Is English a logographic writing system?

[MoonRightRomantic]

It’s still stupid. Just read “The Chaos.” But it won’t be reformed because humans are stupid and lazy. Half the reason I want to become immortal is so I can live long enough to see spoken English evolve into a completely different and mutually unintelligible language from the written form. At that point, Anglophones are either learning to write a dead language or reform has occurred because everyone collectively came to their senses and realized how silly it is. But I suspect the former is more likely than the latter. Being tossed around like a soccer ball for decades has made me extremely misanthropic and pessimistic.

[VaptuantaDoi]

Reforming English orthography is a terrible idea. You'd have to convince about a billion people to re-learn how to write, and then re publish all books written in English since the 17th century to make them readable for the next generation. Also you'd have to come up with a new orthography which was as good or better than the current one at encompassing dialectal difference and distinguishing homophones, while also being intuitive to the massive number of people who have to re-learn it. Plus it would make spelling bees too easy.

[Khemehekis]

It’s still stupid. Just read “The Chaos.”

::Checks it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chaos::

Previous, precious; fuchsia, via;
Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,

But . . . "via" does not rhyme with "choir"!

[Salmoneus]

Yes it does.

[vaj@]
[kwaj@]

(actually, they're not quite the same for me - "via" rhymes with "shyer", whereas "choir" rhymes with "shire". But that shire/shyer split isn't standard, I don't think [I'm not sure I could actually distinguish them in hearing, though I distinguish them in production] and may not have existed at the time of the poem)


The bigger question is why he thinks pipe vs snipe is problematic. There's another word, 'sneap', with similar meaning - is he getting confused between the two? [assuming the word he's heard as /sni:p/ is the same as the word he's seen written as <snipe>? Or could he just not find two contrasting words and is just doubling up his contrast with 'recipe' instead?]

[Khemehekis]

I've never heard anything but /ˈvi.ə/ for "via". I know I say /ˈvi.ə/. Checked Wiktionary and it turned out one can rhyme it with "shyer" or "Mariah" Carey. Huh. For me it's always rhymed with how do you solve a problem like "Maria"?

Perhaps the/ˈvai.ə/ pronunciation is a British pronunciation? I never knew British speakers rhymed "urinal" with "vinyl" until I heard it in a Passenger song ("arrival"?) and looked up the lyrics to find out what the heck Passenger was singing.

As for "pipe", "snipe", and "recipe", the author also contrasts both "plague" and "vague" with "ague", so setting up a contrast with two words instead of one is a possibility.

[Dormouse559]

I've never heard anything but /ˈvi.ə/ for "via". I know I say /ˈvi.ə/. Checked Wiktionary and it turned out one can rhyme it with "shyer" or "Mariah" Carey. Huh. For me it's always rhymed with how do you solve a problem like "Maria"?

Perhaps the/ˈvai.ə/ pronunciation is a British pronunciation?

Personally, I use both pronunciations interchangeably.

[Salmoneus]

I've never heard anything but /ˈvi.ə/ for "via". I know I say /ˈvi.ə/. Checked Wiktionary and it turned out one can rhyme it with "shyer" or "Mariah" Carey. Huh. For me it's always rhymed with how do you solve a problem like "Maria"?

Perhaps not the best analogy! Traditionally (as in, until well into the 20th century) "Maria" is pronounced to rhyme with "shyer". This pronunciation has become relatively rare in personal names outside of African-American communities, thanks to the influence of the 'exotic' Spanish and German pronunciation (c.f. 'Clara' and the like), but it remains in fossilised forms - particularly in the name of Black Maria (the Ace of Spades) and things named after her (the card game, police vans, the world's first photographic studio, etc).

Perhaps the/ˈvai.ə/ pronunciation is a British pronunciation? I never knew British speakers rhymed "urinal" with "vinyl" until I heard it in a Passenger song ("arrival"?) and looked up the lyrics to find out what the heck Passenger was singing.

It's definitely the pronunciation I'm by far more familiar with in the UK. I can't guarantee that the US pronunciation is never used here but I definitely think it's not common.

[lsd]

when you can't read alphabetical scripts, they look logographic...
as proof, a few decades ago, National Education's sorcerer's apprentices tried to teach children the writing of French (which is as easy as English...) as a logographic system, where words were not broken down into letters but as autonomous entities...
Obviously, this was an abject failure, much to the delight of orthophonists...

Excuse me, what

those ones:

[MoonRightRomantic]

Reforming English orthography is a terrible idea. You'd have to convince about a billion people to re-learn how to write, and then re publish all books written in English since the 17th century to make them readable for the next generation. Also you'd have to come up with a new orthography which was as good or better than the current one at encompassing dialectal difference and distinguishing homophones, while also being intuitive to the massive number of people who have to re-learn it. Plus it would make spelling bees too easy.

Obviously the reform would be rolled out in stages over many years so that society can adapt to it. You don't need to republish all books ever written because that's obviously stupid and we don't do that anyway. Nobody cares to read out of print books and we can throw them all in the pulping bin without bothering to preserve the text. You would only alter the text of new printings for new books as they are ordered, because people actually read those. (I'm being farcical here. I don't see the point in rewriting old books period. They're superior in their original forms and you can just use auto-translate on your phone to read it. Nobody reads paper anymore.)

As for what reform to implement? At the very least you could adopt Cut Spelling. That just cuts out extraneous letters that makes it easier to spell.

Or better yet, not have standardized spelling. Just let people write words as they pronounce it. Orthography can go die in a fire.

But again, I don't expect Anglophones to implement reform in the next million years because of human sloth and stupidity. Even after the spoken and written forms have long since become mutually incomprehensible, children will still be taught to write the written form from the 17th century because the adults don't remember how hard it was to learn.

[Arayaz]

Nobody reads paper anymore.

But I do agree with your point; it's gonna be a very, very, very long time until we get a reform, unless we get some sort of central agency for spelling, like Spanish has.

Edit: It seems that wasn't your point. Well, it's mine now.

[Keenir]

Obviously the reform would be rolled out in stages over many years so that society can adapt to it. You don't need to republish all books ever written because that's obviously stupid and we don't do that anyway.

Only because all the books didn't survive history.

Nobody cares to read out of print books

Yes I do, and I'm not the only one.

and we can throw them all in the pulping bin without bothering to preserve the text. You would only alter the text of new printings for new books as they are ordered, because people actually read those.

Except if you don't preserve the text, how do you have new printings as they're ordered?

(I'm being farcical here. I don't see the point in rewriting old books period. They're superior in their original forms

Maybe, but you try lugging around a copy of Gilgamesh in the original fired clay.

and you can just use auto-translate on your phone to read it.

Thats assuming that, 1. theres a translation program for it, and, 2. its accurate.

As for what reform to implement? At the very least you could adopt Cut Spelling. That just cuts out extraneous letters that makes it easier to spell.

Extra letters by whose standard? You want everyone to use only letters that Kirkegaard liked?

Or better yet, not have standardized spelling. Just let people write words as they pronounce it. Orthography can go die in a fire.

Pepl qan redh althaht yu rit?

Selfish so-and-so, ain't ya? Even without factoring in accents and hearing issues, you've just chopped the literate population in more than half.

[VaptuantaDoi]

and you can just use auto-translate on your phone to read it.

Thats assuming that, 1. theres a translation program for it, and, 2. its accurate.

And 3. everyone has a phone.

[Keenir]

and you can just use auto-translate on your phone to read it.

Thats assuming that, 1. theres a translation program for it, and, 2. its accurate.

And 3. everyone has a phone.

Merging the streams a bit...how will your phone be able to read what I've written?

[MoonRightRomantic]

Extra letters by whose standard? You want everyone to use only letters that Kirkegaard liked?

Try reading the proposal before skipping straight to knocking down strawmen.

No proposal will suit everyone’s tastes until we find a cure for that pesky free will, but the current orthography is obviously absurd.

[Keenir]

Extra letters by whose standard? You want everyone to use only letters that Kirkegaard liked?

Try reading the proposal before skipping straight to knocking down strawmen.

Then why did you suggest a strawman? Kirkegaard's option was your proposal, not mine.

No proposal will suit everyone’s tastes until we find a cure for that pesky free will, but the current orthography is obviously absurd.

except "obviously" not so, particularly in comparison with all of your suggested solutions, wether we include your Kirkegaard one or not.

[VaptuantaDoi]

As for what reform to implement? At the very least you could adopt Cut Spelling. That just cuts out extraneous letters that makes it easier to spell.

It is also entirely GenAm-centric and looks terrible. And some of the decisions are very counter-intuitive ("platau" is particularly glaring).

Or better yet, not have standardized spelling. Just let people write words as they pronounce it. Orthography can go die in a fire.

This doesn't make any sense. You have to know *an* orthography to know how to write words as you pronounce them.

But again, I don't expect Anglophones to implement reform in the next million years because of human sloth and stupidity.

Thank god for human sloth and stupidity! I hate to think where we'd be without them.

Even after the spoken and written forms have long since become mutually incomprehensible,

They aren't at the moment, evidenced by the fact that I can read (I suspect others may be able to do this too).

children will still be taught to write the written form from the 17th century because the adults don't remember how hard it was to learn.

I do remember; it wasn't that hard. And I'm pretty dumb.