| I think you missed a few, and it's not just consonants: Ay, see, ef, jee, aitch, aye, jay, kay, oh, kyuu, yuu, double-yuu, eks, why?, zed. It's because the English alphabet is not a phonetic lettering system. If I were American I'd: a) start saying "t" in the middle of a word as a "t" instead of a "d", and b) vastly improve the standard of my spelling and those around me before telling anyone, especially British people, that words shouldn't be spelt "like shit". Personally, I'm with the Arguments against reform section of Wikipedia[1]: > English is a West Germanic language that has borrowed many words from non-Germanic languages, and the spelling of a word often reflects its origin. This sometimes gives a clue as to the meaning of the word. Even if their pronunciation has strayed from the original pronunciation, the spelling is a record of the phoneme. Which is how I can usually guess the correct pronunciation and meaning of an unfamiliar word while I see highly educated Americans butcher the pronunciation of anything outside the common vernacular. These "simplifications" are doing anything but. However: > Another criticism is that a reform may favor one dialect or pronunciation over others, creating a standard language If I could force North Americans to speak better then I might be persuaded. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo... Edit: an important point was missed! |
> a) start saying "t" in the middle of a word as a "t" instead of a "d"
Americans do not have a distinction between intervocalic /t/ and intervocalic /d/. (Though you have to be careful - that analysis requires you to commit to a "syllabic /n/" model of words like "kitten".)
But while /t/ and /d/ are pronounced identically in that context, you can't say that /t/ is being pronounced "as /d/". They are both flapped, which is a sound just as distinct from [d] as it is from [t].