Let's Make English Spelling Simpler!

Ðe Beetles – Yesterday

Posted by Massimo on June 30, 2009

So, let’s beguin wið wot has allreddy becum common nolledge and wun ov ðe best nown Inglish-language songs.

Yesterday, all my trubbles seemed so far away,
Nou it looks as ðo ðey’r here too stay,
Oh, I beleeve in yesterday.Suddenly, I’m not haaf ðe man I used too be,
Ðare’z a shaddow hanging over me,
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Wy she had too go I dôn’t now, she woodn’t say,
I sed sumthing rong, nou I long for yesterday.Yesterday, luv wos such an eesy game too play,
Nou I need a place too hide away,
Oh, I beleeve in yesterday.

Wy she had too go I dôn’t now, she woodn’t say,
I sed sumthing rong, nou I long for yesterday.

Yesterday, luv wos such an eesy game too play,
Nou I need a place too hide away,
Oh, I beleeve in yesterday.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm.


10 Responses to “Ðe Beetles – Yesterday”

  1. andyash said

    а почему в “yeasterday” осталась “r”? Без неё ведь мало что изменится: как была schwa, так и останется. (Ну, если не брать в расчёт вокализацию “r” в ряде американских диалектов и General American.)

  2. andyash said

    Не увидел, чтобы комментарий появился. Повторяю и дополняю.

    Зачем в “yesterday” оставили “r”? Он вокализуется лишь в General American (но, например, не в ряде южных диалектов США).

    И почему в “knowledge” осталась “w”? Особенно, на фоне “known”, где она вокализуется в составе дифтонга. Если для показа долготы, то одно и то же сочетание букв в Вашей “упрощённой” версии английского снова дают разные звуки, что снова делает орфографию не соответствующей звучанию.

    • max425 said

      Sorry, for sum reezon yer comments got intoo dhe spam cue; I noticed it only just nou.

      Az for “r” in “yesterday”: dhe vocalization ov “r” in Amerrican Inglish iz just dhe reezon wy I doan’t omit it from all werds ware it iz not pronounced in Brittish Inglish. By dhe way, doo u wont too say dhat “r” iz vocalized aafter vouels only in sum, but not in all Amerrican Inglish dialects?

      Az for “knowledge” – yes, sorry, I shood hav ritten it “nolledge” (dhe [o] iz short in this werd, at leest in Brittish Inglish). In dhis case, dhere iz a thret ov deetymollogization ov dhe werds “now” (know) and “nolledge” (knowledge), but here wun has too choose wot’s more important – dhe addequacy ov dhe spelling or a shared etymollogy.

      If u notice enny uddher inconsistencies in my spelling, be shure too inform me.

      P.S. Eventually I decided too stop uzing symbols like ð or ô; u can reed more about it here.

      • andyash said

        Then I have to disagree with “doan’t”, as the diphthong here has at least two pronunciations but none of them is “oa”; instead it’s either əu (BrE) or ou (AmE).

        Yes, that’s right. In the USA there are some dialects where “r” is not vocalised, like in the dialects of Brooklyn and New Orleans, for example. Likewise, in Britain there are dialects with vocalised “r”.

      • max425 said

        I intend too uze “oa” az dhe universal reprezentation of [ou], as in road, toad, etc. Hou else cood [ou] be reprezented in werds like most, post, host, poll – az oppozed too impostor or pollen wich hav a short [o]?

        Az u mite hav noticed, I moastly uze dhe existing spelling rules but try too uze dhem more consistently dhan dhey ar uzed nou. My main aim is dhat dhe pronunciation ov enny Inglish werd (except sum loan-werds, natturally) shood be reccognized by its spelling, az it iz in moast utther European languages.

        Allso, thank u for yer explanations about vocalized “r” in Brittish and Amerrican dialects.

  3. andyash said

    Well, what’s wrong with “ou” for “ou”-sound? )) Or do you want to avoid confusion with “ou” for “au”-sound?

    You’re welcome.)

    • max425 said

      >Well, what’s wrong with “ou” for “ou”-sound? )) Or do you want to avoid confusion with “ou” for “au”-sound?

      Exactly. Dhat iz wy I propose too allways rite “ou” insted ov “ow” for [au], e.g. cou, hou, nou, doun, shouer (cow, how, now, down, shower). Dhis wood allso exclude confuzing homographs such az bow [bou] – bow [bau], row [rou] – row [rau], sow [sou] – sow [sau], etc. Dhey wood be spelled az bowbou, rowrou, sowsou, etc.

      And “ow” wood reprezent only dhe sound [ou], e.g. crow, now (know), low, mow, slow, etc.

      Thank u for yer interest :)

      • andyash said

        Well, I have to say that bow-bou would totally leave me clueless. If you want to make things simple, go for bou-bau instead, making things purely phonetical. Otherwise, I’d keep asking why bow-bou and not bou-bow. ))))

      • max425 said

        >why bow-bou and not bou-bow.

        Because in dhis case we wood hav too shift dhe hole system ov reprezenting Inglish long vouels and diphthongs. If we re-rote bowbou as boubau, dhen we wood hav too think ov anutther way ov reprezenting dhe long sound [o:], wich woz previosly reprezented by au. So, wun wood hav too guet uzed too dhe new vallues ov menny Inglish letters and digraphs (ou, au, etc.). Dhat iz wy I refrain from chainging things so raddically.

  4. LoboSolo said

    From the Oxford Dict. Online (that’s the free OED): what | (h)wət, (h)wät | … The 2nd one is more British … rimes with “pot” … But in the US the first one is the way most of us say it … thus, we’d never write ‘wot’ unless we’re trying to show the more British way to say it. For those us who lightly put the ‘h’ in front … hwat.

    Same goes for why | (h)wī | and where | (h)we(ə)r | … hwy … hwer.

    ‘Nolledge’ doesn’t qwite make it either. | ‘nälij | … and even that isn’t the way that I say it hwich would be more like ‘näledj. Likely the best way to nail that ‘a’ sound for this is ‘ah’ … or ‘a’ … naledj, nahledj, or naaledj might work but they don’t strike me well.

    Trouble would be better as trubbel. If you’re going to fix things, then moov the ‘le’ BACK to the Old English ‘el’ on words OE middel (middle), idel (idle), asf.

    Seemd rather than seemed otherwise it looks like it should be said as ‘see-med’. … Beleev rather than beleeve (don’t need the last ‘e’).

    ‘To’ would be better as ‘tu’. That bewries both the ‘tə’ and ‘too’ way of saying it. Today can sound like too-day or |təˈdā| hinging on where the stress falls in the sentence … English is a stressd time tung hwich is why so many sounds get jumbeld (jumbled).

    ‘Wos’ doesn’t work for | wəz |. Again, it’s more Britishy.

    ‘Place’ might be better as ‘plase’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: