New Spelling

1. A second look at New Spelling - the first reformed spelling endorsed by the SSS and the first house stile.
New Spelling, based on Alexander Ellis' Diminuin (1890), was a proposal to accept the traditional shifted sound-symbol correspondences. ae ee ie oe ue or ay ee ie oa ue instead of ei i: ai ou iu. The IPA and some earlier proposals preferred going back to the Latin sound-symbol correspondences.

New Spelling was presumed to be easier to read for tradspel adepts and easier to transition from for new learners who went on to learn the traditional polyvalent writing system. New spelling had one symbol for every stressed speech sound. Traditional spelling often had a dozen or more. The New Spelling conventions were one of the four or so that one would have to learn in order to be proficient in traditional spelling.

ae is not a common way to represent the "long" A. Traditional spelling usually inserts a consonant before marker e as in date. Another convention is to use a marker i/y as in day. However, in polysyllables the marker is usually dropped. Often a marker double consonant is used not indicate that the preceding vowel was short and stressed: batten baton The unmarked (a) in ba-'ton has to be a free vowel: There are two possibilities: schwa-a or long-a as in 'ba-con. In New Spelling these words would be daet, dae, baten, bataan, and baekon.

Some have argued that the New Spellings are not sufficiently close to traditional spelling to be recognized. One can mark the long vowels with a macron or acute accent: dát dá batòn, bàton, bákòn. but this too may be difficult to recognize as a sight word equivalent. RITEspel abandons one symbol per sound and uses date day baton batten and baycon or bacon. Like New Spelling, RITEspel rarely respells an unstressed vowel.

Pitman's i/t/a is based on New Spelling. The innovation was to connect the digraphs and put them on one key. (th) was different from t+h because they were ligatured or connected in one symbol. The composite or ligatured symbol were not considered to be associated with the sound values of the component symbols so one could talk about (ai) as signifying /eI/.

no schwa
This means that er has to be rendered as air, because eris associated with /3r/ and /@'/
Forthe most paort unstressed vowels are spelled as in tradspel. It was not reformed.

mye? Franklin like iy.

Sweet did not like the new spelling solution and offered IPA as the alternative.

A replacement for traditional spelling?

NS05
What font is this? It is just about perfect....SB

New Spelling was the first orthography endorsed by the Simplified Spelling Society. It was used in most member publications for about ten years. Many members found it to be slow reading because over 60% of the words were respelled. Soundspel is nearly the same except that Soundspel accepts 32 short high-frequency word-signs.

A related i.t.a. correspondence chart
The ligatures such as ch and sh are written out in NueSpeling

The IPA is used as the dictionary key spelling in many dictionaries.
It is becoming the most popular pronunciation guide spelling.

Moest men, eeven in dhis comparativli free cuntree, thru mir ignorans and mistaek, aar so okuepied with the faktishus kerz and sooperfloously kors laeberz ov lief dhat its fiener froots kanot be plukd bie dhem

New Spelling by Donald Scragg (date)
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j11/historical.html CHECK

Let me take as a basis for discussion the system of reform officially proposed and supported by the Society, New Spelling, which was created almost fifty years ago and which has been modified in only minor respects since.

Without wishing to engage in any debate about its appropriateness to conditions prevailing today, I would argue as a historian that New Spelling represents the most significant advance in the philosophy and practice of reform during the twentieth century, and arguably of the whole 400-year history of the movement. It is a scheme with a sound academic basis which has been worked out most carefully over many years by a series of dedicated and learned scholars. Also, because it was adopted by Sir James Pitman for i.t.a., it is the most successful reformed system there has been in that more people have been exposed to its recommendations than to those of any other reformed spelling, even if they used them only in conjunction with a transition script. Its guiding principles are those which have been reiterated most frequently by reformers over the centuries, and summarising them will help to identify the traditional concerns of those advocating reform.

Firstly, the roman alphabet as traditionally used is retained (minus 'unnecessary' letters such as <q> and <x>) and no new diacritics are introduced.

Secondly, by the principle of least disturbance, current usage is retained wherever possible, and new combinations of letters are excluded as far as possible (although exceptions are made in the difficult case of vowel representation).

Thirdly, the most fundamental principle is that of regularity: each letter or combination of letters is self-contained (in other words, no double consonants or final unpronounced <e> to indicate the quality or quantity of a preceding vowel) and each has a match in the sound system, so that, for example, spelling may be deduced from pronunciation and pronunciation from spelling.

The scheme has all the advantages sought by generations of reformers, in regularity of representation of, and closer match with, the spoken language (although, in conformity with twentieth-century linguistic thinking it avoids close phonetic representation as neither feasible nor desirable), and it meets many of the familiar objections to reform in that it retains links with traditional orthography [= TO] as widely as is consistent with its principles.

The Triumph of English: With one of the smallest populations of speakers in 1300
English has become the most popular European language and the one with the broadest reach.

French         16    26    50    60    80
Mandarin       15    85   190   420   900
German         14    20    75   100   100
Spanish         5    22    45   120   350
Russian         3    20    75   150   170
English         3    10   110   250   360
Portuguese      1     4    15    75   170

In 1300, English was the tongue of a few million inhabitants of the British Isles.
In 1750 it was still near the bottom of the heap.
By 1900, however, it had moved to 2nd place.

You may have missed it but I do actually say 'new learners..... and those who have to teach it to them' and 'compatibility between TS and NS is necessary both for existing literates who would be willing to learn NS and for new literates'. I never said TSers should be ignored just that a NS system should be tailored mostly for new learners. Having said this I do think that someone who is going to teach a new system and not just learn it should be someone who is capable of learning and teaching any system no matter how similar to or different from TS. At first only those adults who are going to teach NS and a number of people involved in publishing material that would be used for teaching NS would have to learn it, for any other TSer it would be an entirely voluntary matter. The person who teaches new learners NS wouldn't even have to be the same person who teaches them TS. NS could be taught as a subject in the same way French, Spanish, history, maths, etc are taught as subjects. Note that I am saying adults 'who are going to teach NS' not teach in NS. Teaching in NS, for example maths or history, could be something that could be introduced some years down the line when both teachers and their students know NS. I think we are more likely to sell a system if we say to most existing TSers: 'You won't have to learn it unless you want to and it won't replace TS until after you are dead' What you are advocating is some kind of ITA to help people learn TS. If NS is close to TS maybe it could also be used as a ITA, but this is not what I'm referring to. I mean a system that in the long run could replace TS. But this won't happen until every person who can read and write knows both systems. With the steps I'm advocating we wouldn't have to convince everyone at all whether at once or gradually. Since for most existing TSers NS would be voluntary most would not have any grounds for objecting to it. David

SB: I see the immediate situation as something similar to the schools that started the kids out with a near 100% phonemic system, Unifon. As long as the writing system is over 85% phonemic, it can be taught in three months. This does not mean that the kids could read a newspaper with understanding, it does mean that they could read aloud a transcribed newspaper. They would be code literate.

At the end of theyear, the kids had already transitioned to tradspel and most were reading at a third grade level.

AT Ð3 END UV ÐA YÉR,Ð3KIDZ HAD ^LREDÉ TRANZI$3ND TÚ TRADSPEL AND MÓST WUR RÉDIN AT A TURD GRÁD LEV3L. [simulated Unifon]

The bicodal approach involves teaching the dictionary key first. The kids overlearn the dictionary key by writing with it. Writing is much more demanding than reading. The gifted kids help those who are academically challenged.

The parents were also involved since they could be taught to read words written in Unifon [or any phonemic writing system] in one two hour class. Grad students can pick up [decode] any phonemic writing system in about 15 minutes. It takes more practice to be able to write in a new spelling system. --- In saundspel@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Stought" <paulnlinda@a...wrote: David, How du yu expect tu teech childrun and ESL stuedunts without furst teeching adults olredy cunvursunt with tradspel? Without ther blesing, ther wil be no teeching uv childrun and ESL stuedunts. Without ther acseptuns, ther wil be no blesing. We must sel our iedeaz tu theez peepul furst. We du not need tu cunvins ol at wuns. This iz not an ol or nuthing sport. It shood be eezy enuf tu lurn wun uv theez nu sistumz and it can be uzed at the same time az TS; informuly at furst and for a long time. The nu speling wil not be in the scools until it iz wel establishd informuly outside the ejucaeshunul cumuenuty. A posubul exepshun tu this wood be the use uv a hiely foeneemic speling sistum uzed tu help teech tradspel. This may raez a wilingnus tu sireusly cunsidur radicul chaenj. The problum hir iz, supireur teeching methuds hav bin tried and rejected in the past. Whot ar the chansez that that wil chaenj? Without taeluring a nu sistum tu adres at leest sum uv the sensutivutyz uv prezunt reedurs, yu wil nevur get the chans tu sel a mor foeneemic sistum tu mor than a fue peepul. Where tu draw the line iz a huej gray erea. My upinyun uv cors. Cunsiduring that eevun in this forum, fue riet in a nu sistum, we hav a long way tu go befor we can expect larj numberz uv peepul tu take up the flag. Paul --- In saundspel@yahoogroups.com, "David Barrow" <davidab@t...wrote: I think that before we can choose one of the below a more fundamental question needs to be answered: Can we convince all existing TSers to change the way they spell?. The answer is no. Any new spelling system (NS) will be taught not primarily to existing TSers but to new learners: children, the illiterate, second language learners; and of course those who have to teach it to them. Some TSers may be willing to learn a new system but most won't, so NS would have to be taught alongside TS and for many years to come most written communication would be in TS. During school years children could have some NS refresher lessons so they don't forget, so some material would be in NS for the purposes of teaching and practice. Gradually TSers who haven't learnt NS will die out so at some point all those who can read and write will know both systems and they will be able decide whether they want to continue with TS or not. If they decide to switch they can decide how they want to go about it. So while compatibility between TS and NS is necessary both for existing literates who would be willing to learn NS and for new literates, a NS system should be tailored mostly for the latter. David --- In saundspel@yahoogroups.com, Steve Bett <stbett@y...wrote: Where do we begin? Gus, Tom, Steve and to some extent Ze think that new spellings should be derived [directly and/or by the application of rules] from phonemic pronunciation guide spellings. Pete rejects this approach takes a different tack. Pete believes that he has a series of transformation

None of these mixed cap systems are appreciated because they are too
unfamiliar. They are however unigraphic, phonemic, simple to learn
and rapid to type.

I think they're not only 'unfamiliar' but uglier too, with that 'jagged' appearance - worse in that way than using apostrophes for sounds, and definitely so than diacritics. Besides, they're not really 'rapid to type'. When you use a capital you're using two fingers to get that capital instead of one. And Taam tested this out a year or so ago and found doing so took twice as long as using just lower-case. Some diacritic/letters in Icelandic type need only one, so would anyhow be more 'rapid' yet..

Let's list the sound symbol assignments and invite others to
critique the assignments. Most of the critiques to date has been with respect to typographic aesthetics.

7 Short Vowels
EN SAMPA   examples                     MCM      iGliS
i   /I/ bit, bitar   <bitter>            i
e   /E/ bet, bet&r betR <better>         e
q   /{/ bat, bat&r <batter>              a
u   /V/ but, but&r <butter>              u
a/Q /Q/ gQt, bQD&r /A/ baD&r b&zar       o
w   /U/ lWk, shWd wWd, kWd <could>       v
&/a /@/ Ali&n, but&r, Da <the>        Eli@n    Ali?n

7 Free Vowels
R /3:/ wRT, bRdan <earth burden>          ur
        hR, Rjant, <her urgent>
A /eI/ kAnz, lAdi, grA                   kEnz     A
E /i:/ rEl, fEl, pEp&l, pEtsa            rIl      E
a: /A:/ faD&r, laf/lqf, kar, draw&r        o
o /O:/ shor, ror/ro&r, dor                O
O /@U/ lO, gO, tO                         Q
U /u:/ trw, blw, shw eU /ju:/ eUnivers beUtE                   U

Diphthongs
Y   /aI/ rYt, wYt, sYt, lYk                I
oi /OI/ boy, toy                          b (tho Oi could be used)
ow /aU/ out cow house owl                 q (tho oU could be used)
qw might be more phonemic.
axe + oops = owl    vs.                    don't know what this is (?)
awe + ooze = owl

Hassslequist and Malone preferred
a unigraph such as Q.
Combinations
EU /yw/ you          fuel, sure, eulogy           EU/iU or yU feUl SeUr eUlojE   yU

Steve: "Unifon is not designed for speed reading or rapid word recognition.
It is designed to be read as a string of sound signs - a rather slow way of reading."

All spelling systems are slow reading until the word pattern is learned. This should not be held against Unifon. One major problem with Unifon is that it may not be used long enough to learn the word patterns. I don't think I have too much trouble reading Unifon. I'm sure I would improve greatly if I read Unifon frequently. I see no reason why rapid word recognition would be hard to learn. I bet Malone would disagree about Unifon being designed to be read as just a string of sound signs.

how should we spell the word "fiery"? As "firey"? As "firy"? Or retain the current spelling? If we retain the current spelling, does this mean we re-spell "fire" as "fier"?

Rollo wrote: Dear Steev, Thhanks faur th Danspel and saundspel taeblz. Do I hav th rong weurd in Dipthong? difthong = diphthong Aul th green soundz are eezili kaeteurd faur with th standeud voulz and voul pairz. But dubl voul soundz prizent sum probleumz: bie this i meen 2 konsecuetiv voul soundz az in 'iedea', 'India', 'deeviaet', 'dieamaufeen', ' milion', 'glaurius', 'kariur', 'jieunt', 'situaeshn', 'kazhueul'. Ov kaus theez kan be repreezentid bie 2 pairz ov vouls, but this iz klumzi. Theez aar mie solooshnz: Noet th roolz faur th komn dubl voul soundz: In eech kaes, th voulz aar not wun of the standeud pairz, soe aar sed sepreutli: EA: th ee-eu sound at th end ov iedea (idea), real, iedeal (ideal). IA: th i-eu sound at th end ov meni names, India, Austria, etc. IAE: th i-ae sound in deeviaet IEA: th ie-eu sound in Dieamaufeen (Diamorphine), pariea (pariah) IO: th ee-o sound in milion (million). (Th rair ee-o sound in maneeoc (manioc) staez az eeo.) IU: th i-eu sound in glaurius (glorious), duebius (dubious), Claudius (Claudius), teedium (tedium), Ueraenium, kariur (carrier) ( th laast 'r' iz needid to elied: kariur_ov guud nuez; th 'r' iz not paart ov the voul. Noet th sound iz th saem az 'IA' abuv, but a bilion Indianz doent wont to chaenj naemz). IEU: th ie-eu sound in jieunt (giant) UAE: th ue-ae sound in situaeshn. (pleez noet peurswaezhn (persuasion)) UEU: th ue-eu sound in kazhueul (casual). Noet that wair IE cumz feurst, it rimaenz th acuet 'ie'sound, and wair UE kumz feurst it rimaenz th acuet 'ue' sound. 'Ao' 'ei', 'eo', 'oa', 'ua' 'ui' 'uo' woud be saonded az 2 voulz, if thae shuud evr eukeur. Wuud theez be OK? I thhink thae aar konsisteunt and korect. Aar thair eni maur pairz to konsidr?

Can anyone supply a Shavian transcription of this passage? Is anyone interested in having a Shavian converter which would convert any paragraph into Shavian.

Discussion
The International Conference on English Spelling
Mannheim, Germany, 29, 30, 31 July 2005

ROY: Determine which proposals could bring simplified spelling soonest to the billions who are hungry for English literacy now, not in twenty years.

One view, championed by the minimalist, is to get more people to use a few simplified spellings and to provide a set of rules that might help them to do so.

No one has a plan for making simpler spellings more prestigious.
Many may be convinced that hav and giv make more sense, but will not use them.

WEBSTER
Ð ûthør prøpózl iz tu téch ð simpl dikshønary kéy speling fûrst.
th& &th&r pr&pOz&l iz tu tEch th& simp&l diksh&narE kE speliN f&rst.

The following proposals are about 85% phonemic and use positional spelling and a few sight words. Spanglish has one, the, Soundspel has 32.

NEW SPELLING - SOUNDSPEL
The uther propoezl is to teech the simpl dicshunary ke speling furst.

ROY: Viable spelling schemes are already in circulation (New Spelling, Saundspel, Cut Spelling, Jolley Phonics, Saispel, Ingliz, SRS4g, Spanglish) and should be given preference over patch up proposals which lack a recognisable system.

SB: Patch up schemes such as House Stile and RITE should have equal billing. They are part of a different approach to reform.

I don't happen to think that slightly more phonemic spelling has much of a chance until there is some reason for people to think that more sensible spelling has higher prestige.

Webster's reforms would never have been successful without his nationalistic appeal and the fact that he wrote the most popular spelling books used to teach reading and writing.

Tradspel - traditional spelling
heard her murder sir bird fir mirror worse curse road rowed all five fillet early beau bowl steak beak speak ache low load doll tall scour four tout grieve paid	beard error herder surry berg fire mere fur sulfur broad shall shallow give skillet dearly beauty soul streak read break brake mustache how howl droll drawl gal gallon four tour tower sieve said	hurd [unstr. er] hur murder sur burd fur mirrer wurs curs rowd rowd ol/awl fýv alt. faiv filei filáy urly bo bowl steik biek spiek eik lo lowd lód daal doll däl tawl / tol scour for tout griev peid	bierd errer hurder surry burg fýer mir alt. fair fur sulfer brawd /brO:d/ shal shallo giv skillat / skilat dirly / alt. dirrly biuty / sowl striek red/ried breik brák mustæsh hou houl ow=ó drowl drawl gal gallan for/ alt. fawr /fowr tuur touer siv sed

.
	George Bernard Shaw's transcription challenge Short History: This nonsense passage containing all 36 phonemes of spoken English appeared in Shaw's preface to Wilson's The Miraculous Birth of Language in 1941. This was the first essay where Shaw fully specified his proposal for a British alphabet.
.

New Spelling by Donald Scragg (date) http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j11/historical.html CHECK

New Spelling by Donald Scragg (date)
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j11/historical.html CHECK