
Ghoti - marvindanig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
======
dakiol
As a non-English speaker, I find the English spoken by non-native speakers far
easier to understand and deal with than the English spoken by
Americans/British.

I work with Germans, Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch and I understand them
99% of the time. We use "normal" words (we are not fancy regarding vocabulary)
and pronounce them in a non-native way (the way all Europeans that speak
English understand)... But the moment our British colleagues join the
conversation, then our understanding decreases to around 70%: either because
of the usage of "fancy" words or because of pronunciation.

Besides, since we all make the same mistakes when speaking English, we
understand each other without asking "sorry, what do you mean?"

~~~
derefr
> Besides, since we all make the same mistakes when speaking English, we
> understand each other without asking "sorry, what do you mean?"

That’s likely because the languages you speak all share recent ancestry (if
they’re not all Romance languages, they’re at least all descended from Proto-
Indo-European.)

Meanwhile, I’ve seen e.g. Mexican and Chinese ESL speakers have _very_ bad
mutual intelligibility, because they make very _different_ mistakes.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Funny story, had this happen to me in a hostel in Germany. I had to
“translate“ from English with a heavy Italian accent to/from English with a
heavy Vietnamese accent between roommates. Basically I just repeated what each
said into my California English accent with a few touch ups. Everyone finally
understood. :D

~~~
kjeetgill
I did the same for my Grandfather, with his Punjabi accent, and a Jamaican
cashier.

------
imglorp
If this irritates anyone, you might be interested in the work of George
Bernard Shaw and Kingsley Read to reform English spelling. They proposed a
consistent, phonetic, spelling and writing system called Shavian and published
a now-rare book using that system. The second iteration made some slight
usability and efficiency improvements and called the new work Quikscript.

Of course, in an alternate universe, this superior writing system was adopted
along with the full SI unit system.

[https://omniglot.com/writing/shavian.htm](https://omniglot.com/writing/shavian.htm)

[https://shavian.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/1/10212142/30817_or...](https://shavian.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/1/10212142/30817_orig.jpg)

[https://www.quikscript.net/](https://www.quikscript.net/)

~~~
codingdave
You don't need to go to an alternate Universe to find a place that uses a
phonetic script and the metric system. Just go to India.

~~~
ajmurmann
Germany had a spelling reform in the 90s that changed words to be spelled more
phonetically rather than how they would have been spelled in their origin
languages. For example "Delphin" (dolphin) became "Delfin" because German
isn't Greek.

~~~
titanomachy
And even Greek uses a single letter for the "f" sound. The fact that "φ" is
transliterated as "ph" is a historical accident: in ancient Greek the letter
was pronounced like p with an extra puff of air, like in "Phuket".

~~~
dhosek
Which is reflected in some contractions where, e.g., ἀπὸ αἵματος becomes ἀφ’
αἵματος

~~~
titanomachy
Interesting! Never seen that phenomenon, do you know if it persists in Modern
Greek?

------
every
"Homophones, Weakly"[0] enjoys a place in my RSS feed. And I have a supposedly
complete version of the referenced poem, "The Chaos"[1]...

[0]
[http://homophonesweakly.blogspot.com/](http://homophonesweakly.blogspot.com/)

[1]
[https://every.sdf.org/various/longish/thechaos.txt](https://every.sdf.org/various/longish/thechaos.txt)

~~~
html5web
You username is a hack, wow!

~~~
adventured
I'm surprised it was available as recently as 2019.

~~~
every
Seemingly one of the lesser considered adjectives. I have used it in a number
of places with no rejections, so far. It was originally the name of a nethack
character that attempted to ascend "every" role. And failed, of course...

------
spoiler
There was also a meme going around that one can spell "potato" like
"Ghoughphtheightteeau" with the following explanation:

\- gh for P as in "hiccough"

\- ough for O as in "dough"

\- phth for T as in "phthisis"

\- eigh for A as in "neighbour"

\- tte for T as in "gazette"

\- eau for O as in "plateau"

edit: formatting

~~~
jesseb
> hiccough

I've never seen this word before! I've always seen it spelled "hiccup". Is it
used in a particular region or do I just live under a rock?

------
myth2018
That is one of the reasons why I think Esperanto has too much more to offer to
the World as an international language than English.

I'm not an activist. Besides, I enjoy so many features of English.

But the resources one must invest to learn it as a second language make it
unreachable to a huge amount of people around the globe, providing breeding
ground to the formation of "linguistic elites" and deepening social and
economic inequalities.

Having contact with poor people in my country and others and being a non-
native speaker myself make me very aware of that.

~~~
crispyporkbites
Forget Esperanto, give Toki Pona a look

~~~
balladeer
Are we there yet [https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)?

------
LatteLazy
I'm a native English speaker who is currently learning German. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR MAKING YOUR SPELLING Work GERMANY! Sorry about our mess of BS you
have to learn to use English.

~~~
wirrbel
As a german, what I prefer about english spelling:

* You do not capitalize Nouns in your Sentences which is means I don't have to analyse the lexical Structure of a Sentence while writting stuff.

Stuff that is hard in English but rarely talked about because of the
prominence of the phonetics-vs-traditional spelling:

* hyphenation (fairly complex, basically one needs to look it up or rely on tooling in english, rarely taught). * punctuation, especially placement of commas * capitalization in headings (a bit confusing, conflicting recommendations)

Oh and as for german there are a lot of strange things buried in what
superficially looks like a fairly ok system.

* Typically you can infer from the roots of a word whether to spell with `e' or `ä' (i.e. schälen (to peel) is spelled with ä because it stems from Schale [peel]). But for some words that doesn't apply, for example Mehl (flour) is related to `mahlen' (to grind), but not spelled "Mähl". * Auslautverhärtung is not spelled out but implied. I.e. Hund (dog) is kind of pronounced as if it would end with a -t ("Hunt"), whereas "Hunde" (dogs) has a soft d sound. Turkish makes such things explicit (compare `kitap` and `kitabi`). If we went down the turkish route, we could introduce a soft-s and hard-s distinction in the alphabet (maybe z vs s) and get rid of the `ß/ss` mess. * `sch` should be replaced by Ş, w -> v (with existing spellings of v being replaced by f where necessary ("von" -> "fon"), z -> "ts", etc.

There is an obscure swiss organisation promoting a spelling reform for
German(that differs from my suggestions)
[https://www.ortografie.ch](https://www.ortografie.ch)

Its focus is a lot on vocal lengths and capitalization. Kind of interesting
stuff (that will never make its way into the maintstream).

~~~
dgellow
> and get rid of the `ß/ss` mess.

Swiss Standard German got rid of ß :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Standard_German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Standard_German)

~~~
wirrbel
yeah, but they didn't get rid of the mess, they kind of made it harder for
German-learners to pronounce a written word (in comparison to the post-reform
federal german spelling).

i.e. "Fuß" vs swiss "Fuss"

Swiss spelling makes it appear as if "Fuss" (with a long u) could be
pronounced like "Nuss" (with a short u), whereas standard German "Fuß" is
clear on that.

Prior to the German spelling reform, Nuss was also written "Nuß" and back then
the swiss way of spelling had the appeal of avoiding an extra character that
is specific to the german language (and wasn't found on french typewriters for
example).

What I meant was a spelling like "Fus, Füse, Nuss, Nüsse" but "Gras, Gräzer"
(instead of Gras Gräser).

z would be the soft s-sound represented by s in traditional german spelling. s
would be the hard s sound represented by ß or s in traditional german
spelling.

~~~
082349872349872
Fuss is because we have both french è é à and german ü ö ä on our keyboards,
so we don't have room for ß.

Luckily for shell scripting, $ is unshifted (shifted would be £. I far prefer
USD GBP CHF etc.)

(nonante-neuf > quatre-vingt-dix-neuf. Fais-moi changer d'avis :-) )

------
godelski
This reminds me of a stack exchange puzzle that uses this same pattern. [0]

While this isn't the "correct" answer I think everyone agrees that it is the
"best" answer (or at least the funniest). As a language lover, this is just a
beautiful and hilarious.

[0]
[https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/32280/22182](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/a/32280/22182)

------
tryauuum
I think this example is far-fetched and, due to being so far-fetched, is
useless. I mean there are no actual english words where "gh" at the beginning
of a word would be pronounced as "f", right? And "gh" at the end of a word
hints heavily that you should pronounce it as "f", there are no irregularities
here.

~~~
tom_
Riiiiight, so obviously you personally have no problems with the spelling
rules of English (which do, in general, exist, contrary to popular belief).
But, we need to ask ourselves: if it is at all conceivable that "ghoti" could
be sounded out as "fish", just what the fuck is going on here?

Sure, you don't have a problem dealing with this nonsense - I don't have one
neither! But I struggle to believe that you've failed to notice that a lot of
people do.

Who is this system here to serve?

Could it not be improved?

~~~
jcranmer
Do you object to the fact that the spelling "th" invariably means /þ/ or /ð/,
and not /th/? Or mapping "sh" to /ʃ/ and not /sh/? I highly doubt you do.

Here's the thing: spelling rules are context-sensitive, and if you actually
understand the underlying sound rules, spelling in English is often not that
bad. For example, there is a fricatization process for /t/ and /s/ sounds
convert to a /ʃ/ or a /ʒ/\--this is how "-tion" is pronounced /ʃən/. Or the
tendency of multiple consonants in a cluster to all be voiced or unvoiced
(hence why dogs is pronounced /dogz/ and not /dogs/). Even consider the
velarization of "n" in the "-ing" suffix, which is pronunced /ŋg/ and not /ng/
(try actually pronouncing /ng/! It's not easy).

I'm not aware of any spelling reforms that would propose to fix the last two
examples I give, but the fricatization changes is often one of most common
ones people suggest changing. That's a sign that people are willing to
tolerate some degree of phonetic inaccuracies.

The _real_ issue with English is our tendency to adopt foreign words with
foreign pronunciations, foreign spellings, and sometimes even foreign
morphology. And sometimes we even botch that--witness words like "gyro" or
"ginkgo". This means that trying to pronounce unusual words often means first
guessing what language the words (or even morphemes!) comes from, and then
internalizing some bastardized form of that foreign language's phonology.

~~~
tom_
I don't object to anything, at least not when English spelling is involved.
English spelling serves me well, as I don't have a problem with it, and there
are people that look down on those that do. I'll let you do the 2x2.

Given how useful writing is, I just feel we should be asking ourselves whether
any part of the process could be simplified.

------
Kim_Bruning
Once upon a time, I figured out the reason why 'gh' is so inconsistent. It
used to be its own sound, but that sound has vanished from the English
language.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gh_(digraph)#English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gh_\(digraph\)#English)

'ti' pronounced as 'sh' is only in french loan words afaict.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin-
script_digraphs#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin-
script_digraphs#T)

I don't yet know how the 'o' in woman becomes an 'i'. When I do, I'll have
finally cracked the whole of ghoti.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I'm not an expert, but I suspect that it has something to do with _wifmann_ ,
Old English for _woman_.

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wifmann](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wifmann)

------
toddsiegel
In teaching my young son to read I have become starkly aware at just how
inconsistent English is.

I never consciously realized how many ways there are to pronounce "ough". And
not a single one makes sense.

That said, I am amazed at how quickly he's figuring it all out.

~~~
LaLaLand122
Neither my wife or me are native, our child started school last year. When we
were introduced to the concept of "Tricky words" our reaction was: sorry, do
you mean every single word?

------
_emacsomancer_
Given the variation amongst different varieties of English, a phonetically-
based reform would be tricky. E.g., should we spell 'car' as 'kar' or 'kaa'?

(It's also worth mentioning that English spelling is position-dependent: there
aren't any real words where 'gh' at the beginning is pronounced as 'f'.)

~~~
tdeck
Typically language reforms "solve" this problem by standardizing on whatever
dialect is considered most broadly prestigious (often the dialect of the
capital city).

~~~
_emacsomancer_
Yeah, we already did this quite a while ago.

In 2020, which capital will you choose? London, Delhi, D.C., Canberra, &c.
&c.?

~~~
tdeck
In AmE the dialect would likely be "midwestern speech" since the political
history of our "standard dialect" differs from that of many other countries. I
would expect with English it might be best to consider the different major
dialects separately, but at any point there's a tradeoff and someone gets the
short end of the stick. The right way would probably be to bring in many
different stakeholders from different speaking communities and hash out some
compromises.

Incidentally, I was once chatting with a member of the English Spelling
Society (they advocate spelling reform) and asked about this very topic.
Shockingly it seemed like that group hadn't thought about it all.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
> I would expect with English it might be best to consider the different major
> dialects separately, but at any point there's a tradeoff and someone gets
> the short end of the stick.

That seems like a bad idea to me. Standard Written English (which varies only
slightly, with minor spelling differences) is fairly intelligible across
speakers of different dialects and even quite a few time periods.

If English didn't already have a written standard, all of this might be worth
considering. But actual reform would take massive effort for pretty minor
benefits, which wouldn't endure long anyway given the ever constant presence
of language change.

------
glandium
Relatedly, this video is hilarious: What If English Were Phonetically
Consistent?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8zWWp0akUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8zWWp0akUU)

------
wcameronmiller
I'm glad the Wikipedia article included the link to this page
([http://zompist.com/spell.html](http://zompist.com/spell.html)) that give a
good breakdown of the actual general rules of English spelling - granted
there's almost 60 of them.

------
fermienrico
Nationalism is rampant and leaking through in this thread. “English” sucks,
replace with ______ native tongue is better. Someone posted a thread about
cost of their neighborhood road renovation project and immediately an
Australian tells the thread that America feels like a third world country from
a sample size of exactly 1. I am not even American.

Everyone is getting tribal. Humanity is splitting apart with infighting even
on a highly intellectual community as HN.

Folks, please try to be civil and self-introspective, especially if something
you say perhaps is hypocritical or fuels your own nationalistic pscyche. Seek
truth - the language nature understands, not our evolutionary tribalism and
cultures.

~~~
082349872349872
Nothing wrong with tribalism as long as we're all seeking to understand people
from other tribes instead of imposing our own tribe's[1] ways upon them[2]. A
little less "melting pot" and a little more "salad"[3] might go a long way
towards whirled peas.

[1] and even that "own tribe" has a fractal nature. Scratch a dialect and one
finds a collection of idiolects.

[2] my understanding of swiss german dialect history is that there used to be
pressure to educate the lower and middle classes to speak "standard" german,
as the upper classes did. Developments in the 1930s put an end to that, so now
not only do we encourage Romansh
[https://rm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagina_principala](https://rm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagina_principala)
(Mussolini had claimed they were just peasants who couldn't speak italian
correctly) but one can tell where politicians and captains of industry grew up
by how they speak. Differences are celebrated, not merely tolerated, or worse,
steamrollered away.
[https://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Houptsyte](https://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Houptsyte)
gives the flavour of the dialects, but a more academic reference is required
for all the isoglosses. (the variety of isoglosses also means that for
informal use, SMS, internet, etc. orthography is a matter of regional taste)

[3] in which the constituents retain their identity but taste much better
because they're all mixed together.

cultures are a fourier transform of humanity?

~~~
maest
Your point about the fractal structure of tribalism reminded me of this joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist
Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or
Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

~~~
082349872349872
TIL the great schism in baptism isn't between (a) the baptists who dance, and
(o) the baptists who don't have sex standing up because that might lead to
dancing. :-)

Here's a nice ecumenical baptist video, sadly (judging by YT views) hidden
under a bushel:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjLSo3cRh6g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjLSo3cRh6g)

(for HNers who have never lived in the southern US, 0:29 depicts a spit cup.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spittoon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spittoon)

As for myself, I'm with the Popular Front of Judea.)

------
livealife
This is because in English it's not always that you speak what you write.
Pronunciation is different for the same letter in different cases. In some
languages (mainly Indian) like Hindi, we speak what we write and we write what
we speak i.e. Our letters have a definite and unique sounds.

~~~
AmIDev
While this is true, the pronunciations are not consistent across languages
that use Devanagari script. ज्ञ is pronounced like "gy" in Hindi, but "ny" in
Marathi. ज is pronounced like "jy"(with the य sound) in Hindi-ish languages,
but without य in Marathi. Some sounds are completely missing/unused is some
languages, like ळ and ण.

So non-native speakers with another Devanagari language as mothertongue still
get pronunciations wrong.

~~~
gholap
Also, even within Marathi, at least for the letters ज and च, how you pronounce
them depends on the word. You have to know the correct pronunciation
beforehand, as it can't really be guessed from the word.

जेजुरी is my favourite example. चिंच is a close second :)

------
anonu
Ghoti, sure... But the whole world still wants to learn English. Most people
are not deterred by the messed up spelling and other irregularities.

Also, English like any language is a living and breathing thing. New words
come in, new spellings, etc... Reform would cause even more confusion than
benefits

------
aledalgrande
And natives still laugh when I pronounce a word wrong between the million
others I say

~~~
maest
There's a small category of words, at least in British English, that act as a
fairly effective shibboleth when it comes to identify non-native speakers.
Usually names for places, but not only:

Glouchester, Worcester, Worcestershire, leftenant etc

~~~
pge
Lots of place names in US that reveal not just non-native speakers but also
native speakers that aren’t locals. Some that come to mind: Worcester, MA;
Wilkes-Barre, PA; Versailles, KY; New Berlin, PA; and many others.

~~~
egypturnash
How you pronounce “New Orleans” can show not only whether or not you are a
local, but which part of town you are from, and how old you are. I can think
of at least four or five ways.

~~~
082349872349872
knowing which part of town you are from means I no longer have to ask where
you went to school, but there's still more to know, like:

What was your mama's name?

Can you make a roux?

(more seriously, New Orleans falls under my list of "civilised" places,
because Carnaval/Fasnacht is still a thing there)

------
MichaelMoser123
[https://www.ghotit.com/](https://www.ghotit.com/) the name of this company
relates to this; they sell a spell checker that is specially suited for people
with dyslexia.

------
imedadel
Concerning the spelling reform, is there any language that recently underwent
a successful spelling reform? And by recent, I mean in the last 10 years.

The thing is that with the widespread usage of the internet it seems harder to
successfully reform the orthography of a language. Every language is,
nowadays, in one way or another decentralized and uncontrolled by language
authorities.

~~~
littlecranky67
Not 10 years, but yeah, German was completely reformed some 24 years ago. It
is still pretty major as several countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland and
others with german-speaking minorities) had to coordinate and consent.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996)

I as a child started learning the old orthography in school, was taught the
"new" one later on and had to use it and even the "new new" one (there was
basically a version 2.1 minor update). To this day I am confused about how to
correctly spell and write words, and I always end up mixing old/new
orthography. The fact that almost all major newspapers refuse to fully adhere
to the new orthography and use custom deviations every here and there does not
exactly help.

Lessons learned: It is a mess, don't do it.

~~~
imedadel
I learned German in high school so I knew a bit about the reform. Compared to
French, learning how to read German didn't take more than an hour.

French is another one, however, the transition to the new orthography is still
incomplete around the world. I think Frank lately enforced it at schools.

Other examples include the Berber language in Morocco and Algeria. Most people
ignore spelling reforms and just pick the spelling they like most. This is
mostly because the standardization of Berber came after the introduction of
the internet and the proliferation of informal spelling standards.

------
zzo38computer
It is correct the English spelling is really messy. Maybe, it is because they
use Latin alphabets; Latin alphabets are good for writing in Latin (and, I
suppose, Romantic languages), but for English perhaps isn't as good; but, it
is what we have now, so it is what we are going to do. Germanic (futhorc)
alphabets might be better way for writing English, maybe.

------
timonoko
In Lapland you can often see Germans and Finns use particularly "phonetic"
English. The writing system is similar, so it is easier to pronounce words as
they are written, instead of trying some fancy Hollywood way.

This might be the future of spoken English as most other languages have same
wholesome writing system, and thus there are no ambiguities.

~~~
timonoko
"Jäniskoski Bridge" comes to mind. There are no perceived differences between
"b" and "p", or "g" and "k". And the "ʒ"-sound is not possible for most
humans. So the correct pronounciation in year 2235 will be "prid-key".

------
html5web
[http://ghoti.xyz](http://ghoti.xyz) redirects to the Wikipedia article.

------
jdminhbg
> while ti would only resemble sh when followed by a vowel sound ("mention",
> "martian", "patient", "spatial").

ti isn't "sh" in "mention," it's "ch," at least in any dialect I'm aware of.
Cf. slang for Twitter mentions, "menchies."

~~~
intellirogue
In my NZ accent I definitely say "men-shin" not "men-chin", though those two
sounds are very close.

~~~
matt-attack
I’m a native speaker and I frankly don’t know which I use. I could see it
going either way.

~~~
saalweachter
This is, incidentally, one of the tricky parts of trying to add a phonetic
spelling to English.

Should the phonetic spelling of "mention" be "menshin" or "menchin"? Should
the spelling be the same everywhere, with people pronouncing it the other way
having to learn to spell it correctly, or should it be spelled differently
depending on the dialect of the speaker?

------
flobosg
Hou tu pranownse Inglish:
[http://www.zompist.com/spell.html](http://www.zompist.com/spell.html)

EDIT: Just realized that the link is already mentioned elsewhere.

------
janpen
Conlang critic's take
[https://youtu.be/TEsqY4MH40s](https://youtu.be/TEsqY4MH40s)

------
black6
Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in
my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy,
busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and
sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it's written.) Now I surely
will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you
speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid,
measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and
cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen,
laundry, laurel; Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind.

Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and
flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous,
viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your
pronunciation's OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve
and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour And enamour rhymes with hammer. River, rival,
tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme
with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say
finger, And then singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and
gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost,
post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the
differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with
deafer. Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull,
bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience,
scientific.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say
hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the
differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise,
precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle,
disciple, label.

Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm,
chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour,
four. Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria, but
malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine,
marine.

Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key. Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure,
skein, deceiver. Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie.

Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large,
but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear,
but earn and wear and tear Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right, but
so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation -- think of Psyche! Is a paling stout and spikey? Won't it make
you lose your wits, Writing groats and saying grits? It's a dark abyss or
tunnel: Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale, Islington and Isle of
Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict.

Finally, which rhymes with enough? Though, through, plough, or dough, or
cough?

------
livealife
One of the core problems of English language.

~~~
xenator
Most interesting problem of English language is that it is not direct. Good
example is small talks. In many cultures direct question assume direct answer.
If somebody asks you "how are you" you kinda obligated to give response with
your real feelings and events happened to you last time. In USA mostly every
stranger can start this conversation and expect only unsalted response. This
tradition is much deeper than you think. On some lever you will never
understand price for thing you buy, or will never get invite to the party or
have no chance to get investment to your startup. And these games everywhere
in English culture.

~~~
egypturnash
May I ask what language you are a native speaker of? I have a couple ideas
based on the patterns of your errors but I’m not sure.

(My strongest guess is Russian due to your omission of articles.)

~~~
majewsky
> omission of articles

AFAIK this pattern is not limited to native Russians, it's shared by most
(all?) Slavic languages.

------
html5web
As a polyglot and linguist, I have analyzed the spelling as follows:

Gh - Arabic hard G, O - Persian Ou, Ti - Russian Tee.

------
livealife
More of such intriguing facts can be found in the book by Martin Jurafsky,
Computational linguistics.

------
asplake
considered harmful

------
selimthegrim
I thought this was about Eastern and Western Bengali at first.

~~~
Orochikaku
In what way, I'm interested since I'm a Bengali speaker

~~~
selimthegrim
Ghoti/Bangal?

------
pickdenis
Ghoughphtheightteeau

~~~
_emacsomancer_
I use this example in my class.

