Huby:Hense why a strictly phonetic spelling would smooth out the learning curve and help promote a more uniform pronounciation.

I do not wish to have more uniform English pronunciation. Many languages have an incredible richness of local pronunciations, by which you are able to determine where someone came from, using their accent. I like the fact that we have this for English as well, and also that you can trace movements of populations by tracing how accents move. In addition, even if I did support such a move, you would have to completely change the pronunciations of whole countries, which is very difficult.

A hypothetical unified pronunciation would have to be based either on a rhotic pronunciation (pronounces the R in most cases) or a non-rhotic pronunciation (does not pronounce the R in certain cases). Whether we chose a rhotic system or a non-rhotic system of writing, about half of the English speaking world's pronunciation still would not match the spelling. A non-rhotic-based spelling would be particularly interesting, because you would have to account for the fact that many people will under no circumstances pronounce the R in "dorm", will only under special circumstances pronounce the second R in "corner" (when it is followed by a word beginning with a vowel sound), and will add an R where there is none at the end of "Anna" (when it is followed by a word beginning with a vowel sound, i.e. "Anna[r] and Alice)?

And a "one letter, one sound" rule for English would give us an unrealistically large alphabet. It would either have to be a whole new alphabet, or a roman alphabet using a ridiculous number of diacritics to account for all necessary sounds.

I agree. English will certainly evolve and change over time, but I can't see any organized reform being successful.

Ferdinand Cesarano:Another very serious drawback to any "reform" of English spelling is that it would, by its nature, tend to obscure the etymologies and histories of the words.
...omissis...
So, for me, the merits of any arguments in favour of English spelling reform are utterly trounced by this enormous drawback: namely, the disconnect with the (extraordinarily rich) etymological history of English, which can result only in a loss of information and a diminution of knowledge about the language.

I agree with this.
I don't think that running after the changes of pronunciation would be a good choice.
Yes, English has got big problems.
look at these examples:
to read read read
flour - flower
But English is pronounced differently in different parts of the world and by different people.
English is spoken all over the world, and so, if we go after one pronunciation, we make glad some people, but not the others.
Thus, the problem is not solved.
Time passes, and pronunciation changes, and we will be back at the point of departure.

The meaning will be less clear, because some information is lost.
And pronunciation changes also in the same person, in different situations.
Words are not pronounced the same all the times.
For example, they teach us that
"how do you do ?" is pronounced
"haw du yu du ?"
But often we hear
"hau dyu du ?"

There should be, so, a way for saying a word in a hurry, and another way to say the same word without hurry.

Besides this, there should not be one English, but many.
An English English,
an American English,
an Australian English
a Mexican English (Mexicans are numerous in the USA)
and so on
But which American English ?
The one spoken in Texas, or the one spoken in California, or the one spoken in New York ?...yes, but in which part of New York ?

It would be a new tower of Babel, in my opinion.

That's why I think that it is useless to reform English, loosing so many pieces of information, as Cesarano said.

Of course, this is only my personal unimportant opinion.

ps
There's a town called Cesarano near where I live.

super-griek:Wú 'l shó a cyld giest es it is? Wú 'l plés it within it's konsteléshen, with the mezher of distens in it's hend? Wú 'l mék it's deth from gré bred, thet grós hárd, - ór lív it thér, within the raund mauth, lyk the cóking kór of a swít epel?

Attempted decipherment:

Who'll show a killed (guest? or Dutch word for goose or deer?) as it is? Who'll place it within its constellation, with the measure of distance in its hand? Who'll make its death from grey bread, that grows hard - or leave it there, within the round mouth, like the cooking core of a sweet apple?

OK, I give up. Haven't a clue what this strange recipe means.

super-griek:Wú 'l shó a cyld giest es it is? Wú 'l plés it within it's konsteléshen, with the mezher of distens in it's hend? Wú 'l mék it's deth from gré bred, thet grós hárd, - ór lív it thér, within the raund mauth, lyk the cóking kór of a swít epel?

I was able to read that even though it isn't really phonetic.

C is "ch". cyld = child, and cóking = choking. And "giest" is probably "just".

trojo:

super-griek:Wú 'l shó ..

I was able to read that even though it isn't really phonetic.

Bully for you. So write out a complete translation!

Who'll show a child just as it is? Who'll place it within its constellation, with the measure of distance in its hand? Who'll make its death from gray bread that grows hard -- or leave it there within the round mouth, like the choking core of a sweet apple?

I didn't recognize the quote, but Google says it's from Rainer Maria Rilke. I still don't get what it's really saying.

Some non-phonetic elements in the text:
"W" represents an H sound.
"E" is used to represent at least three different vowel sounds (e.g. "epel", "mezher").
Digraphs like "sh", "th", "zh", and "ng" are not phonetic.
Some diphthongs are represented with one letter ("y" and "ó"), others with two letters ("au").
One affricate is represented with a single letter ("c"), another with two letters ("gi").

trojo:Who'll show a child just as it is? Who'll place it within its constellation, with the measure of distance in its hand? Who'll make its death from gray bread that grows hard -- or leave it there within the round mouth, like the choking core of a sweet apple?

Good stuff.

To me, the passage (taken from Rilke's Fourth Elegy) is evocative of the theophany in chapter 38 of the Book of Job, though that refers to nature as a whole. This is perhaps a microcosmic analogy of that macrocosmic poetry!

Miland:Good stuff.

To me, the passage (taken from Rilke's Fourth Elegy) is evocative of the theophany in chapter 38 of the Book of Job, though that refers to nature as a whole. This is perhaps a microcosmic analogy of that macrocosmic poetry!

It's funny... I was reminded of Job 38 too when I read it. I still don't totally get it though. Gray bread? Constellation? It paints an intriguing mental image nonetheless, and maybe it would make more sense if I read it in context.