First off, I don't think an orthography that can change depending on how someone pronounces a word is a bad idea. There would be too much deviation in spelling after a while, I personally think that it would be too confusing. Some double letters would be important for example moose and mousse would look and sound the same. You also loose the distinction between in and inn and to and too (and two).



I'm pretty sure there isn't any variety in the way those i's are pronounced both being /aɪ/.

Two more questions, first what about the digraph er by some it is pronounced /ɚ/ and by others /ə/. In your alphabet raitѳ raitɛ reitѳ reitɛ all sound like writer. (And the way I pronounce words, rider also.) Also what is your solution for wh being pronounced as by most as /w/ but by some as /ʍ/?

Also đeɛ (đeѳ) would be how you write there, their, and they're. Problems could arise in statements such as their dogs and they're dogs looking the same. You also loose the contraction of the last one đé ár changing into đeɛ. (And I believe in non-rhotic it would be đé á into đeѳ).

I apologize if any of my points are invalid my mind is foggy at the moment. One point I couldn't figure out how to explain is how non-rhotic accents extend vowels in words such as hard and car and if this could be a problem since there is no way to show this extension.

I thought Canadian raising was allophonic though. Isn't it? So for me "down" and "out" do have the same phoneme, but I can tell the difference now that I know something about linguistics.

Yes, that was exactly my point. There's no reason to write reitɛ and raidɛ (or speik and spain, etc.) when *raitɛ and *reidɛ (bzw. *spaik and *spein) don't exist in your dialect.

Not for me. I use [aɪ] in "spine" but [əɪ] in "spike" & "like".

Which do you have in spider?

For the most part differentiating bewteen their and they're would still remain the same any contractions would keep the use of the apostraphe. As the 'hw' sound, which is non existant in my speech would be written exactly as it is pronounced, as with all other sounds. Yes you do lose the distinction between to, too, and two but that is only when written an alphabet can't account for natural abiguity. It's just sheer coincidence that you lose that distinction. On the other hand it makes differentiating bewteen desert and dessert much easier: Dezɛrt and Dízert, this is also why I decided that for this alphabet to work capitalizing all nouns would help to differention between the verb 'resort' and the noun 'resort': rízort and Rízort. It would even help differentiate between the 'wind' and 'to wind something up': Wind and waind. So inevitably yes some distinctions would be lost but it would get rid of annoying diphthongs like ph and th (which is sometimes pronounced like a 't' in some words). Whenever something new comes along some old things get lost, this is true, however simplifying some old problems can help to make up for it.

I notice that you write raitɛ and reidɛ without the 'r', indicating that the 'ɛ' sound doesn't exist without the 'r'. With me I use the sound in other places as well not just with 'r', prolly due to my dialect, when I get going in a good conversation with someone from home the 'ɛ' sound can be heard before 'n', 'l', or even 's', and we have a clear distinction between 'ѳ' and 'ɛ'.

I don't want to sound rude, but it isn't "diphthongs", it is "digraphs".

If you're going to use obscure glyphs like that, you might as well just use IPA letters.

But I really can't see why English speakers would adopt letters which are outside of the standard Latin alphabet.

Quick question, why didn't you use ɛ in the second words?

I must disagree. First off there are three types of "desert"; desert as in barren land, desert (verb), and dessert. The verb and dessert are homophones. While gaining distinction between, a barren land desert, and the verb desert, you lose the distinction between the dessert and the verb desert. Although your capitalization rules should alleviate this.

Other than that I think you did a good job, but you really really should use all easily type-able regularly used Latin alphabet characters instead of obscure ones. There are a bunch of accents áàäâãåéèëêíì ï îóòöôõúùüûýÿ being just a few. And while it may be unconventional if you want to eliminate all digraphs you may consider ñ for ng. I don't know just a suggestion.

Yeah I know there are really 2 desert nouns but one of them is used so rarely i restricted it to just barren land in my post.