Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: Better writing form
References: <3gsd9j$784@serv.hinet.net>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 30
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 00:27:12 +0000
Message-ID: <791944032snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <3gsd9j$784@serv.hinet.net> young@hntp2.hinet.net "young" writes:

> The German spelling reform proposal is out as already posted to this
> news group by someone. My question is: What is the "ideal"
> writing form for a language ? Is the "What you read is what
> you are supposed to hear, and, what you write is how you speak"
> the "highest" principle of spelling reform ? Is  one-to-one
> relationship between phonem and writing better then one-to-many ? 
> It seems to me that the German and Dutch would say yes to all
> the questions above. If so, what about English ? Does English
> need a spelling reform ?
> 
> If you are designing a spelling system for a language that never
> had a writing history (unlike English), which principles would
> you hold higher than others ?

- there would be a high correlation (but not necessarily 100%) between
writing and sound. If there are different dialects, this should be
relaxed. (If English was spelt as it sounds, most words would have
several different spellings according to dialect, and it would be very 
hard to read.)

- it would be easy to learn and use.

- the writing system would only include ASCII characters. No diacritical
marks.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
