Sounds like lolcat.
Honestly though, everyone here is reading this board in English, and have the current English spelling/pronunciation ingrained in them. Maybe “weil” makes more sense than “wail”, and Ghoti knows where the letters in Worcestershire went, but that’s how we’ll see things.
Tradition and “good enough” beats “perfect” or even “makes sense”. There’s a reason why we’re typing on QWERTY and not devorak, or why we’re not all speaking Esperanto.
Not
Very
Yes.
It seems to me these “phonetic” spellings were less phonetic than the original spellings.
Reading though is a different skill than listening, and decoding written language happens faster than oral language. Reading uses many semantic shortcuts to process the words. I even seen perfectly legible paragraphs where the letters were jumbled, but the first and last letters of each were kept consistent. Your brain uses the general syntax and appearance of the letters to get the meaning.
With phonetic spelling, one has to mentally read out-loud the passage and process it aurally. I am partially fluent in French, which helped me speak rudementally in Haiti, where they speak a Creole version of French. I could slightly understand Creole when spoken aloud. Its written form, however, is phonetic, and I had to read any written creole “out-loud” to understand it.
Esperanto is interesting. I remember back in Middle School, one of our teachers gave us a sample passage of Esperanto, and even students not in French or Spanish could understand it!
Basically this. People don’t read letter by letter; they read by recognising whole words at a time. Changing the spelling puts everyone back in remedial class.
I had to LOL at this because this is how Slavic-languages people would actually write it.
It goes so bad that someone who spent time in English-speaking country would start writing in, let’s say Croatian and then pepper the sentence with English words spelled exactly as OP.
In some Slavic countries - e.g. Russia - they print names, titles and other words exactly like this plus it’s in Азбука (Cyrillic).
For example, this is how Russian Cosmopolitan (http://www.cosmo.ru/) writes actress Jennifer Lawrence name: Дженнифер Лоуренс. Even though I speak/read Russian it’s always funny because Latin based Slavic languages such as Croatian keep original English spelling.
[ol]
[li]How easy is it to understand what the text is saying? [/li]
Pretty easy, but a lot of the time that was because of working out words in the context of the sentence or article. For example, I’m not sure I would have interpreted “dooring” correctly in isolation, but in the context of “dooring taxiing” I got it.
[li]Even if you can understand it, how “jarring” is it for you to see written word spelled this way? [/li]
Really very jarring indeed. I think that’s the closest I’ve ever come to the feeling of learning to read since actually doing so.
[li]Are you a native English speaker?[/li]
**I think accent may have a lot to do with this. In my internal London accent there may be more of a difference between “during” and “dooring” (which I would pronounce something like “juring” and “dawring” respectively) than there would be in an American accent?
I am an English native native English speaker, so to speak :)**
[/ol]
It’s slightly slower than normal to read, and one or two words tripped me up a bit, but it made sense to me.
I mean, I don’t like it, it does grate a bit, but it’s not actually hard for me to read.
Native English English speaker.
It does seem a little inconsistent.
The same symbol “d” is used at the end of “happened” and “announced”, but one is a D sound and the other is more like a T. Likewise, “th” apparently means either the voiced TH in “that” or the unvoiced one in “Thursday”. Meanwhile, the “k” symbol is used in “takeoff”, but “c” is used for the same sound in “aircraft”. Speaking of “teikoff”, why are there two Fs at the end?
By “simplified” they really mean “spell it the way it sounds” and if we’re going to do that we should use IPA, not this cobbled-together nonsense.
I could read it but there were a couple of times I had to look for context clues to figure out what was meant.
It was pretty jarring. It was like reading the way a poor english speaker talks. Intelligable but I have to focus to understand what they mean.
I’m a native speaker.
I thought about it some more, and for some of the words up there the only way I could figure them out was through context. If you had simply put spellings such as “yuz”, “meni”, “erlain”, “eivieshon”, “eech”, “moud”, “niu”, and “wail” in front of me alone I would not have been able to tell you what you were trying to say to me.
Yes, it did feel like being transported back to being 7 years old and learning new words through context and guessing by sounding it out. I’m not a fan of feeling like I’m being babied.
Very jarring. The so-called “simplified” spelling, in many cases, doesn’t really match how a word is actually pronounced (isn’t that the purpose behind phonetic?). Devaises? Long a, I had to puzzle that one out for a half second. And ol? Again, doesn’t sound like the word they’re trying to simplify. Good gracious, is it really THAT hard to read normal American English?
I recall a little bit of news fluff (Good Morning America? The national news? don’t remember), from about 10 or 15 years ago. Apparently they (big pharm) were talking about changing the words “may cause drowsiness” on pill bottles to “might make you sleepy” because drowsiness was too big a word for some people to understand. Instead of dumbing down everything, people should be taught to strive for the most knowledgeable, best selves they can be.
(native English speaker).
grrrr
Exactly. To this Alaskan, it would be pronounced something like “uhr lanes” spelled as they have it “erlains”. Ai says “aaaaaaa”. 
That was awful.
To give some background to the spelling in the OP, the following are the sounds associated with each letter, in every word they appear, no exceptions:
[ul]
[li]a: The vowel sound in cat and pat[/li][li]e: The vowel sound in pet and met[/li][li]i: The vowel sound in pit and fit[/li][li]o: The vowel sound in tore and boar[/li][li]oo: The vowel sound in foot and put[/li][li]u: If after a vowel, then the sound in foot and put, if after a consonant, then the sound in puck and luck[/li][li]c: Sounds like k[/li][li]s: Sounds like the s in simple or Sam[/li][li]g: Sounds like in get or gore[/li][li]No silent letters[/li][/ul]
Of course, the most complete way to do phonetic spelling is using the IPA, but that uses many symbols that don’t exist in Latin characters, and makes the text look very alien. I was wondering whether a simpler Latin-character simplified spelling, that tried to maintain the look of as many words as possible could work.
So, I gave it a try with the text in the OP and showed a couple of friends who said that (a) they could read it, and (b) it was jarring, which is pretty much what the majority here are reporting.
I should say that, as an engineer, the biggest motivating factor for me in trying the above was not to be phonetic per se, but to have consistency: Each letter is pronounced the same way in each word, no exceptions. This is something that is sorely lacking in English (IMO).
If that’s the case, then “to” and “too” shouldn’t be homonyms, but I think they are in your example.
[quote=“Polerius, post:1, topic:673866”]
[li]How easy is it to understand what the text is saying?[/li][/QUOTE]
I can understand it, but it takes longer than it would were it written with proper spelling.
[quote=“Polerius, post:1, topic:673866”]
[li]Even if you can understand it, how “jarring” is it for you to see written word spelled this way?[/li][/QUOTE]
Extremely jarring. It simply doesn’t scan well, and rather than “Reading” the text, I have to sound out the words in my mind. This tends to make me concentrate more on forming the words than paying attention to them, so I probably would miss the ultimate point.
Native English speaker, yes.
ETA - I see no justification for any sort of ‘simplified spelling’ like this, as even at best, it would only work among people that speak alike, and think of letter sounds alike. It however fails miserably if you bring together people with different backgrounds or accents. Imagine someone from Vancouver and someone from Louisiana trying to communicate this way…
Not easy to read; not pleasant to read.
English as first language reader.
It looks like I missed two ‘to’ in the OP, that is, they did not get converted to ‘too’
[QUOTE=Max the Immortal]
why are you using “s” for the “z” sound in “rools”, but not for “yuz”?
[/QUOTE]
Damn, another missed one: It should have been ‘roolz’