Matish
I propose a new spelling system. I intend to use it on MSN from now on. It's simple, logical, close to the old spelling, uses no new characters and works for most (if not all) English accents. Gloria suggested I call it Matish, but it's very similar to the current version of New Spelling, so I don't feel I should own it as I'm not the only one with such ideas. But I'll call it Matish where mine is mainly different (improved, of course). Here are the rules (skip to the tables at the end if you're in a hurry to understand me on MSN and I have sent you to this page):
First of all, you don't use 'q' or 'x'.
Secondly, 'g' is only hard like in "get". Never soft like in "george". That sound is reserved for 'j'.
Thirdly, c is always like 'ch' in "church"
Fourthly, 'y' is not a vowel, and as a consonant it's pretty self-explanatory as are the consistent consonants 'b', 'd', 'f', 'h', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'p', 'r', 's', 't', 'v', 'w', and 'z' with the following exceptions:
Firstly, 'h' is also used after an initially plosive consonant to make it fricative. Therefore 'th' is as in "thin", 'dh' is as the 'th' in "then", 'kh' is as the 'ch' in "Loch Ness".
One day when the world is ready for the logical leap, 'ch' may be used instead of 'sh', and less noticeably, 'jh' instead of 'zh' as the 'si' in "Asia" (maybe this version should be called Matich, but then there's no distinction when you say the two names in their own systems) but for now we're probably stuck with 'sh' but because I can get away with it, I will use 'jh' for 'zh' because the sound is less common and it won't be too shocking.
Secondly, 'ng' is always as in "singer" ("finger" is "fingger"). When the 'n' and 'g' are separate sounds together, use an apostrophe as in "en'graev" for "engrave".
Thirdly, some English accents make a pronounced distinction between the 'wh' in "where" and the 'w' in "wear", so you may want to hold onto the 'h' in the new spelling.
In transliterating from other languages, 'q' (for the unvoiced plosive uvular consonant), 'qh', 'bh' (like 'v' but with the lips), 'gh' and 'ph' (like 'f' but with the lips) may be used, but the following vowel system can't properly be used for other languages because rather than being purely phonetic, it's intended to be spelt the same regardless of the accent of the English person writing it. For this reason the vowels are a little more difficult but here goes:
Zerothly, do not bother representing schwas, especially in the last unstressed syllable. Therefore, spell "handle" as "handl", "beautiful" as "buetifl", "station" as "staeshn", etc.
Firstly, the short vowels are as in "bag", "beg", "big", "bog" and "bug".
Secondly, with the letter 'e' after the vowel, the vowels sound like the way you say the letter itself. Sometimes this just means moving the 'e' in the original spelling. Thus, "mate", "Pete", "bite", "rope" and "ute" become "maet", "peet", "biet", "roep" and "uet".
Thirdly, 'ou' is as in "pound"
Fourthly, 'oi' is as in "point"
Fifthly, 'oo' is as in "book" and 'uu' as in the 'oo' in "moon"
Sixthly, 'au' is used as in "taught" except where the original spelling is 'or' as in "morning" then it's 'or' (some accents make a distinction).
Seventhly, 'aa' is as 'a' in "father" except where the original spelling is 'ar' as in "smart", then it's 'ar' (same reason as above).
Eighthly, 'ur' is as in 'fur' except where the original spelling is 'er' as in 'sister' (mostly this is because of etymology, but I'm unhappy with using 'ur' at all and someone should convince me why I don't use 'er' in all cases).
Now from here on, my system (I'll call it Matish) deviates from the current version of New Spelling.
Zerothly, I use the apostrophe to separate "hapi'est" from sounding like "hapie'st", and other confusions that will not really occur, whereas New Spelling uses a full stop as in "terri.er", "sosie.eti", "kwie.et". Perhaps a hyphen should be used in words like "child-hood" and "foot-hold" where they naturally break up, but I don't think anyone is going to pronounce it "footh" so it's only a personal preference.
Firstly, New Spelling has 'aer' for the 'air' in... "air", Whereas I use 'air'. Why, because although "payer" and "pear" might both sound like "paer" (which is how they might both be spelt in New Spelling) in some accents, other accents (including mine) make a distinction. Also, "air" is already used consistently in our current spelling, whereas "aer" is not so familiar.
Secondly, 'ow' is as the 'ow' in "bowl" and the 'o' in "dog" and "holy" as opposed to the short 'o' in "bog" and "holly" (In case you were wondering, in English there is no need to distinguish between the long 'a' in "ran" and the short one in "sat").
Thirdly, there are short common words in English which are less simpified with New Spelling. It has been suggested that "word" signs are introduced which break the rules of New Spelling, examples are: I, U, me, he, she, we, be, dhe, so, no, to, do, (shortened from Ie, Ue, mee, shee wee bee dhee, soe, noe, tuu, duu, etc.) But I propose we introduce my End-Of-Words rule which simplifies spelling even further, and is more consistent with the old spelling and makes the new spelling more consistent with itself as no exceptions are found. Everybody wins!
End-Of-Words Rule:
That is, we exploit the fact that the sounds usually made by 'a', 'e', 'o', 'oo' in the new system are never used at the end of English words. Also, no distinction is needed between short 'i' and long 'ee' at the end of words, so with my new rule, 'e' is used for 'ee' and 'i' (as the old system spelling does in "me"), 'i' is then free to be used for 'ie' (New Spelling used to use 'y' - what a nightmare!) 'o' is used for 'oe' (as the old spelling does in "no" and "tomato", etc.) and 'a' is used for 'u' (as the old does in "banana", "umbrella", and most importantly, "a") which leaves 'u' disposed to be used for 'uu' (simplifying words like "tu" for "to"). All other vowel combinations are the same as in the middle of a word, except 'oo' which also is used for 'uu' as I will explain.
This removes the bulky 'ee', 'ie', 'oe' and 'uu' from the ends of words.
These endings can be added back on without ambiguity to give variation spellings for homophones with the End-Of-Words rule used for the most common form, and the Dog's-Vomit-Rule (as I like to call it) for the less common. In my opinion though, this is getting dangerously close to complicating things especially if 'oo' is not avoided, and if people think it's important to make a distinction in spelling homophones, they should look at changing the pronunciation too. If there's no ambiguity saying it, why should it be spelled differently? Nevertheless, here's Dog's-Vomit at work:
Examples:
to->tu
too->too ("too" meaning" "also")
too->tuu (as in "too much")
two->2 (explain later)
toe->to
do->du
dough->do
doe->doe
no->no
know->noe
so->so
sew->soe
sow->soe
by->bi (maybe "by", but would be inconsistent)
bye->bi
buy-bie
The End-Of-Words Rule also applies before a plural 's' or 'z' and sometimes before an apostrophe.
Another rule I'd like to introduce is one that people already use on MSN, and will likely end up in the dictionaries before simplified spelling anyway. That is the practice of using letters and digits by themselves to represent common words that sound the same.
This will also help distinguish homophones:
be->b
bee->be
see->c
sea->se
I->i
eye->ie
pee->p
pea->pe
one->1
won->wun
four->4
for->for
eight->8
ate->aet
But again, having alternate spelling doesn't really matter, and people are going to use 'o' for both "oh" and "owe" in "I O U" anyway, and '4' for "for", so you can't win and you don't have to.
Digits should be used for numbers wherever possible. Not only does this distinguish between homophones, but this also helps distinguish between an English trillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000) and an American trillion (1,000,000,000,000 (which kills the Latin and falls to pieces mathematically)).
Letter-words can be joined together using an apostrophe if needed. "p'pl" (for people) may not need it, but without it "ur" sounds like "err" rather than "u'r"
By the way, I think capitals are useless and should be avoided for words like "i" and "u" which people do on MSN anyway.
Don't use capitals except when you are shouting. It's just personal preference for beginning of sentences, names and titles. Also, I propose that "God" is spelt "gowd" and "god" is spelt "god" for reasons that are not obvious in all English accents.
Feel free to comment on my proposals. Find any mistakes? Have any suggestions? Pick the whole thing to pieces before I submit it to the SSS.
Here're the whole tables for simple reference:
"a" is an exception to the Letter-Words rule depending on how you say it, and the letter-word "u" is a subtle exception to the End-of-Words Rule. If "e" were "he" it would break both rules, but letter-word rules can't be strict. That's the point of them.
whedher dh wedher be cold,
or whedher dh wedher be hot
we'l wedher dh wedher,
whotever dh wedher,
whedher we liek it or not.
First of all, you don't use 'q' or 'x'.
Secondly, 'g' is only hard like in "get". Never soft like in "george". That sound is reserved for 'j'.
Thirdly, c is always like 'ch' in "church"
Fourthly, 'y' is not a vowel, and as a consonant it's pretty self-explanatory as are the consistent consonants 'b', 'd', 'f', 'h', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'p', 'r', 's', 't', 'v', 'w', and 'z' with the following exceptions:
Firstly, 'h' is also used after an initially plosive consonant to make it fricative. Therefore 'th' is as in "thin", 'dh' is as the 'th' in "then", 'kh' is as the 'ch' in "Loch Ness".
One day when the world is ready for the logical leap, 'ch' may be used instead of 'sh', and less noticeably, 'jh' instead of 'zh' as the 'si' in "Asia" (maybe this version should be called Matich, but then there's no distinction when you say the two names in their own systems) but for now we're probably stuck with 'sh' but because I can get away with it, I will use 'jh' for 'zh' because the sound is less common and it won't be too shocking.
Secondly, 'ng' is always as in "singer" ("finger" is "fingger"). When the 'n' and 'g' are separate sounds together, use an apostrophe as in "en'graev" for "engrave".
Thirdly, some English accents make a pronounced distinction between the 'wh' in "where" and the 'w' in "wear", so you may want to hold onto the 'h' in the new spelling.
In transliterating from other languages, 'q' (for the unvoiced plosive uvular consonant), 'qh', 'bh' (like 'v' but with the lips), 'gh' and 'ph' (like 'f' but with the lips) may be used, but the following vowel system can't properly be used for other languages because rather than being purely phonetic, it's intended to be spelt the same regardless of the accent of the English person writing it. For this reason the vowels are a little more difficult but here goes:
Zerothly, do not bother representing schwas, especially in the last unstressed syllable. Therefore, spell "handle" as "handl", "beautiful" as "buetifl", "station" as "staeshn", etc.
Firstly, the short vowels are as in "bag", "beg", "big", "bog" and "bug".
Secondly, with the letter 'e' after the vowel, the vowels sound like the way you say the letter itself. Sometimes this just means moving the 'e' in the original spelling. Thus, "mate", "Pete", "bite", "rope" and "ute" become "maet", "peet", "biet", "roep" and "uet".
Thirdly, 'ou' is as in "pound"
Fourthly, 'oi' is as in "point"
Fifthly, 'oo' is as in "book" and 'uu' as in the 'oo' in "moon"
Sixthly, 'au' is used as in "taught" except where the original spelling is 'or' as in "morning" then it's 'or' (some accents make a distinction).
Seventhly, 'aa' is as 'a' in "father" except where the original spelling is 'ar' as in "smart", then it's 'ar' (same reason as above).
Eighthly, 'ur' is as in 'fur' except where the original spelling is 'er' as in 'sister' (mostly this is because of etymology, but I'm unhappy with using 'ur' at all and someone should convince me why I don't use 'er' in all cases).
Now from here on, my system (I'll call it Matish) deviates from the current version of New Spelling.
Zerothly, I use the apostrophe to separate "hapi'est" from sounding like "hapie'st", and other confusions that will not really occur, whereas New Spelling uses a full stop as in "terri.er", "sosie.eti", "kwie.et". Perhaps a hyphen should be used in words like "child-hood" and "foot-hold" where they naturally break up, but I don't think anyone is going to pronounce it "footh" so it's only a personal preference.
Firstly, New Spelling has 'aer' for the 'air' in... "air", Whereas I use 'air'. Why, because although "payer" and "pear" might both sound like "paer" (which is how they might both be spelt in New Spelling) in some accents, other accents (including mine) make a distinction. Also, "air" is already used consistently in our current spelling, whereas "aer" is not so familiar.
Secondly, 'ow' is as the 'ow' in "bowl" and the 'o' in "dog" and "holy" as opposed to the short 'o' in "bog" and "holly" (In case you were wondering, in English there is no need to distinguish between the long 'a' in "ran" and the short one in "sat").
Thirdly, there are short common words in English which are less simpified with New Spelling. It has been suggested that "word" signs are introduced which break the rules of New Spelling, examples are: I, U, me, he, she, we, be, dhe, so, no, to, do, (shortened from Ie, Ue, mee, shee wee bee dhee, soe, noe, tuu, duu, etc.) But I propose we introduce my End-Of-Words rule which simplifies spelling even further, and is more consistent with the old spelling and makes the new spelling more consistent with itself as no exceptions are found. Everybody wins!
End-Of-Words Rule:
That is, we exploit the fact that the sounds usually made by 'a', 'e', 'o', 'oo' in the new system are never used at the end of English words. Also, no distinction is needed between short 'i' and long 'ee' at the end of words, so with my new rule, 'e' is used for 'ee' and 'i' (as the old system spelling does in "me"), 'i' is then free to be used for 'ie' (New Spelling used to use 'y' - what a nightmare!) 'o' is used for 'oe' (as the old spelling does in "no" and "tomato", etc.) and 'a' is used for 'u' (as the old does in "banana", "umbrella", and most importantly, "a") which leaves 'u' disposed to be used for 'uu' (simplifying words like "tu" for "to"). All other vowel combinations are the same as in the middle of a word, except 'oo' which also is used for 'uu' as I will explain.
This removes the bulky 'ee', 'ie', 'oe' and 'uu' from the ends of words.
These endings can be added back on without ambiguity to give variation spellings for homophones with the End-Of-Words rule used for the most common form, and the Dog's-Vomit-Rule (as I like to call it) for the less common. In my opinion though, this is getting dangerously close to complicating things especially if 'oo' is not avoided, and if people think it's important to make a distinction in spelling homophones, they should look at changing the pronunciation too. If there's no ambiguity saying it, why should it be spelled differently? Nevertheless, here's Dog's-Vomit at work:
Examples:
to->tu
too->too ("too" meaning" "also")
too->tuu (as in "too much")
two->2 (explain later)
toe->to
do->du
dough->do
doe->doe
no->no
know->noe
so->so
sew->soe
sow->soe
by->bi (maybe "by", but would be inconsistent)
bye->bi
buy-bie
The End-Of-Words Rule also applies before a plural 's' or 'z' and sometimes before an apostrophe.
Another rule I'd like to introduce is one that people already use on MSN, and will likely end up in the dictionaries before simplified spelling anyway. That is the practice of using letters and digits by themselves to represent common words that sound the same.
This will also help distinguish homophones:
be->b
bee->be
see->c
sea->se
I->i
eye->ie
pee->p
pea->pe
one->1
won->wun
four->4
for->for
eight->8
ate->aet
But again, having alternate spelling doesn't really matter, and people are going to use 'o' for both "oh" and "owe" in "I O U" anyway, and '4' for "for", so you can't win and you don't have to.
Digits should be used for numbers wherever possible. Not only does this distinguish between homophones, but this also helps distinguish between an English trillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000) and an American trillion (1,000,000,000,000 (which kills the Latin and falls to pieces mathematically)).
Letter-words can be joined together using an apostrophe if needed. "p'pl" (for people) may not need it, but without it "ur" sounds like "err" rather than "u'r"
By the way, I think capitals are useless and should be avoided for words like "i" and "u" which people do on MSN anyway.
Don't use capitals except when you are shouting. It's just personal preference for beginning of sentences, names and titles. Also, I propose that "God" is spelt "gowd" and "god" is spelt "god" for reasons that are not obvious in all English accents.
Feel free to comment on my proposals. Find any mistakes? Have any suggestions? Pick the whole thing to pieces before I submit it to the SSS.
Here're the whole tables for simple reference:
| Consonants | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Vowels |
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Matish End-Of-Words Rule: All vowels the same except: | |
| a | Santa |
| e | me |
| i | tie |
| o | so |
| u | kung fu |
| oo | poo |
| Matish Letter-Words: | |
| a | a |
| b | be |
| c | see |
| d | the? |
| e | he? |
| f | (don't use this, it's not nice) |
| g | (or this - Third Commandment) |
| h | ? |
| i | I |
| j | ? |
| k | ok |
| l | will |
| m | am |
| n | an?/in? |
| o | oh/owe |
| p | pee |
| q | cue |
| r | are |
| s | is |
| t | tea |
| u | you |
| v | have |
| w | we? |
| x | ex- |
| y | why |
| z | is? |
| & | and |
| @ | at |
"a" is an exception to the Letter-Words rule depending on how you say it, and the letter-word "u" is a subtle exception to the End-of-Words Rule. If "e" were "he" it would break both rules, but letter-word rules can't be strict. That's the point of them.
whedher dh wedher be cold,
or whedher dh wedher be hot
we'l wedher dh wedher,
whotever dh wedher,
whedher we liek it or not.
posted by Mathieu | 5:10 am
6 Comments:
Wow, that looks more confusing than my shorthand!!!
ok, i've only glanced through the rules very briefly...but shouldn't the word 'cold' be spelt with a k??? (since 'c' is meant to sound like 'ch' in 'church')....you might want to correct the spelling of 'cold' at the end of the post....not that i'm nit-picking or anything :)
but seriously, somebody should have thought up these more sensible rules a loooong time ago!!!
Yes, you are very right. It should be spelled "kold". Like I said later, you are not nit-picking. You are helping others to understand, who might find my mistakes a stumbling block. Thank you for your courage to help.
I'm glad you like my rules.
probably a dumb question, but what does zerothly mean?
(its ok, i'm just trying to procrastinate cos i can't make sense of all the conflicting articles for my assignment.....thus randomly blog-surfing and trying to make semi-intelligent comments)
This came about in exactly the same way as the term, "The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics" did. Basically, I didn't think Matish would need much explanation, but I thought I would be lazy and blog about it instead of repeating myself on MSN. I was trying to be casual by using words like "Firstly" instead of setting it all out neatly, but then saw that some rules that occured to me later, actually seemed more appropriate at the start, so I inserted them as "Zerothly" rather then rewording everything I had already typed.
It's funny, because you can see that I saw the need to elaborate over time, because the paragraphs became longer and longer. One day I might make just one page on my website with all the rules neatly set out and just blog about the changes I make to it.
duh, i only just got that...i mean, i only just figured out that you meant zero-thly / 0th....silly me...i thought you had invented a new word, or come up with some random archaic word!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home