University teaching shows why Thais' command of English is so abysmal!

[soalbundy]

One of the charms of a language are its idiosyncracies, it's like comparing the grid system of American cities to the meandering illogical layouts of old European cities, the European cities are simply more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye, a curve and an ellipse beat a straight line and a square every time.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, Negita43 said:

The problem of the standard of English in Thailand goes far deeper than just the level of competence of the English teachers (Native and Thai).

 

Its roots are in the norms of Thai society that have developed over centuries and that are perpetuated through an unwillingness to change (which is itself a cultural norm).

 

Trying to teach English when students arrive at university is a soul destroying task. Most of them have not been given the basic cognitive skills. Learning “How are you - I’m fine thank you and you” is not learning English.

 

I believe insufficient resource and commitment is given to teaching English in Primary schools. But that in itself is not enough. Young Thai students need to be acquainted with the world outside Thailand in a positive way. Thailand is part of the world, all too often Thailand is their only world, so why bother to learn another language?

 

But let’s be honest teaching people to think for themselves is a dangerous option in some peoples eyes.

 

And even if all this were possible, we come up against another,what I see as a Thai norm.

 

It’s what I call “The Triumph of Superficiality over Substance”.

 

They can talk the talk but few can walk the walk.

 

 

Thai norm?

 

How about English  norm? What? Oh! Well! That does not apply to us! It only to apply to others or at times when we don't feel like it! LOL Tea time?

 

When you point fingers, there are usually four pointing the other ways and in this case, all 8 if you are pointing with the 2 index fingers. 

 

When you will upgrade your stupid spelling system, Thais (foreigners, kids, and the many illiterate people in Commonwealth countries) will listen. In the MEANtime, use the index fingers in some other ways than putting them in your ears or in some other orifices to give you pleasure of seeing others struggle with the utter chaos that defines the English spelling system.. LOL

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

One of the charms of a language are its idiosyncracies, it's like comparing the grid system of American cities to the meandering illogical layouts of old European cities, the European cities are simply more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye, a curve and an ellipse beat a straight line and a square every time.

 

Ah! Tell that to the European drivers. It is such a pleasure to sit in a jam for hours or being stuck in a no-through road. LOL

 

Okay! This is how I see this. Who built your house, the local painter, farmer, janitor? No! An engineer (I hope) or an architect with some engineering know-how. The inside and outside of your house (colours, the design, and the non-structural part of the house, the outside,...),... okay, leave that to the artist, to you. Enjoy! The how many windows and doors part, the type of bricks, the whole material part, and structural part,... leave that to the engineer (with your consultation, of course), unless you want to use the window to get into the house, if you choose for aesthetic purposes that doors would upset the design of the facade, say.

 

A writing system is a tool to get your ideas across. Speech/lexicon is the art form. Orthography (and grammar) are the engineering parts. Do not mix the two unless you want THEM (the house and the spelling system*) to collapse, breakdown,... and face hefty reno costs.. 

 

You do follow grammar rules, do not you? Ergo, we should follow spelling rules.  I am,... you ar. 

 

* the teaching and the learning too, Thai or otherwise. Hefty costs in hiring extra teachers, paying tutoring lessons, sending your kid to private schools,..

[Shawn0000]

18 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

If you use a word without paying attention to the words correct meaning, it is not alright regardless of how many people say it is. All it shows is a lack of proper English comprehension. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "and" as meaning in addition to one or more items before it, followed by a final item after it in the same sentence. The correct use of the word "and" will always be at a  point after the use of one or more words and never, ever written with a capital letter. If you start a sentence with "and", maybe you would like to explain what the word means used like this in this way. Just because criminals say it is alright to steal, does not make it correct. The use of bad English by anyone does not make it acceptable, regardless of says so or how famous they are. It is up to you to define it's correct meaning and use it correctly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Oxford dictionary says that?  I happen to be a member of an institute which has a subscription to the OED and so I looked it up and basically it said you were making things up.  Probably best to at least take a look in the dictionary before telling other people what is says. 

 

Here is the relevant quote:

 

and, conj.1, adv., and n.1

A. conj.1

I. Coordinating. Introducing a word, phrase, clause, or sentence, which is to be taken side by side with, along with, or in addition to, that which precedes it.

 

11. Continuing the narration.

a. Continuing a narration from a previous sentence, expressed or understood. Also standing alone as a question: ‘And so?’, ‘And what then?’.

b. Continuing a narration from the implied assent to a previous question or opinion: ‘Yes! and’.

 

Some more notes regarding this from Oxforddictionaries.com

 

Usage

1 It is still widely taught and believed that conjunctions such as and (and also but and because) should not be used to start a sentence, the argument being that a sentence starting with and expresses an incomplete thought and is therefore incorrect. Writers down the centuries have readily ignored this advice, however, using and to start a sentence, typically for rhetorical effect, as in the following example: What are the government's chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences? 2 A small number of verbs, notably try, come, and go can be followed by and with another verb, as in sentences like we're going to try and explain it to them or why don't you come and see the film? The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive to, as in we're going to try to explain it to them or why don't you come to see the film? Since these structures are grammatically odd—for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say I tried and explained it to them)—they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common and can certainly be regarded as part of standard English.

 

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example:

What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences?

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise:

And are you really going?

But didn’t she tell you?

It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Which Oxford dictionary says that?  I happen to be a member of an institute which has a subscription to the OED and so I looked it up and basically it said you were making things up.  Probably best to at least take a look in the dictionary before telling other people what is says. 

 

Here is the relevant quote:

 

and, conj.1, adv., and n.1

A. conj.1

I. Coordinating. Introducing a word, phrase, clause, or sentence, which is to be taken side by side with, along with, or in addition to, that which precedes it.

 

11. Continuing the narration.

a. Continuing a narration from a previous sentence, expressed or understood. Also standing alone as a question: ‘And so?’, ‘And what then?’.

b. Continuing a narration from the implied assent to a previous question or opinion: ‘Yes! and’.

 

Some more notes regarding this from Oxforddictionaries.com

 

Usage

1 It is still widely taught and believed that conjunctions such as and (and also but and because) should not be used to start a sentence, the argument being that a sentence starting with and expresses an incomplete thought and is therefore incorrect. Writers down the centuries have readily ignored this advice, however, using and to start a sentence, typically for rhetorical effect, as in the following example: What are the government's chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences? 2 A small number of verbs, notably try, come, and go can be followed by and with another verb, as in sentences like we're going to try and explain it to them or why don't you come and see the film? The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive to, as in we're going to try to explain it to them or why don't you come to see the film? Since these structures are grammatically odd—for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say I tried and explained it to them)—they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common and can certainly be regarded as part of standard English.

 

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example:

What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences?

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise:

And are you really going?

But didn’t she tell you?

It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.

 

Great answer!

[Shawn0000]

21 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Great answer!

 

Thanks.  I think it does the job of rubbishing the comment I was originally responding to, which was, "The number of times the word "and" is used to wrongly start a paragraph in a newspaper is indefensible."  To someone like that, who is clearly quite taken by the "rule makers", they will surely have to accept this defense from their honorable friend the OED.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

15 hours ago, Richard W said:

Have you read Mark Rosenfelder's Hou tu pranownse Inglish ? Spanish is not so wonderful for spelling, despite being quite regular for reading.  Spanish, of course, has the advantage of having only 5 vowel sounds.  The condense/condensation argument is about spelling.

 

Morphemic spelling is probably not so important at the start of reading - pupils vocabularies are relatively limited.  It would be interesting to find out (though I am not sure how) whether English would be easier to read with the choice of /s/~/z/ and /t/ ~ /d/ allomorphs made explicit.  There is evidence that the English plural /z/ is actually not a full /z/, but betrays its allophony with /s/.

 

 

The words given in the  article  (your link had got mangled) were most significantly accommodate, questionnaire and rhythm. Other troublesome words were conscience, occurrence, restaurant and guarantee.

 

It's questionable whether accommodate and commodious truly (as opposed to etymologically) share a common morpheme.   It's not certain to me that one can claim that the first word contains the ///æd/// morpheme synchronically.  Whether  to double the 'm' is a memory problem with both words - would a reformed spelling be inconsistent?

 

For questionnaire, the problem is whether one should have 'n' or 'nn'.  I think this word is a case for degallicisation - replace 'nn' by 'n'.

 

If you're going to mangle rhythm, at least be consistent in what happens to rhythmic.  The spelling rhyme should, of course, be junked in favour of rime.  There is no etymological connection, nor do I think a common morpheme has arisen.  I think that's already happening.

 

Again, it is not clear that conscience and science still share a common morpheme.

 

Assuming that the problem in occurrence is  the 'r' and not the 'c', I think the problem is that the stem morpheme is not spelt the same in occur.

 

The word restaurant simply uses a foreign spelling, and the connection between warranty and guarantee is too distant to help.

 

 

That is a straw man.

 

 

 

I note the plan to compel the end of selectional differences between accents.  That's fighting talk!

 

 

 

 

Interesting!

 

NOT

 

• 3079 (or 59%) of the pronunciations are generated perfectly.
• 4389 (or 85%) are generated perfectly or with only minor errors: vowel length errors, failure to reduce vowels to @, or failure to voice an s.

• This is impressive; but it understates the systematicity of English spelling:

• Many of the errors are off in only one segment. (E.g. the rules predict everything about bachelor except the loss of the middle vowel. Shouldn't they get some credit for getting six segments correct?)
• Many of the pronunciations are really predictable using rules beyond the scope of the Sound Change Applier. I haven't by any means found every possible rule, or stated them in the best, most general form.
• The worst offenders in the language are already included in the sample; a larger vocabulary would include a higher percentage of well-behaved spellings.

 

Systematic with 60% accuracy! I guess Thais' 60% rates of success is unacceptable! Too funny! Too funny! Only 55 rules to learn and many requiring  committing to memory several sets of vowels or consonants that can support the rule. We should be so lucky! What a COMPLETELY USELESS endeavour. I love these people trying to fit the proverbial round peg into the square hole or vice versa. 

 

Did you miss the Masha Bell's link? You seem to cherry pick the elements that fits your paradigms. Many people do. We are not fooled. Anyway, she has done the same kind of work, but the calls the mess a mess. 

 

In another of your reply, you state that a respelling would be ineffective. How can people argue common sense out? If a letter means 12 different phonemes or 1, which is going to be easier?

 

Spanish having a difficult spelling system. Any data? No anecdotes, please.

 

I am tired of all men who are still thinking in terms of printing. Have you heard of computer? Oh! Yes, you are typing with one.I am sorry.

 

Let's take one of your words "questionnaire" which you describe the difficulty to be JUST the "n" or "nn" spellings. Here is the transcription:  /ˌkwes.tʃəˈneər/ or  /ˌkwes.tʃəˈner/

Problems:

1. Q fpr /k/
2. U for w
3. s being /ʃ/
4. ion being a schwa
5. ai for e (i suppose this obey the rule of the ai digraph, even though there is the easier "e" as in "bev that would work.

Yap! It is really easy!

 

I hate to put it to you in this manner, but an analysis has to be fair. You have learned the system by heart and, as such, it is familiar and easy for you.

 

 

Btw, in Easy Ignglish, c is k.

 

So, cwes'shunèr. Btw, the morphological links are preserved with questions and partly broken with words with quest.

 

No, I am not going to do an analysis of every single word that you picked. If one word has a minimum of 4 issues for 3 syllables, we can generalize

that similar ratios will be observed elsewhere.

 

Go ahead focus on that last bit, while ignoring the 5 misspellings that makes decoding incredibly un-intuitive.

 

No, the problem with English is there are idiots who wanted to pose as being really intelligent by importing words (mostly French) and keeping the

spelling. S. Johnson started it and all the sheep followed. What a lazy bunch! You are supposed to convert the word using the ENGLISH spelling rule.

Has it not dawned to those that the language is ENGLISH, not French, not Italian.,.... LAZY and DUMB. Typical of pirates and slave-owners using guns

to make everyone work hard. Of course, they would need the guidance. Gulp! These people are arrogant idiots, oxymoron intended.

 

Maybe it is time to stop to obfuscate.

 

I suggest you read this throughly: http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/, instead of finding information that fits your view of the world. You MIGHT actually learn something. I know it is impossible after 55. LOL

 

 

 

[nausea]

First, Global English is about communication not grammar, or big words. We all know Globish.  Second, native speakers are the most useless speakers of Globish. Third,  this will all disolve into a patois of mis-understandble.

[spidermike007]

There are many good reasons why the educational system here is so inferior. And the majority of them have to be intentional. If the powers that be really wanted to improve the system, there are dozens of things they could do, to make sure that is accomplished. There is a feudal mentality at the top. They want to keep the masses dumb. They do not want Thai students to excel.

 

And as long as face exists here, it will be nearly impossible to improve things. A student simply has to be able to question his teachers. Teacher, you are wrong. And here is why you are wrong. Lastly, they simply have to be allowed to issue F grades, and to be able to fail students. From what I understand, from my teacher friends, it is nearly impossible to fail a student in Thailand. That is inane, churlish, immature, and unreasonable, to say the least. 

[Richard W]

12 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

I suggest you read this throughly: http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/, instead of finding information that fits your view of the world. You MIGHT actually learn something.

Is there an actual definition of Iezy Ignglish?  All I can find is http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/eezee-inglish.html , which leaves me confused as to what law, bought and thought are changed to.  (I expected them to have the same vowel.)  How many different vowel symbols would British children have to learn for the common vowel sound of bought, thought, north and force?  Conceivably they might have to choose between -o-, -oe-, -or- and -oor-!  Will poor become *pur or *puer?  (Many of us rime poor and law.)  How will the NURSE vowel be written?  Will someone have to consult minor dialects and etymological dictionaries to determine the correct vowel?  Originally, the noun (for animals) and verb herd had different vowels, and the distinction may only have been erased by the NURSE merger.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

23 minutes ago, Richard W said:

Is there an actual definition of Iezy Ignglish?  All I can find is http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/eezee-inglish.html , which leaves me confused as to what law, bought and thought are changed to.  (I expected them to have the same vowel.)  How many different vowel symbols would British children have to learn for the common vowel sound of bought, thought, north and force?  Conceivably they might have to choose between -o-, -oe-, -or- and -oor-!  Will poor become *pur or *puer?  (Many of us rime poor and law.)  How will the NURSE vowel be written?  Will someone have to consult minor dialects and etymological dictionaries to determine the correct vowel?  Originally, the noun (for animals) and verb herd had different vowels, and the distinction may only have been erased by the NURSE merger.

 

I believe the r-controlled (or not in non-rhotic dialects) vowels are a natural occurrence. The "r" does control the vowel, physiologically. There is no need to differentiate the phonemes. accents are learned/differentiated anyway at 2 years old the research shows. So, not an issue, Kids like they have for 250 years will use the appropriate phoneme, even the match is not perfect. A reform is more about regularization than phonemicity. After 250 years of laissez-faire, we will not be able to fix everything. The "r" vanishing in some dialects is a rule of the dialect. Again, it has happened for 250 years. It is a regular rule, as far as I know. I wish it did not happen, but it has. We will spell words with the "r" for dialects that do articulate it. The phonemic pairs (usually short and long) have usually 2 spellings/pronunciations. Here is a small idea that should get you thinking that there is a lot of BS in the analyses. The rest of the system works by having one over-arching phoneme (say a general/o/. phoneme that has 2 allophones). That seems to be the main rule. WaE and SSE are not main dialects. So, yes, how do you write "bath"? To please the SSE or the WaE? The SSE will view /a/ as /E/, but then what to do with the bath. I believe the polysyllabic words are not as problematic as these common words. For these, it seems that SSE are taught a weird pronunciation. Clearly, they would have the choice to accept the change for the main varieties of English or not. They could tweak the pronunciation of words in schools and by way of media. I am sorry about accents and dialectal variations, but if you do not pronounce words as they are written (a = some form of a phoneme), then deal with the consequences. Up to them to re-align or not. I suspect that a more phonemic spelling system will eventually force populations to speak correctly. The accent will be less pronounced probably. Using the diaphonemes should solve the political issues. If some feel it is "dictatorial", so be it. If it called a system then it is supposed to be followed as a system. My house needs 3 windows and no doors is not an option. Why? Because it is stupid. Go back to the engineering dept when you comply. 

 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

Is there an actual definition of Iezy Ignglish?  All I can find is http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/eezee-inglish.html , which leaves me confused as to what law, bought and thought are changed to.  (I expected them to have the same vowel.)  How many different vowel symbols would British children have to learn for the common vowel sound of bought, thought, north and force?  Conceivably they might have to choose between -o-, -oe-, -or- and -oor-!  Will poor become *pur or *puer?  (Many of us rime poor and law.)  How will the NURSE vowel be written?  Will someone have to consult minor dialects and etymological dictionaries to determine the correct vowel?  Originally, the noun (for animals) and verb herd had different vowels, and the distinction may only have been erased by the NURSE merger.

 

I am not too sure what is going on. The images on that website page are self-explanatory. No?

[Richard W]

5 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

I believe the r-controlled (or not in non-rhotic dialects) vowels are a natural occurrence. The "r" does control the vowel, physiologically. There is no need to differentiate the phonemes. accents are learned/differentiated anyway at 2 years old the research shows.

 

Although I have serious doubts as to the possibility of truly counting the allophones of a phoneme, let us recall the practical issue of grouping observed allophones (neglecting observational inadequacies).  Which allophones go together?  There's the complication that the RP vowels controlled by the ghost (usually) of the /r/ are actually separate phonemes in RP.

 

Now, for the START cluster (rhotic) or vowel (RP), TO suggests three non-rhotic correspondents - TRAP (the traditional short vowel), PALM (the old Modern English lengthening) and BATH (the geographically restricted Modern English lengthening).  Iezy Ignglish (II) has the same symbol for PALM and BATH, and that therefore seems the best to use for START, which would be II start. However, there are two other cases, words like marry and words like Marion and Maryam, where RP (or at least, my idiolect) does seem to have /r/ before a consonant.  Would they become II maery, Maeryen and Maeryaem?  I presume starry will become II stary, breaking the homography of the adjective and verb tarry, which would become II tary and II taerry respectively.

 

There are more questions with the other vowels affected by (former) /r/.  In particular, I am still not at all clear what is to happen with verse, worse and nurse.  Do they become II vèrs, wors and nors?  (In TO, nurse is written with the STRUT vowel.)

 

The phonemic pairs (usually short and long) have usually 2 spellings/pronunciations. Here is a small idea that should get you thinking that there is a lot of BS in the analyses. The rest of the system works by having one over-arching phoneme (say a general/o/. phoneme that has 2 allophones).

At best you're using strange terminology.  Nowadays one tends not to extract a phoneme of length.  In English, it certainly doesn't work well, and it's doubtful even as a feature in American accents.  You're forming clusters of phonemes.  Your '/o/' group contains STRUT as well as LOT, THOUGHT and the pure diaphoneme CLOTH.  What I don't understand is why bought becomes II bot rather than II boet.

[Khun Paul]

8 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

Although I have serious doubts as to the possibility of truly counting the allophones of a phoneme, let us recall the practical issue of grouping observed allophones (neglecting observational inadequacies).  Which allophones go together?  There's the complication that the RP vowels controlled by the ghost (usually) of the /r/ are actually separate phonemes in RP.

 

Now, for the START cluster (rhotic) or vowel (RP), TO suggests three non-rhotic correspondents - TRAP (the traditional short vowel), PALM (the old Modern English lengthening) and BATH (the geographically restricted Modern English lengthening).  Iezy Ignglish (II) has the same symbol for PALM and BATH, and that therefore seems the best to use for START, which would be II start. However, there are two other cases, words like marry and words like Marion and Maryam, where RP (or at least, my idiolect) does seem to have /r/ before a consonant.  Would they become II maery, Maeryen and Maeryaem?  I presume starry will become II stary, breaking the homography of the adjective and verb tarry, which would become II tary and II taerry respectively.

 

There are more questions with the other vowels affected by (former) /r/.  In particular, I am still not at all clear what is to happen with verse, worse and nurse.  Do they become II vèrs, wors and nors?  (In TO, nurse is written with the STRUT vowel.)

 

At best you're using strange terminology.  Nowadays one tends not to extract a phoneme of length.  In English, it certainly doesn't work well, and it's doubtful even as a feature in American accents.  You're forming clusters of phonemes.  Your '/o/' group contains STRUT as well as LOT, THOUGHT and the pure diaphoneme CLOTH.  What I don't understand is why bought becomes II bot rather than II boet.

And Thais will understand this HOW v?????????????????????????????

[Richard W]

9 minutes ago, Khun Paul said:

And Thais will understand this HOW v?????????????????????????????

If English-speakers are all using Iezy Ignglish, Thais won't have any greater problems on a word by word basis with uniformly spelt words, and may find English a bit easier.  For most of the content of the post, they just need to know the pronunciation rules for "ar" and "aer".  The NURSE words won't be much worse than at present; they might even turn out to be a lot simpler.

 

I think transition would be a nightmare.  Enlightened Atheist claims that most people wouldn't have to deal with both systems.  He's also relying on people using spell-checkers much more than they do at present.  Good luck with acylation and ribonuclease.  The first is, I think, merely obscure, but there may be disputes over the representation of all but the first and last of the vowels of the latter.

 

Those raised on TO may well struggle with writing in II.  I've just noted that I misconverted the verb tarry to II taerry; it should of course have been to II taery (TBC).

 

[soalbundy]

On 12/16/2016 at 5:52 PM, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Ah! Tell that to the European drivers. It is such a pleasure to sit in a jam for hours or being stuck in a no-through road. LOL

 

Okay! This is how I see this. Who built your house, the local painter, farmer, janitor? No! An engineer (I hope) or an architect with some engineering know-how. The inside and outside of your house (colours, the design, and the non-structural part of the house, the outside,...),... okay, leave that to the artist, to you. Enjoy! The how many windows and doors part, the type of bricks, the whole material part, and structural part,... leave that to the engineer (with your consultation, of course), unless you want to use the window to get into the house, if you choose for aesthetic purposes that doors would upset the design of the facade, say.

 

A writing system is a tool to get your ideas across. Speech/lexicon is the art form. Orthography (and grammar) are the engineering parts. Do not mix the two unless you want THEM (the house and the spelling system*) to collapse, breakdown,... and face hefty reno costs.. 

 

You do follow grammar rules, do not you? Ergo, we should follow spelling rules.  I am,... you ar. 

 

* the teaching and the learning too, Thai or otherwise. Hefty costs in hiring extra teachers, paying tutoring lessons, sending your kid to private schools,..

You can repackage a parcel and paint it green with red spots but if people prefer the brown paper that is what will be used. There was a German Rechtschreibreform ( German orthography reform ) in 1996 with modifications in 2004 and 2006, many conferences with learned people. What was the outcome, my daughter (German) writes to me using the old form, i get letters from  German civil service departments using the old form, my old company sends me their internal newspaper which is written using the old form, in short the reform was a waste of money because the population refuses to use it.

[maewang99]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:37 PM, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Thai norm?

 

How about English  norm? What? Oh! Well! That does not apply to us! It only to apply to others or at times when we don't feel like it! LOL Tea time?

 

When you point fingers, there are usually four pointing the other ways and in this case, all 8 if you are pointing with the 2 index fingers. 

 

When you will upgrade your stupid spelling system, Thais (foreigners, kids, and the many illiterate people in Commonwealth countries) will listen. In the MEANtime, use the index fingers in some other ways than putting them in your ears or in some other orifices to give you pleasure of seeing others struggle with the utter chaos that defines the English spelling system.. LOL

 

 

when will we upgrade ****our**** spelling system?

it's Central Thai that needs a major upgrade. 

you don't even put spaces between the morphemes... and you spell out each vowel phoneme!

it must take you ****days**** just to read a normal text!!! instead of a couple of hours. if I had to read books in pasa Thai I would only get through 2 or 3 books a week.... life would be a bore.... I'd probably end up tying on a drunk instead.

written English is for reading and writing.  helloooooooooooooooooo?????

it's not used for speaking and listening... not for learning or memorizing the spoken externalization of our ****identically**** shared language capacity.  that's Chomsky, by the way, and full on Chomsky at that!



duh!!!!!!!!!!!


how can so many knuckleheads spend so much time ignoring this??????

Thai ****and**** foreigners.






         

[Canceraid]

Can we stop articles like this , commenting about English proficiency or English teaching in Thailand. Its better that they cannot speak or understand English. Believe me. Thai is good enough. Thai is a superior race and language.

[soalbundy]

8 minutes ago, maewang99 said:

 

 

when will we upgrade ****our**** spelling system?

it's Central Thai that needs a major upgrade. 

you don't even put spaces between the morphemes... and you spell out each vowel phoneme!

it must take you ****days**** just to read a normal text!!! instead of a couple of hours. if I had to read books in pasa Thai I would only get through 2 or 3 books a week.... life would be a bore.... I'd probably end up tying on a drunk instead.

written English is for reading and writing.  helloooooooooooooooooo?????

it's not used for speaking and listening... not for learning or memorizing the spoken externalization of our ****identically**** shared language capacity.  that's Chomsky, by the way, and full on Chomsky.



how can so many knuckleheads spend so much time ignoring this??????



         

It's all just practice, even i as a foreigner have no problem reading a Thai book

[maewang99]

9 minutes ago, Canceraid said:

Can we stop articles like this , commenting about English proficiency or English teaching in Thailand. Its better that they cannot speak or understand English. Believe me. Thai is good enough. Thai is a superior race and language.

 

 
no because it is the crux of everything we read everyday in this website.  everything. 

to which you only half heartedly agree... but.... it's still there in full..........

because language is who we are.


 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

Although I have serious doubts as to the possibility of truly counting the allophones of a phoneme, let us recall the practical issue of grouping observed allophones (neglecting observational inadequacies).  Which allophones go together?  There's the complication that the RP vowels controlled by the ghost (usually) of the /r/ are actually separate phonemes in RP.

 

Now, for the START cluster (rhotic) or vowel (RP), TO suggests three non-rhotic correspondents - TRAP (the traditional short vowel), PALM (the old Modern English lengthening) and BATH (the geographically restricted Modern English lengthening).  Iezy Ignglish (II) has the same symbol for PALM and BATH, and that therefore seems the best to use for START, which would be II start. However, there are two other cases, words like marry and words like Marion and Maryam, where RP (or at least, my idiolect) does seem to have /r/ before a consonant.  Would they become II maery, Maeryen and Maeryaem?  I presume starry will become II stary, breaking the homography of the adjective and verb tarry, which would become II tary and II taerry respectively.

 

There are more questions with the other vowels affected by (former) /r/.  In particular, I am still not at all clear what is to happen with verse, worse and nurse.  Do they become II vèrs, wors and nors?  (In TO, nurse is written with the STRUT vowel.)

 

At best you're using strange terminology.  Nowadays one tends not to extract a phoneme of length.  In English, it certainly doesn't work well, and it's doubtful even as a feature in American accents.  You're forming clusters of phonemes.  Your '/o/' group contains STRUT as well as LOT, THOUGHT and the pure diaphoneme CLOTH.  What I don't understand is why bought becomes II bot rather than II boet.

 

1. No, strut and lot and thought are not part of the same group. I am not sure how you came up with that error? (http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/eezee-inglish.html)

 

 

2. You did not address the hole that I found in the morphological thesis that many naysayers and you use to justify a system that 1/2 of the time (at least) breaks the most basic of principle: the alphabetical or orthographic principle. Check it out. It is #8. I am looking forward to getting those extra words.

3. While I think the dialectal issues that naysayers and you present are a bit of a red-herring (as they are confined to only a few words out of 1 million), I think this new solutions in #1 solves and eschews the whole topic. There are no more excuses. 

4. I am willing to entertain ideas on how to make this better. 

 

So, no more obfuscation, no more excuses.Time to get to work,  Richard. Foreigners and kids are tired to work, seeing you complaining about their inability to fit the hundreds of thousands of square pegs into hundreds of thousands of round holes. NO ONE (only a few posers) cares about etymology of words, morphological links being preserved in the  spelling. But, as I see it, a reform rests on 3 sine qua non conditions that MUST be adhered to. NO exceptions, Richard, in case you would have missed them.

1. Current users MUST NOT be forced to learn the new spelling system.

2. The new spelling system MUST BE introduced in schools, one Grade 1 cohort at a time. Dialects will be preserved.

3. The diaphonemes in this chart MUST BE used (unless parties can agree to another scheme).

 

The English spelling system is mostly rubbish and that is one major reason why Thais --but not only Thais (as in native and non-native speakers around the world)-- are failing, are struggling. It is the system that is mostly a failure, not students or teachers, mostly. We need order in the system., because right now calling it a system is an insult to engineers. IF ENGLISH SPELLING WAS A CAR, IT WOULD BE RECALLED TOMORROW.

 

Here are other words that describe it:

 

foolishness

noun. idiocy, nonsense

• absurdity
• absurdness
• bunk
• claptrap
• craziness
• dumb trick

• folly
• fool trick
• foolery
• horse feathers
• impracticality
• imprudence
• inanity

• indiscretion
• insanity
• insensibility
• irrationality
• irresponsibility
• ludicrousness
• lunacy

• mistake
• poppycock
• preposterousness
• rubbish
• senselessness
• silliness
• stupidity

• tommyrot
• twaddle
• unreasonableness
• unwiseness
• weakness
• witlessness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personnaly like "tommyrot"! 

 

So, When English 2.0? 250 years of backwardness, mediocrity. It is time. Paradigms have shifted. Can you?

 

Please, no rebuttal by omission. Any point that you omit will be seen as a point for me.

 

Iezy Ignglish is highly systematic (and thus easy to learn and teach). 3 months instead of 3. Imagine. Who wouldn't want that, unless --of course-- one is an English teacher, a publisher of pedagogical material, an owner of a tutoring agency (online or not), a translator,...? There are some people who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Mechanics like FIAT and PINTO owners!

 

 

 

Rebuttals to common issues

 

1. There are too many accents (AKA dialectal variations in pronunciation).

• Dialectal accents are started to be “learned” or “perceived” by the age of 2, BEFORE children can link phonemes, allophones, with any spelling, phonemic or not. Here is the research.
• We know that children (their brain, really) have the capacity to learn many languages, many accents. In fact, there is some health benefit to the whole exercise too, apparently. In Italy, for instance, it is common to hear people know a dialect (usually oral) and speak/read/write the standard Italian as well. Many people can learn many languages. We suggest that the only reasonable way to deal with this issue is to make all Commonwealth children start to learn another standard dialect by Grade 1 which will —finally— be the lingua franca that all people around the world have long been awaiting for. 
• To avoid political issues and help make English a true lingua franca, it would be wise to use the diaphonemes used on the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects - Wikipedia or some other agreed form. If some populations of certain countries or region not be interested, they would have the option of staying with the status quo or reform their dialect as they please.
• This would not be the Armageddon, the end of English as we know it, an incredible loss of culture,… This is about spelling, not language.
• The internet, public education for all, social media,... are helping standardizing many accents and, if it were to be reformed in this manner, it will be much easier.

2. I do not want to learn a new system.

• You won't have to. I repeat … you will not have to. That is our pledge. I do not want to either. This reform is not for me, you, but for the next generation.
• The change will occur in schools, starting with as many Grade 1 classes as it is possible. Opting out will be possible. In year 2, another group of Grade 1 will start to learn the new system. The first group will go in Grade 2 and will keep learning the new system (or rather learn using the new system since they will have it mastered decoding and spelling already).

3. There will be a need for some people to learn the new system.

• The 20 to 40 will need to be familiar with the new system, but free programs will be able to transcode from the current system to the other and vice versa, seamlessly and fast. Transcoding is much faster than translating. It is also much more accurate.
• The cohort that will go into the labour force after 12 to 16 years will speak the same language. Speech recognition software and transcoding programs will do the rest.

4. Street signs and vendor signs will need to be respelled/respelt.

• No. The new spellers will be able to decipher the old system.

5. ALL documents will need to be reprinted.

• No. Digital documents will be transcodable. It is much easier to do so.
• Should a citizen be interested or be in need to read printed documents that are not in a digital format, I am sure we can figure out ways to efficiently recode these (text-to-speech recognition software to deal with that issue) or have someone read the text to him or her or transcode it.

6. Will translators lose their job?

• No. A good segment of the population will still function in the current system.
• No. The new spellers will need translation as much as the older generation.
• There will be a need for some transcoding too.

7. Will teachers lose their job?

• If a Grade 1 teacher were incapable or unwilling to teach the new system, they could be given the task to teach those children who are opting out or be asked to teach the old system (as a second language) or teach older grades. Substantial accommodations should be given to older teachers wanting to plan (prepare material) and/or learn the new code.
• There will be a 4 or 5 year preparatory period to start the transition (Year 1/Grade 1) which should give people plenty of time to shift, should they want to.
• Unions will be consulted and a system will be put in place to facilitate the transition for all
• Retirement by attrition would be one of the ways used to replace teachers.
• Grade 1 teachers are often able to teach other grades.
• New students will need a few teachers to teach the old system as a second-language mode.

8. The language will lose the morphological links between words that will be lost or reduced with a new more phonemic system.

• Everyone knows the link between language and linguistics or photography and photographer, for instance. These pairs of words resemble each other, but the link is not automatic in the first pair. A more phonemic system will sometimes improve the semantic relation and sometimes obscure it. At the end of the day, some of the words that are linked by how they look, require the learner to remember the pronunciation of the words since they might not be pronounced as they are written and, obviously, their spelling: photographic, but photography: (/fəˈtɒɡ.rə.fi/ VS /ˌfəʊ.təˈɡræf.ɪk/. Which is better? In a reform spelling, these words would be spelled something like this in Iezy Inglgish: fetogrefy VS fetegrafic. Notice that in both, the stressed syllable is the one that does not have the “e” or schwa. Huge advantage for foreign learners where now no one knows where the word stress is put. Is there anyone who canNOT link the two words semantically? A newer system will improve the link between words that are spoken and words that are written/decoded/read. Learning should be faster as a result. The current system obscures the link between words that are spoken (and heard) and words that are written/decoded.
• Furthermore, yes, there are words that look like they are related and the link will be obscured, but if spelling and misspellings are so important aren’t they a lot of false-positives that a respelling would clarify? Is ready about reading? Plea and pleasure (sure?) and pleasant (ant?) are linked? Arch and archive? Country is about counting? Lead (the metal) is about leading? Bus and business? Cancel is about cans and cells? Have and haven are related? Ache and achieved? Reinvent and rein (vent)? All and allow? Inventories and invent are linked? Reached and ache? Resent is about sent/sending? How many more do I need to prove the point that there are a lot of false positives currently?
• There are words in the current system that appear to be linked, but aren’t. No one seems to be confused. Invest is about a vest that’s in a coat? Numb and numbers are related? Legal is about leg? Assertive about ass? Acting and actual are related? Deli and deliver? Heaven and heavy? Man and many? Add and address? Earl and early? Pet and petty? There are lots of false positives in that sense in the lexicon too.

9. Is it worth it?

• Suppose we make English as regular as Finnish. Now consider, Finnish kids start school at age 7. Most English-speaking kids start at school at age 5.5. How much does it cost to teach all of those kids for an extra 1.5 years. Teachers are expensive. Daycare? Less so. Imagine the possibilities. Also, there is quite a bit of data that indicates that maybe kids do not need to go to go to school at age 5.5. Again, daycare or universal childcare could make the life of millions, dare I say billions of learners, that much better. THAT is not worth it? What is?
• Illiteracy rates in the 30% levels in most Commonwealth countries will drop with a simpler system.
• A simpler system will be MUCH cheaper to teach (fewer specialist teachers will be needed).
• Learning will happen faster. As students HEAR a new word, they will be able to link it to its ONE possible spelling and when they read a new word, they will be able to link it to a word that they heard. The brain connections will be reinforced more efficiently. Let's take a word that you have never seen printed before: “tuleafashouhe”? Are you sure of it pronunciation? Where is that word stress? And then, a few weeks later, you hear on TV “tlayfaychor”? Would you be able to connect the 2? Most likely not, but if it had been spelled as it is pronounced, then the connections would have been made, with more certainty. It is self-evident that more coherence between systems would make learning faster and easier.
• Fewer kids will be pulled out and shamed as reading disabled.
• Less crime as more people will be able to read and write. (Robots will do the menial work that illiterate people sometimes must do).
• Happier labour force.
• Better educated/literate labour force.
• Better economy.
• More people around the world should be able to learn an easier system.
• Easier travelling and understanding between people.
• More people will be able to read books written in the new code. Higher profits for English-speakers.

10. Which industry will lose?

• Tutoring agencies and tutors could lose out. Still, we could make the first generation that will learn the new code, bicodal. If this is so, they will surely need help to learn the old code, just like pasts generations did.
• We need to make this a win-win situation. Anyone displaced will be given a choice of work that is related to what they were doing before
• Teachers (attrition and re-assignment will need to be addressed), but those who cannot cope will be re-assigned.
• Publishing houses will benefit. Some of the old material will need to be digitized, but a lot has been (Gutenberg project, Google,…)
• Psychologists who assess students’ reading and writing abilities/intelligence will lose out, but I suspect that this is a small number, seeing how many of these evaluations took place in my 25 years of teaching.

11. What do these new spelling systems look like?

• Some are using most of the spelling rules that exist now. They are just regularizing many of the patterns. (Masha Bell has one system.)
• A reform would not mean spelling using a phonetic system like IPA. There is no cursive writing (although this could be created I suppose). Cursive writing is faster than printing words, but aren’t more and more people going to use technology to avoid writing all together? Even in rare instances where people are asked to cursive write, a recorder with speech recognition software could do the work of transcribing much more efficiently than any one could, even with short-hand.
• Others attempt to maximize the opportunity as a second shot at this will prove unlikely. Iezy Ignglish is such a system. It systematizes the easiest pattern of English: the vowel+e pattern found in many words (piece, clue, foe, reggae,…) and it echoes the long vowel+Consonant+e pattern found in a lot more words, which is more contrived than the first pattern and which makes decoding a much harder tasks than it should (late, cute, core, mite, mere). The simpler pattern would do away with the cumbersome doubling of the consonant rule to change the vowel value: pat/patting, mat/matting VS mate/mating/.
• Others can be found on the English spelling society website.

12. Will communication between the ones who know the new system and the ones that don’t be affected?

• The language/speech/conversations will be the same.
• The only communication mode that will be affected is the written mode, but is there anyone who thinks that most people will not have smart phones or tablets or computers to allow this?
• The internet will need transcoding work, but programs can easily be created I am told by programmers. These programs will be able to transcode tons of material and will do it faster that any translation program (and much better).

13. There will be many homophones. Will they not make communication harder? (Thanks to Tomas Murphy for that one.)

• Hundreds of thousands of misspelling are okay, but 500 homophones will cause issues?
• There are just 500 homophones. There are 1 million words in the lexicon. Hello?
• Many cannot be confused as many are not even the same type of words: check (verb)/cheque (noun), ad/add, it’s/its, their/there/they’re,… No one when speaking and listening is confused!

14. Accents will vanish?

• For the last 250 years (and more) they have NOT vanished even with an extremely POOR system representing them.

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

1 hour ago, maewang99 said:

 

 

when will we upgrade ****our**** spelling system?

it's Central Thai that needs a major upgrade. 

you don't even put spaces between the morphemes... and you spell out each vowel phoneme!

it must take you ****days**** just to read a normal text!!! instead of a couple of hours. if I had to read books in pasa Thai I would only get through 2 or 3 books a week.... life would be a bore.... I'd probably end up tying on a drunk instead.

written English is for reading and writing.  helloooooooooooooooooo?????

it's not used for speaking and listening... not for learning or memorizing the spoken externalization of our ****identically**** shared language capacity.  that's Chomsky, by the way, and full on Chomsky at that!

duh!!!!!!!!!!!

how can so many knuckleheads spend so much time ignoring this??????

Thai ****and**** foreigners.
 

 

I do agree with you about the divide* between the spoken and the written "systems" in English and I think my last post should finally provide you a viable solution in bridging the two together, pleonasm intended.

 

Btw, the following research should be music to your ears (but likely not others I know): 

 

Sorry, Chomsky: English spelling is hardly “close to optimal” (Computational linguists at the University of Alberta have disproved a long-disputed assertion from one of the world’s best-known linguists that English spelling is just fine.) (https://www.ualberta.ca/science/science-news/2016/august/sorry-chomsky-english-spelling-is-hardly-close-to-optimal)

 

* Consonants are pretty regular, though. There are a few missing pieces and some pieces that need to go or need some tweaking, though. As to the vowel phonemes, there is nothing systematic and regular about them, as I have shown.

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

You can repackage a parcel and paint it green with red spots but if people prefer the brown paper that is what will be used. There was a German Rechtschreibreform ( German orthography reform ) in 1996 with modifications in 2004 and 2006, many conferences with learned people. What was the outcome, my daughter (German) writes to me using the old form, i get letters from  German civil service departments using the old form, my old company sends me their internal newspaper which is written using the old form, in short the reform was a waste of money because the population refuses to use it.

 

I hear you. Look at who gets elected. There is no IQ tests. It is who can raise the most money or look better.

 

The problem was the implementation and it has always been. None of these civil servants have MBAs. Most have law degrees, at best. Most have the ability to raise lots of money and talk the talk. Maybe that system needs a shake-up too. Please read my last post. 

 

Bear in mind that the paradigm has shifted  a lot or should have. We are fast moving into a paperless society and that would be great for the planet, BTW (although mining rare earth materials in war-crippled zones in the world is not exactly fantastic either or trashing phones every year). Computers allow for fast (and fairly accurate translation now). It is not perfect, of course, but they are getting closer and closer (AI and Google will crack the code, IMHO). Transcoding is much easier than translating. It is not even close.

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

4 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Iezy Ignglish is highly systematic (and thus easy to learn and teach). 3 months instead of 3 ...

 

 

 ... years. (And, it is likely that it takes 3 years to master the decoding of just a few thousands of words. Most Spanish and Finnish children could decode (not read/comprehend) all of the lexicon, safe for a few exceptions, which are not even worth mentioning, when one knows how many there are in the English lexicon. In fact, it is a bit silly to do so.)

[Richard W]

4 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

1. No, strut and lot and thought are not part of the same group. I am not sure how you came up with that error? (http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/eezee-inglish.html)

 

 

 

 

 

I based it on the version of the chart current on Friday (or just possibly Saturday), not the one shown above.  The third row of the chart gives current spellings "not, come, law, bought", with Friday's new spellings "not, com, loe, bot" and now the new spellings "not, com, loo, bot".  The example words belong to the lexical sets LOT, STRUT, THOUGHT, THOUGHT, do they not?  I couldn't find any other example to tell me how to write 'traditional' /ʌ/.

 

Are you perchance proposing to change TO gallop and hiccup to II gaelep and hicep rather than II gaelep and hicop?  Note that the vowel of STRUT is not, technically, a schwa.  IPA reforms take a long time to spread (sound familiar?) and for  a long time there were no proper symbols for non-neutral central vowels, so the symbol for schwa (ə) has consequently been used for many vowels that are not the neutral or default vowel.  Similarly, the vowel symbol ʌ  has been widely abused to indicate a central vowel like the STRUT vowel.  It should now be being widely replaced by the ɐ symbol, but that takes time.

 

If you have decided that II should ignore the difference between the STRUT vowel and schwa, then note that TO come will become II cem.

 

You've also further changed the spelling corresponding to TO low.  Before, it was just "loo", but now may be either "loe" or "loew".  Is this because you have perforce ignored the advice never to computerise a moving target?  The relevant merger is still in progress in some places.

 

You've also just changed the spelling of bute, which is such a neologism (or a typo for Bute or even butte) that I can't find it in my paper dictionaries.  Traditional long 'u' will be troublesome enough to need a paragraph or more.

[Richard W]

6 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

2. You did not address the hole that I found in the morphological thesis that many naysayers and you use to justify a system that 1/2 of the time (at least) breaks the most basic of principle: the alphabetical or orthographic principle. Check it out. It is #8. I am looking forward to getting those extra words.

I had thought Iezy Igngnlish was fairly complete.  My first task was therefore to understand its workings.  I still don't see how you get II fetegrafic for TO photographic.  Are you reducing all non-final syllables without the main stress to schwa on the basis that that seems to be where English is heading?  (Languages are always a moving target.)  As I understand II of today (Sunday), the morpheme ///photograph/// (sorry, but using TO for the morpheme seems to work best for discussing a morphemic spelling) has two principal allomorphs in II:

 

<foetegraef> as in II foetegraefic for TO photographic.

<fetogref> as in II fetogrefy  for TO photograph.

 

The third allograph depends on distinguishing BATH from TRAP, and is of course <foetegraf> as for TO photograph.

 

A morpheme with peripheral mutation induced by II is ///electric///.

 

<ylèctshric> as in II ylèctshric for TO electric.

<èlèctshris> as in II èlèctshrisyty for TO electricity.

<èlèctshrish> as in èlèctshrishen for TO electrician.

 

(The true morpheme is ///electr/// as in II ylèctron - unless you want to encompass II lècy.)

 

The II -ic ~ -isyty alternation will be one of the many complex alternations for the -yty suffix in II; the only significant visible TO complex alternation for -ity is -ous ~ -osity.

 

Other stem alternations induced by II -yty include II liegel ~ lygaelyty (TO legal ~ legality), as well as worsenings of TO alternation such as TO sane ~ sanity to II sén ~ saenyty.

 

The ologies will all suffer - bayoleji ~ bayelojycel.  The only alternation on the first element I could find is  frynoleji ~ frènelojicel, but I don't suppose we should care much about phrenology.

 

Another alternation that occurs to me is yconemy ~ iecenomics.  There'll be a whole family of these changes.

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

I based it on the version of the chart current on Friday (or just possibly Saturday), not the one shown above.  The third row of the chart gives current spellings "not, come, law, bought", with Friday's new spellings "not, com, loe, bot" and now the new spellings "not, com, loo, bot".  The example words belong to the lexical sets LOT, STRUT, THOUGHT, THOUGHT, do they not?  I couldn't find any other example to tell me how to write 'traditional' /ʌ/.

 

Are you perchance proposing to change TO gallop and hiccup to II gaelep and hicep rather than II gaelep and hicop?  Note that the vowel of STRUT is not, technically, a schwa.  IPA reforms take a long time to spread (sound familiar?) and for  a long time there were no proper symbols for non-neutral central vowels, so the symbol for schwa (ə) has consequently been used for many vowels that are not the neutral or default vowel.  Similarly, the vowel symbol ʌ  has been widely abused to indicate a central vowel like the STRUT vowel.  It should now be being widely replaced by the ɐ symbol, but that takes time.

 

If you have decided that II should ignore the difference between the STRUT vowel and schwa, then note that TO come will become II cem.

 

You've also further changed the spelling corresponding to TO low.  Before, it was just "loo", but now may be either "loe" or "loew".  Is this because you have perforce ignored the advice never to computerise a moving target?  The relevant merger is still in progress in some places.

 

You've also just changed the spelling of bute, which is such a neologism (or a typo for Bute or even butte) that I can't find it in my paper dictionaries.  Traditional long 'u' will be troublesome enough to need a paragraph or more.

 

From Cambridge:

 

UK /ˌfəʊ.təˈɡræf.ɪk/ US   /ˌfoʊ.t̬əˈɡræf.ɪk/

 

I guess I used the UK phoneme. It is slightly affected of course, but I could certainly add a "w" for the /ʊ/. Personally, I do not hear any difference between the /o/ and ou/ version.

 

As for schwa, look up at the definition of schwa. It is NOT one phoneme. Look it up. Anyway, we are talking mm of differences.  Only people spitting hairs along their length will quibble and detect (I demand a bling test) the differences in a word spoken in a conversation. But, who knows? Maybe my ears aren't the best anymore. It varies. Some of them are r-controlled. It depends on the dialect though. Anyway, I am done with splitting hairs.

 

 

Btw, those changes were done before on the IE chart that I forgot to ditch. 

 

In any case, there is no need for this types of discussions anymore. I had an epiphany last night. Actually I finally remembered a discussion I had with a person a few days ago on this topic. We reached  a compromise that we both could live with. He mentioned to me that he was able  to maintain both a working knowledge of a dialect that had a lot of quirks with TO and speak also standard English pronunciation (and so were many of the citizens he knew) Have you not read my #1 rebuttal? Please do. I will no longer answer questions related to phonetics. I know many Italians who can do this too. Read #1 and come back at me. I believe this could work. So, to be clear, children could become bicodal while current learners would carry on living and dying.

 

[nong38]

The world should adopt Thai English, the problem is solved!

Next!

[JAG]

8 minutes ago, nong38 said:

The world should adopt Thai English, the problem is solved!

Next!

Pomplem, no pomplem......

[Richard W]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

From Cambridge:

 

UK /ˌfəʊ.təˈɡræf.ɪk/ US   /ˌfoʊ.t̬əˈɡræf.ɪk/

 

I guess I used the UK phoneme. It is slightly affected of course, but I could certainly add a "w" for the /ʊ/. Personally, I do not hear any difference between the /o/ and ou/ version.

Fine hearing is not needed for this.  The first vowel is the GOAT vowel, whether UK or US.

 

The nasty issue could be the reduced form, [o] in RP, as in the the first syllable of photographer.  Phonemically, that was still the GOAT vowel.  That allophone of the GOAT vowel seems now to have largely transferred to the schwa phoneme.

 

So, to be clear, children could become bicodal while current learners would carry on living and dying.

 

Shades of i.t.a.!

 

I'm not clear if you have now abandoned Iezy Ignglish. Your exposition needed constructive criticism, which I was gearing up to provide.