But if you use “i” for the vowel in “bite”, what do you use for the vowel in “bit”? Or do you keep that silent letter “e” in “bite” to mark the difference?
The silent e, “long” vs. “short” convention works just fine. It’s not the sort of thing you would do from a “phonetic alphabet” point of view, but it’s predictable and consistent, and what’s more, it’s been the standard for ages. So, if I were in charge of English spelling reform, keeping in mind the advantages of maintaining backwards compatibility where not an undue burden, I would keep it.
(Of course, If I were to make the system anew, I’d probably just give each of them their own character.)
Can we at least admit [del]that[/del] ðat [del]the[/del] ðe voiced & unvoiced “th” are two phonemes now? There aren’t yet words where [del]there’s[/del] ðere’s a real confusion (unless you use [del]the[/del] ðe same vowel in “[del]then[/del] ðen” or “[del]than[/del] ðan”[del] that[/del] ðat you use in “[del]thin[/del] þin”) but [del]they’re[/del] ðey’re not interchangeable anymore. So why not fix [del]that[/del] ðat at [del]the[/del] ðe same time we finally give [del]them[/del] ðem [del]their[/del] ðeir own characters?
I’m wiþ you! And while we’re at it, let’s sort out ‘c’ once and for all. If it sounds like ‘s’, spell it ‘s’. And if it sounds like ‘k’, spell it ‘k’. Ðen we kan spell þings like ‘akkomodate’ and ‘onse’ less ambiguously. And ‘suksinkt’ bekomes a joy for ðe learner! And onse ðe letter ‘c’ has been unused for some time, we can resykle it. Resykling is good, right?
You missed one (“There” at the start of the second sentence)
I had the opposite experience in Slovakia. This girl I was talking to said that when she lived in Sweden she spoke only English so as to be understood. She then said everyone in Slovakia needs to learn English because Slovak is a useless language.
Granted, Slovaks tend to be kind of self-deprecating in general.
:siʒ:
Is that how “sigh” used to be pronounced, like the first syllable of “seizure”? I thought <gh> used to stand for a velar fricative (first /x/ and eventually /ɣ/), but I don’t really know anything. Alternatively, I may be misinterpreting you entirely.
I studied German in school, and a couple of times I have met native Germans who asked me why I bothered or suggested that it was useless for an English-speaker to learn German, since everyone in Germany has to take English anyway.
When I was in Germany I did encounter people who didn’t speak English, so my German language skills did pay off. But more frequently I’d ask someone a question in German and they’d answer me in English. This was often helpful, but didn’t make me feel great about the quality of my German!
No. It’s how “gh” used to be written. The Middle English yogh looks enough like an IPA ʒ that I used one of those. I didn’t realize there was a specialized yogh character (ȝ) available.
It was pronounced…who knows? I lean toward a sort of |j| demivowel, like the y in “yes” in reverse. Just sort of raise the body of the tongue closer toward the palate, tightening the vowel. Maybe let it get close enough to buzz or hiss a little.
:smack: Of course. I have, in the past, known that, though apparently only fleetingly…