Talk:English orthography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Archives: 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Dual function letters

English has a unique feature. Check out this words: do, wind, read and bass. They are important, because they actually have 2 pronouncings each one with a different meaning for each pronouncing. It is unique, because it doesn't happen in other languages with a Latin alphabet. For me, English is an second language, and this aspect makes me difficult learning it. Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese language share this feature, however they don't have a Latin alphabet.

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rkcunnington (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Emmasarkan (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Wehrmacht', 'Dzongha', 'Nietzschean' and 'Qin' is generally considered to be not English orthography

Proper nouns in English are capitalised and non-italicised, which may have caused the confusion that these foreign proper nouns are English words. Frankly, they are not English words as they are romanisations of foreign languages, and do not follow existing English orthotactics. Thus, I'm fairly certain that they should be removed or moved into a different list under the grounds of not being English -- English speakers usually require a sound guide or be seperately taught how to pronounce these words, and the fact that they exist on the page merely clutters and complicates the list. Sidesyci (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of information on vowel letters followed by <r>

The Spelling-to-sound correspondences section "Combinations of vowel letters" contains the typical pronunciation of each vowel letter combination in all possible environments, including when followed by <r>, which is nearly always a separate category requiring a separate row. However, there is also a section "Combinations of vowel letters and ⟨r⟩" which contains the same information as was in the "when followed by <r>" rows of "Combinations of vowel letters" . This is unnecessary duplication of information, and means that any edit to the "vowel letter followed by <r>" pronunciation has to be made in two places. It runs the risk of an editor making an edit in one of the tables and neglecting to make it in the other one, resulting in the information getting out-of-sync.

We do not need to list the information twice, so we should either remove the "before <r>" rows from the "Combinations of vowel letters" table, or remove the "Combinations of vowel letters and ⟨r⟩" table altogether. Since the "Combinations of vowel letters" table is incredibly long and cluttered, not helped by nearly always requiring a separate "before <r>" row, sometimes multiple "before <r>" rows, for each vowel letter combination, I propose the former. Remove the "before <r>" rows from the "Combinations of vowel letters" table, adding a note that this excludes when followed by <r>. We can then have the "Combinations of vowel letters and ⟨r⟩" table as the sole home of this information, which will be a lot more readable and eliminate the unnecessary duplication and editing problems that I mentioned. Offa29 (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscript

Letter u in unstressed closed syllables as /ju/ or /jə/, e.g. in manuscript /ˈmænju/əskrɪpt/, is still not accounted for in the table. JMGN (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're trying to map out every way a letter is used in more than two words, then we're doing something silly and unencyclopedic. Remsense诉 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe such info is appropriate in a different entry tho'? JMGN (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

@Remsense If you did indeed review the changes you were rolling back and were aware that many of them were not just "uncited additions", you should have made sure you kept the contructive edits in your new version while reverting the dubious ones, before publishing. You can do both at the same time. Failing that, you should have started fixing it immediately once you'd rolled back. Instead, you left the page with no futher edits for hours, with no indication that you intended to make any.

If you intended to come back and fix the collateral damage later, you should have made that clear in your edit summary, or better still just done it before publishing. If you didn't intent to come back and fix them, that's frankly disrespectful to the editors who made those constructive edits in the first place. And no, they weren't just "a couple of typos", just as the dozens of edits you rolled back weren't just "nothing but uncited additions".

You still haven't fixed everything. If you had I would have just let it lie. But I noticed at least two of the links are still wrong (Anglicisation and Sound correspondences betwen English accents) and I'm not sure if anything else is as I'm very tired right now and I don't think it should be my or anyone else's responsibility to check and fix that. It should be the responsibility of the person who took the extreme step of reverting dozens of over three months, by a multitude of different editors, to ensure that they clear up any collateral damage caused by their action.

You will encounter zero opposition from me if you simply remove all the added examples from the period in question. But you need to make sure you don't leave behind collateral damage. Offa29 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop flagrantly violating WP:BURDEN. Your idea that typos and not-broken redirects somehow matter more than basic verifiability is extremely frivolous and hard to take as an argument in good faith on your part. As you clearly saw, I was in the process of reimplementing fixes that the revert overwrote. However, I do not care about reverting edits that aren't improvements or don't matter for the article, and that doesn't mean I personally disrespect the editors that made them.

Your concerns can be addressed when you've resolved the categorically more important issue by removing all the challenged, uncited material you've repeatedly reinstituted without inline citation, as you are required to do by site content policies. Remsense ‥ 论 01:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]