I wish there were enough willpower for something similar for English, but it's probably too late to reach any sort of compromise on whether to use a "u" in words like "color"/"colour".
[1]: https://dutchreview.com/news/dutch-government-argue-over-spe...
For English, it's quite different because many countries list it as their official language but may have diverged spellings and meanings and there is no single body to direct the curriculum. The most notable is the US vs. British English and the u in colo(u)r is a mere spelling example. Consider surgery or elevator, which are bigger discrepancies. I remember from my school days, as a non-native speaker, these were much more troublesome and we had a special test just to check we could tell which is which in US and GB English.
The US doesn't have an official language, though most institutions operate primarily in English, and all US states that have one or more official languages include English on that list.
The US (i.e. the federal government) has no legal authority over education at all -- schools are run at the state level, and individual states often do have standard curricula.
I'm American and sometimes the only way I know that I'm using the GB spelling is when autocorrect flags it. Grey and defence are two just from the top of my head.
English has no "boss" in charge of how the language works and who decides what the correct anything for the language is. The closest are style guides, but they come from multiple organisations and each often different to each other. So, it's harder to just decide that something will be spelt differently.
Well, they like to pretend they have that kind of authority, those languages don't actually have a "boss" in charge of how the language works either.
IIRC, the French Academy has tried (and failed) to stamp out anglicisms like email (https://www.thoughtco.com/le-courriel-vocabulary-1371793) and weekend (https://www.lawlessfrench.com/tag/franglais/).
English had multiple attempted spelling reforms, but that mostly resulted in differences between American and British spellings of the same words. There was no central power to enforce a single English spelling because America had successfully broken off from the British Empire whose coercive force backed the English language.
In contrast, France was extremely good at putting down revolutionaries in their colonies. Even when they gained nominal independence France would invent debts to impoverish their former colonies. France was also extremely good at putting down local languages, even within France itself. France waged a century-long campaign to hunt its own minority languages to extinction[0] and the language regulators are themselves part of the same infrastructure.
In other words, "regular spelling" is a colonial atrocity and English's incomprehensible spelling rules are a demonstration of freedom.
This can even be demonstrated in each language's attitude towards loanwords. English stole huge swaths of Latin, Greek, and French vocabulary. Text even a few centuries old is difficult to read and anything older than Shakespeare is completely inscrutable[1] as there's too many Germanic root words for this ostensibly Germanic language. Meanwhile in France, their language regulators fight tirelessly to invent new calques for English loanwords to stop the "Anglicization of French", as if that were a thing that needed to be stopped.
Well, I suppose there is one reason why you'd want to stop it: loanwords make it far harder to regularize spelling. Think about, say, all the Japanese loanwords in English. Hepburn romanization[2] tried to make them readable to English speakers, but didn't do a great job, so now English has to accommodate spellings like karaoke, tsundere, or sakura alongside spellings like pleonasm, beef, or Olympic. Good luck inventing a spelling system that can both faithfully represent the "correct" sounds for all of those words, while also remaining legible to present English readers, and being adopted in every country that speaks English to some degree - off the top of my head that includes America, Canada, the UK, Australia, India, Nigeria, and South Africa.
[0] Which I suspect may have also inspired analogous atrocities in Canada against indigenous Canadians
[1] As I put it to a native Japanese speaker: "You can read Genji, I can't read Beowolf."
[2] Which itself isn't used by native speakers since you can't round-trip Hepburn to Romaji. Japan itself uses Kunrei-shiki romanization, it's the one that spells つ as tu instead of tsu.
That's something one hears quite often from English speakers but I don't really know where this myth comes from.
French is a quite decentralised language with each country having its own "regulator" but none of them have legal power. They are all just advisory organisations. Many the one with the most power is the OQLF in Québec. The French ministry of education decides what is taught in France and some of its reforms are sometimes followed by the other countries, but they don't deal with vocabulary itself, mostly orthography.
The Académie Française does invent words, but they have no official value or power. Their main occupation is documenting actual usage.
Most other European languages do have international, language wide regulators though, often with actual legal value, but French doesn't have anything like this.
I think it all comes down to English speakers knowing even less about the other languages than they know about French.
It’s updated in something called “The green book”, new versions got published in 1954 - 1995 - 2005 - 2015.
So for the people having learnt the language before 1995 (like myself), had the rules change 2.5 times (the last one was a minor actualisation). Which means that most of the intuitions you developed are wrong, and people spelling words differently depending on their age.
This was quite confusing for me as a kid haha
It would be like if Dutch and Afrikaans had to agree on spellings.
Which one would that be? AN which nobody actually uses (at least here in Flanders)?
I don't know much about how it works within the Netherlands but within Belgium at least the Dutch accent gives you no prestige at all. I would expect the reverse to be true in the Netherlands (whichever accent one would choose to represent the Flemish) since the Dutch sometimes don't even recognise Flemish speakers as native Dutch speakers and answer in English instead.
Afrikaans is a related but separate language. Suriname, as the third Dutch speaking country, does use the same spellings as Belgium and the Netherlands.
My understanding of Dutch is that Dutch media from Suriname to Belgium to NL uses the same prestige dialect. If you were to write a statement for a court, there is exactly one dialect that would be appropriate.
This is not true with English, where each major English speaking region teaches its own standard of English as the standard.
It's good to distinguish between Flemish as the group of dialects spoken in roughly the provinces of East- and West-Flanders, and Flemish as the broad name for everything that's not quite the standard language in the larger region of Flanders, which is the Dutch-speaking half of Belgium and includes three more provinces. I'm not sure which of those two those people refer to.
English tends to develop through evolution, not design. Whose willpower would we be talking about anyway?
And yes as a 7 year old Aussie it was interesting learning that the digram "ij" was the 25th letter on the Dutch alphabet
Daikstra - you can pronounce this
Dijkstra - a sound in between you cannot pronounce coming from English
Diekstra - you can pronounce this too
But the 'ɛi' is a dipthong, and we don't have that dipthong. We have aɪ, as in 'bride' /bɹaɪd/, which is what usually comes out, at least for those of us who know that /dʒɪkstɹə/ is not even close to right. What you'll hear is generally something like /daɪkstɹə/, which make sense, as we pronounce 'dike' /daɪk/ as well.
So yes, completely correct, I just wanted to add the IPA for clarity.
[0] The exceptions being dialects where it monophthongizes to /eː/
Phonemes are a funny thing: if an American were to pronounce that last name perfectly (or a Dutch person speaking English, for that matter), other Americans would still hear /daɪkstɹə/, or at most, "/daɪkstɹə/ but it sounds a bit foreign".
Some sounds which we don't produce are audibly not-English-phonemes, like German ü or Scandanavian ø, but others are not. Another example of this is that native English speakers aren't usually sensitive to the difference between the r sound in our word "pear" and the r sound in Spanish "pero", but recognize that "perro" is a different rhotic sound.
If I may ask purely out of curiosity, are you a native English speaker? I only say this because, to my American English ear, [eɪ] and [ɛi] are virtually indistinguishable. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say....
I encourage you to listen to a native Dutch speaker pronounce Mynheer Dijkstra's name, which you can do on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra
Does that sound more like "dike" or more like "day"? To me (yes, native American English speaker, of one of the dialects very close to 'Standard'), it is obviously more like the former.
I might've figured out the disconnect. According to this image on Wikipedia[0], the Northern Standard Dutch realization of [ɛi] starts lower than the monophthongal [ɛ] in the same dialect[1]. Just speculation on my part, but maybe in the context of Dutch linguistics, [ɛi] conventionally signifies a wider diphthong than I would've naïvely thought? (If so, I guess this makes me a cautionary tale against directly comparing IPA transcriptions between languages....)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology#/media/File:Du...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology#/media/File:Du...
Dai = Day
Die = Die
If you make an "ay" sound, then transition to an "i" sound, you can feel that the sounds are continuous. So maybe that inbetween sound OP is talking about literally the sound you make with your tongue between "ay" and "i".
In cursive script, it's easy to see how "ij" becomes "ÿ". However, "ÿ"s Unicode codepoint of U+FF means it often shows up as a placeholder for "unrecognized character", doubling down the misapprehension that "ÿ" is the correct character in dutch text.
It is not pronounced like “bee see free glee me.”