Bring ðem back!!
Other urls found in this thread:
Only the dental fricatives are needed in modern english
make -> mæk
And the two vowels
Hate - heyt
Met - met
Hat - hæt
Hut - hat
Hit - hit
Heat - hiit
Hot - hot
Hoot - huut
Would/wood - wud
Loud - lawd
Laud - läd
I think that's all
What would cross-o represent?
It's a vowel that doesn't exist in English, but does in all other Germanic languages. English could still use it for the o in food -> fød
Very nice
I'm personally in favor of using uu/ii or ū/ī for +ATR high vowels
ugh........
wat kud hæv bin...
>ø
English doesn't have this sound anymore
>wynn
Looks too similar to þ and p
>yough
just bad
/u:/ is not /ø/ or /ø:/
It only exists in certain accents but it's not present in neither standard australian accent nor standard american accent nor received pronunciation
goddammit read my comment again, I want to use it for a different sound
Why would you do that?
I know, that's why i suggested representing /uː/ as ⟨uu⟩
What English accents even have ø?
Because English more letters, and it's already using letters that sound different in other languages (j, r, w, t, v)
needs* more
Point of discussion: should /w/ and /ʍ/ be written differently? In most dialects they merged into [w], but there are quite a few minimal pairs
yoch isn't a letter and thorn and eth never used their lower case forms.
They would become separate letter again if only the spelling wasn't so retarded. Most English speakers are not (or did not descend from) native English speakers, and they mostly learned the language from writing. Pronouncing wh as it's written would be impossible, so they just ignore the h
Actually the correct pronounciation of wh is closer to ''hw'' or ''xw'' in ipa, which is how it used to be written.
If "what" was written "hwat", no one would have a problem pronouncing it correctly
>hw or xw
it was only xw in Scotland.
It used to be written like that, but the sound was lost even among native speakers. I guess it was just viewed as too articalutorily taxing.
In the end you need to remember that orthography is affected by speaking, not vice versa.
>orthography is affected by speaking
>red
>read (past tense)
youtube.com
In some of the exagerated southern USA accents it sounds almost like /xw/ or /χw/
>English could still use it for the o in food -> fød
That would be entirely wrong. We would spell "food" with a "u".
By your logic, they should be pronounced differently since they are written differently.
In reality, the orthography represents the pronounciation of a certain point in time (and geography) which didn't change.
probably southern accents I think since that is where most scots in the usa went.
Is the distinction w-wh kept in other british accents? In America it's pretty much only in southern prestige accents.
It has 40-something sounds and 20-something letters, obviously it could use more letters that would represent all the sounds, but there's no reason to use a specifically foreign letter for that, otherwise it would end up the same as chinese pinyin who used "x" for one of their "sh" sounds and whatnot
It would still be incomprehensible
The best way to do this is to use letter accents, for example /u:/ becomes ü, /u/ becomes u, etc
only really in Scotland.
Not even in RP?
Where are my (You)s?