Languages which spell “phonetically” have to reform their spelling from time to time (and agree on whose pronunciation is authoritative) else the language ends up with the same issues as English and French. TANSTAAFL.
Personally I find the conservative spelling of English and French easier when reading as they often encode meaning which is stripped from “reformed” spelling such as German.
The alphabet was designed to be phonemic instead of phonetic for the exact reason you claim.
> While sometimes referred to as “phonetic” it is, in truth, phonemic, as Shaw wished. A phonetic alphabet would look quite different depending on the accent it represented. Shavian, on the other hand, does not purport to represent exactly sounds, but classes of sounds. A person from London, from New York and from Sydney all pronounce the AH sound differently, but each would recognise the sound when said by the others. In Shavian they would all write 𐑭 for this sound.[1]
I think the problem that you encountered is rather that there are certain dictionaries that spell words in a dialect that you don't use (think of how a British person says "past" vs an American person). But that is a different problem from what you described. You can very well use Shavian with any accent of English because it is designed that way.
An English person and only from the south of England at that. I’m English from Liverpool and I say past the same as y’all!
I’ve been in Texas 20 years and picked up y’all as a verbal tick same as well…y’all.
So, depending on your native accent, Shavian might still require you to use more than one letter for the same sound (and therefore have to remember which words use which), or use the same letter for multiple sounds. Or, at least, it will if you want to have standardized orthography.
Yes, some hard choices do need to be made. In cases like these, it’s almost always better to err on the side of preserving distinctions even if the speaker does not recognize the distinctions. Because over time, they will start to recognize patterns and understand the distinctions more while nothing of value is lost in English.
> Shavian might still require you to use more than one letter for the same sound (and therefore have to remember which words use which)
Yes and for the most part I think this is a good thing. It is a very small concession to make considering the alternative.
> Or, at least, it will if you want to have standardized orthography.
One single prescriptive spelling for global english may be impossible for the time being. But I am very interested in further researching a kind of neo-mid-atlantic accent.
But on a positive note, discovering all these small quirks are like "Achievement unlocked" kind of moments if you like learning languages.
You pronounced the "h" like in "hot"? (with the "h" making actually a sound?). I am quite surprised because we do not pronounce and "h" when it starts a word (usually at least), and I've been learning English in the 80's with Brian and Jenny (kudos to the ones who had the same manual) and it was not taught that way either.
ADDED: You do see a remnant of this with "an historical" but even that is generally not preferred in most dialects. https://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw007.html Basically, it has to do with whether the initial "h" is pronounced in a given dialect of English.
e.g.
Hot Happy House Hotel Humble Hundred Help Hippo
https://yolainebodin.com/the-language-nook/english/english-w...
And then there's knight and knife :-O
I looked it up on wikipedia and of course it was "The Lord" XD
Sort of like a “where’s Waldo” only it’s “where’s the pronounced vowel”?