Thanks Jim,

These thoughts of mine are a bit pie in the sky but here they are:  Isn't it 
the point of language to communicate?  And isn't communication most 
facilitated by their being one common accent?  Dictionary writers when they 
use their phonetic keys may well be "describing" existing pronunciation, but 
they are also "prescribing" how to pronounce words (dictating).

I think USA English linguists should be prescribing one pronunciation of 
words that is best and clearest and closest to tradspel (traditional 
spelling).  I'll comment below.

>From: "Scobbie, Jim" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "Scobbie, Jim" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The dropping of "awe" in the USA
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:53:04 +0100
>
>Devising an orthogaphy for a previously oral language is a very tricky
>business, with no single right solution. But it's an interesting and
>valuable issue for the users of that language.

TZ - I would suggest spelling those languages with English friendly 
phonemes.  That would make learning English easier when the time comes.  
English is the most important language.

With a long-established and
>widespread language like English (especially one can be said to "work" well
>enough as it is)* I genuinely cannot see the point.

TZ - English spelling does not work that well, but will have to do.
>
>I think it is difficult to promote the preferability of a single phonetic
>orthography for a language with multiple accents.

TZ - USA media is quite homogeneous

>Non-phonetically-transparent spelling is a necessary aspect of having an
>international language like English. I'm sure, Tom, that you have provoked
>discussions before about why it isn't a good idea to split English into
>multiple phonetic spelling systems, one for each of a set of interest 
>groups
>with different accents. And that is what may happen once you alter part of
>the international homogeneity in English spelling.

TZ - not a bad thing.  The important thing is the buzzword "phonemic 
awareness" for learning readers.  So an English friendly and keyboard 
friendly phonetic spelling is needed that transitions well into tradspel.  
At first that phonetic spelling can cover a multiple of accents.

After all, you're hardly
>going to persuade most existing native English users to learn to read using
>the same accent. OK, OK, it would be a bit easier to persuade those two
>teach English as an additional language to do it world-wide in the same
>out-of-date standard variety one step removed from native speakers.**
>
>I just want to point out that if you want English to be
>phonetically-consistently spelled, it will either have to be
>phonetically-consistently spoken, or we will all have to be bi-dialectal
>with a common 2nd accent, our orthographic accent. Fair enough, but what
>evidence is there that this would be an improvement on the current 
>sitation?

TZ - Regarding the awe/ah swap recently a person wrote "hock his wares" when 
the phrase is "hawk his wares".  But in her accent she hears "hock" for 
"hawk" and misconstrued the phrase.  So when accents create homonyms, that's 
a no no.

>After all, it seems to me that this is precisely what is happening - that
>speech patterns and orthography are diverging, lexical sets are splitting
>and merging, foreign words are being borrowed, socially-disadvantaged
>varieties exist in the oral medium with the written language as a different
>code.

TZ - recently I'm hearing "sex" for "six" and "keds" for "kids".  Not true 
to the tradspel letters.  This kills "phonemic awareness."  Teachers should 
say "See that "i" in the word "kids".  Say that word "kids" not "keds".  
"Keds" is a mispronunciation.  English needs to retain what basic 
letter/sound correspondence it has.  I personally believe "whole language" 
instruction lets mispronunciation run rampant.
>
>For what it is worth, there is no difference between cot and caught, or 
>pool
>and pull, or Pam and palm, and I would like English orthography to 
>represent
>this. When my co-speakers and I create an army that is big enough (and sort
>out our parochial disagreements!!!), we will be able to force a spelling
>reform on the lot of you which will be reasonably consistent and logical.
>For what that would be worth.

TZ - You're up against the m-w.com army and they outman you :)  Basically 
isn't that what dictionaries do, list the majority accent first.  Second 
place gets very little play I suppose.

>Sorry if that seems like a rant, but it was the word "fad" that set me off.
>I'd like to hear more about the what and why of this change on a scientific
>empirical basis, not that it is a fad.

TZ - No doubt languages that start out the same can vary because of physical 
remoteness.  But now we are all coming together.  Best to be most 
communicative we can.
>
>In equilibrium,
>Jim Scobbie
>
>*Easy to attack that point - don't bother - it's an aside.
>**Exaggeration, but true that teaching of standard varieties tends to be
>conservative, being outstripped by change among native speakers.