hehee, glad to see, Oswax, that we seem to have started this wiki project with arguments! ;) But I have to disagree with you (again): "race" is not a truly awful spelling. I don't care if the "ce" = /s/ is from French or not; to make "s" = /s/ always, we would have to make "z" = /z/ always too (or there would be too much unclearness), and this would not only be unEnglish (something we are trying to protect), historically, but would be such a widespread spelling change as to cause perhaps great confusion. -Bryan

We do seem to have begun with arguments don't we? I think we need a thrid person to pick on! But I agree that 'rase' is the worst of the new spellings, and as you say, has knock on affects for a number of spellings. I will outtake it. Oswax Scolere 23:27, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Have you considered adding "shoud" and "woud" to the list? Sure, etymologically speaking they do have Ls in them, but the Ls have not been pronounced for a LONG time. It is the reason "could" has an L in it; analogy with "would" and "should". -Bryan
If you wish to put them on the list, please do. I have tried to put on the list only words that are 'acceptable' to most folk. 'Coud', I feel, is acceptable on grounds of etymology. Oswax Scolere 13:15, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Cheers. What of other "'o' for 'u'" words? Like "monk", for instance, which WAS, and patently ought to be, "munk"? BryanAJParry 18:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'll go one better, have a look! Oswax Scolere 19:08, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Crums! I don't think we shall ever agree on anything, to be honest! Why spell it with a final c? Surely that violates analogy (hunk, sunk, punk...), and, if we are to go back to the OE "c" original, then why not elsewhere, too? BryanAJParry 16:57, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I added cum for come, not as joke but since that was how it was spelled. BrainMagMo 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Steady on, now. We in Scotland say the start of "wonderful" exactly like the start of "one", and GH is often audible in Night, etc (don't know about Draught). Pronunciation is so diverse that I think existing spelling mediates nicely. Also, I think respelling Romance words is a bit like shooting a corpse in the foot, if those are the things that are to be expelled anyway. The "point" of having a C in Musician is being able to tack -ian on the end without further ado -- in other words it's morpho-phonemic. I say kill Romance anyway, but let's not alter the only nice thing about it: the spelling. ~Inkstersco, 22 Dec

We say the beginning of "wonder" the same as "one", too.... and this is why I think everyone should learn IPA and X-Sampa so we can clear these things up :D I think you mean you say it /wQn/, or thereabouts, whilst we say it /wVn/. to be fair, your pronounciation is actually a spelling pronounciation and not the original one. HOWEVER, the pronounciation of "adventure" with a /d/ is a spelling one, too. And it is for this reason that I personally spell it "wunder", but reckon the alternative "wonder" should also be allowable (or letsome ;) ). I don't see why English spelling shouldn't allow a small number of alternative spellings based on pronounciation (other than "aluminium" vs. "aluminum", that is)
About the whole GH point, tho; Scots is actually quite different to English. Different enuff to warrant a slightly different spelling system. I'm not quite sure just how broad your speech is, Ian, but most "Doric" and "Lallans" speakers who know about these things reject that Scots and English should be spelt EXACTLY the same way. For instance, most folk will spell "night" as "nicht".
On another tact: I am in favour of a modest number of spelling reforms (as you no dout notice when I write). Many of these "fix" Romance words' spellings. Why? Well, if those words ARE to stay in the English language (and well they may), then let us at least fix their damn spellings. In that way, at lest, we are making mroe English, English. :) BryanAJParry 00:04, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
On a minor point, I say 'one' as 'wQn', and am from nowhere near Scotland. Oswax Scolere 17:10, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
But say "wonder" as /wVn/? Not unusual. To my mind, both /wQn/ and /wVn/ are bonkers for "one". Afterall, it should be /@Un/, right...? ;) BryanAJParry 16:05, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I say "one" to rhyme with "on". I say "wonder" with the same vowel. Also, a not yet dead Scottish pronunciation of "one" is "ain", which is what a dialectal Scot would extract from the spelling "one". The "won" pronunciation we now have all over Britian, started as something very colloqueal and didn't become mainstream until after Elizabethen times. 10:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why were "height", "light" and "night" added, and with no new spelling? I will outtake them again. :) Feel free to say you hate me, tho :D ;) BryanAJParry 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong with these spellings. "igh" always suggests the same vowel sound in England, so is uniform. In Scotland the throat-clearing of the "gh" still lives. 10:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. At this point I think it is worth making a point. Spellign reform is almost a seperate project to Anglish. Both me and Oswax are very much of the view (righten me if I'm wrong, Os) that spelling reform as part of Anglish should only exist so far as it is consistant with the goals of Anglish. That is, candidates for respelling are words whose spelling was changed to make them resemble French, words whose spelling was changed based on false (classical) etymology. There may be a number of other cases. But basically, Anglish is about making English more Germanic; extractign the Germanic elements of English, and bilding a new old tung *on* that. thus, general spelling simplifications, such as /VI/ night becoming "ui" (or something), is somewhat outside of the manifesto of anglish. Well, that is what I think, anyway :P :) BryanAJParry 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I do settle with that Bryan. While there is a great deal to be said anent a new spelling for Anglish, I do not feel it is either pressing or important. Only those words which are now 'misspelt' ought to be shifted. Though, for what it is worth, I would like to see '-igh-' become '-ih', so that 'night', 'light' and 'right' would become 'niht', 'liht' and 'riht'. Thus making the words both shorter by one staff and nearer to Old English. Oswax Scolere 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite us agreeing that wholesale respelling of English is a bad idea (that is, beyond our remit), I think talking about it is a good idea. I mean, why not talk about it (even tho it is totally moot!). I think that the vowel system (issue) is a little too complex to go into. But I would suggest the following as changes to the spelling of English consonants (to sorta undo, as it were, 1066 and all that messy business) (this is just a tentative and small first step which would not render English too outlandish, I don't reckon...): /T/ and /D/ "th" to be spelt as EITHER "þ" or "ð" (as in Old English); /kw/ "queen" to be spelt as EITHER "cw" or "kw"; "ph" for /f/ to be spelt as "f"; /W, w/ "wh" to be respelt as "hw"; "-se" to be favoured over "ce" for /s/, with "ze" favoured over "-se" for /z/; /S/ "sh" to be spelt "sch", thus:

I þink þis is cwite worþ hwile running wiþ; like the fenix, Englisch rizes. BryanAJParry 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. What we have now is golden on many levels. For example, in Ireland they say Tink, and in Scotland they say Hink, but both are written "Think". I mean I don't ken whither it's deliberate but there's really so much to lose. Also, It's more spellbinding if Anglish looks like a fake dialect of a true language. New spelling would prevent that.

Inkstersco 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I made patently clear above this is an academic debate. BryanAJParry 10:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering. Are there any plots to makeover recksome spellings in English to make a clean Anglish spelling such as the "ough" spelling which can againnowa many sounds in English. For earnestness, 'Plough' = 'Plow', 'Brough' = 'Bruf' and 'through' = 'Thru'. Maybe also making all the soft 'c' into an 's' and the soft 'g' into a 'j'. Words with these spellings could then be written the way they are uttered. I am not talking about wholesale makeovers of spelling but only the bits that are most recksome.
Where those spellings are etymologically alright, we don't really have any plans to better English/Anglish spellings. The controversy would be high, doutless. We've spoken about this on the group a touch. But as far as soft g and soft c, go, they wouldn't even exist if it were not for outland influence. Well, they would exist, but they would soften to different sounds, namely "y" and "ch". BryanAJParry 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added the words 'guild' and 'guilt' to the list as there seems to be no etymological grounds for the 'u' in these words. It only serves in my opinion to 'Frenchify' the spelling of these words. However, would the current spelling of these words be useful as to distinguish them from the verb 'gild' and its past participle 'gilt'? I wouldn't want to needlessly supply another two homonyns into the Anglish tongue. Anyone have any thoughts? 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In defence of English spellingEdit

Any dialect extrapolated from English spelling would not stand out against the modern diversity of World English. If you want evidence for this, see the Regular English Pronunciation website.


I agree, and, furthermore, it would separate English from the other Germanic languages by doing away with some of the most traditional and philologically significant of forms. Consider English "through" and German "durch", English "light" and German "Licht", English "come" and German "kommen." Indeed, a rather crude simplification of English spelling seems antithetical to the puristic intentions of English. One of the main arguments for Anglish is that it would revitalize English's Germanic roots; radical spelling reduction would be counterproductive and a mistake of grave significance. In short: purity of word-stock is by far the most significant focus of Anglish, and spelling regularization would naturally follow, as few native words truly deviate from patterns common in words of Germanic origin. Of course, a spelling change so logical, historicist, and relatively small as "island"---->"igland" is, in my opinion, fully acceptable. --Faxfleet 23:35, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There are so many elements of English spelling that are just illogical and wrongheaded, not only from the standpoint of how words are spoken today, but also in their relation with the root-words that they come form. Why should we model our speech on this? The proposal in the linked site is just an abomination. Saying "minned" for "mind? Really?! No thanks. That is not my idea of "traditional".
As for the links that spelling showing with alike words in other Germanic tongues, that's fine. However, there are likewise a great many words that have their kinship to Germanic words hidden by their present-day spelling. The English word "way" would be more evidently cognate to Germanic "Weg" if it were spelled "wey", and the word "work" could be spelled identically to the german "Werk". So if you truly think we should have Germanic etymological information embedded in the spelling of words, you ought to be in favor of reforming spelling to raise its etymological trustworthiness. The current spellings for Germanic words in English are only half-reliable at best, which is worse than if there were no etymological information, because you can never tell currently if the etymology suggested by the spelling is true or misleading. --EighLawIce

Arabic misspellings Edit

Iraq should not be changed. The Q is put there in respect to the "Q" sound of the Arabic/Persian languages. Irak is a totally different sound, even though it's not to English speakers. Unless we do away with the Q totally, we should keep it. Same with Qur'an or Quran. It's not Koran or Kuran.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.