-look-alike paradigm solves many problems; for instance, the conflict between the spellings "ern," "urn," and "earn." They sound alike, but don't look alike. When we drop the n's from "ern," "urn," and "earn," the remaining symbols spell the /er/ sound of words like "over," "under," et al, the /ur/ sound of "bur," "cur," "fur," et al, and the /ir/ sound of "ear," "fear," "hear," et al. The /ir/ and /ur/ speech sounds obviously don't fit the sound of the three words we're examining, but the /er/ does. So, the proper spelling for these words must be "ern." Thus, a vase with feet is an "ern," we "ern" our daily wage, we "lern" to spell, and in spite of the thousands of "U-turn" signs plastered all over the countryside, we're making a "U-tern" when we do a 180º while driving.
Dealing with homonyms: The sound-alike-look-alike paradigm makes all homonyms homographs, so that writers and readers no longer have to cope with homophones that aren't homographs, nor with homographs that aren't homophones.
No consonant doubling: One of the major problems in the English spellings has been knowing when to double and when not to double consonants. Although doubling was theoretically a means to identify a stressed vowel, in practice, doubling was, to all intents and purposes, random. So, it will simplify the spellings tremendously if we elect not to double consonants, but rely on the use of the middle dot to differentiate between stressed and unstressed short vowels, as has already been suggested.
Dealing with dialects (regional variations): Dialects introduce spelling problems, but they can be solved by recognizing that sound differences due to accent differences create different words, which can be spelled according to their speech sounds. For example, the pronunciation of the English spelling, "schedule" is /scedule/ in the American vernacular, and /shedule/ in the British vernacular. In Inglish,, the separate spellings become "scedule" and "shedule." Both words will be included in the lexicon.
The base dialect used in the generation of this text is that of the midwestern states of the United States. Words from other dialects will be added to the English/Inglish listings as time permits.
In summary, the rules and conventions used to regularize the Inglish spellings are:
‡ -- The oral language remains the same. Only the spellings change, starting with the name of the language, which, based on its pronunciation, must be spelled "Inglish."‡ -- Words shall be spelled according to their individual speech sounds. Words that sound alike shall be spelled alike. Words that sound different shall be spelled differently. Words in which speech sounds are customarily elided in one area but not in another will be considered to be separate words, and will be spelled accordingly.
‡ -- No silent letters shall be used.
‡ -- Except for the ss, which represents a speech sound not otherwise represented, doubled consonants shall not be used unless the same consonant ends one syllable and starts the next.
‡ -- Inglish eschews the use of the schwa symbol for the indistinct vowel speech sound, and opts to use whichever one of the short vowel symbols best represents the intended speech sound.
‡ -- -al, -el, -il, -le, -ol, -ul endings: Except where another speech sound is obvious, as in "ra·pel," the "-ul" ending will be used.
‡ -- -ance, -ence, -ense endings: Since the final e's are silent and the c represents an /s/ speech sound, Inglish will use "-ens" unless the sound clearly dictates "-ans."
‡ -- -ar, -er, -ir, -or, -re, -ur endings: Except where another speech sound is obvious, as in "na·dir," the "-er" ending will be used.
‡ -- -ed, -d, -es, -d, -ez, -z endings. The -ed, -es, or -ez endings will be used only if adding the suffix adds a syllable. Elsewhere, the -d, -s, or -z will be used.
‡ -- -sion, -tion endings: Both become -shun, except where the sound dictates a /zhun/ ending, as when "lesion," becomes "leezhun," etc.
‡ -- Plurals of letters and figures add s or z, depending on the speech sound. Plurals of hyphenated compound words add the suffix to the principal noun, e.g., "suns-in-law."
‡ -- Possessives use the s or z, depending on the speech sound.
‡ -- Foreign words and proper nouns whose spellings are not phonemic shall be represented initially by placing them in half quotes with the phonemic spelling indicated in parentheses immediately after them, e.g., 'Worchester (Wooster).' Either the proprietary spelling or its Inglish equivalent may be used thereafter--author's choice.
Emending the spellings:
Coping with sound similarities: We've spoken of the difficulty of distingishing between the /er/ and /ur/ speech sounds, and of the shift that occurs when the a and o are followed by an r. There can also be problems deciding between the a and aa, the au and aw, etc. The aa represents a speech sound part way between the sound of the a when it stands alone or ends a syllable, and when it blends with a following consonant, as in "caaree" and "paara·lel," while the aw ends with a semi-vowel, as in "drawl," whereas the au does not, as in "taut." Authors need to be prepared to cope with these similarities, as do readers.
Coping with spelling changes: Experienced users will find some of the changes in spellings initially discomfiting. For example, it may take a while to get used to the fact that the ai no longer represents the /ae/ speech sound, that the c no longer represents the /s/ speech sound, that the ou now represents only the /ou/ speech, as in "a·bout," etc., etc. We've found the c change to be the hardest to adjust to, but even it became second nature after a bit. New learners will of course not have that problem until they start interpreting old texts that use the traditional spellings. We expect them to 'catch on' fast, due to the similarities between the two orthographies.
The spell-it-like-it-sounds advantage: The spell-it-like-it-sounds premise starts at the speech sound level, progresses through the syllabic level to the word level, and continues on through all forms of a word. There are no discontinuities, as there are in English spellings; as when the spelling "babe" is changed to "baby," or when "baby" becomes "babied," etc. The word "baeb" forms the root of "baebee," which becomes "baebeed," then "baebeeing," not "babying." Syllables do not change spellings when used within a word, or as a result of adding affixes. This makes spelling a natural progression from speech sound to syllable, to root, to whatever. There is continuity as well as congruency in the Inglish spellings.
Pahrt II of the website emphasizes the Inglish spellings, presenting the English versus Inglish word lists, parallel paragraphs in Inglish and English, Bill Bryson's thoughts on spelling reform from an earlier time, the author's closing thoughts, which include a request for researchers who are interested to conduct a proof of concept, and a bibliography and sources list. In time, we intend to add practicums to demonstrate further the efficacy of the Inglish spellings.