![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Those so-called disadvantages don't sound bad to me.
Wow! - this sounds ace. I really like the idea, and completely agree with what the user above says about the "disadvantages" not really being disadvantages.
--
Just The Q
01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the mention of how SoundSpel is based on General American. To state this as a disadvantage is POV. Any reform that attempted to bring phonemic consistency to English would have to base its phonemes on a particular accent. I realize it may seem offensive to some people, but it's not about cultural superiority. It wouldn't necessarily matter on which accent a given reform is based, as long as the end result unified English pronunciation into *some* consistent model. 70.153.125.99 ( talk) 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, a number of perceived disadvantages - which were not sourced - were removed from the article, while perceived advantages - also not sourced - were kept. The "advantages" should be provided with a source or removed, because as it is they are just an opinion. And if they are sourced and kept, disadvantages should also be listed with sources. -- Bonadea ( talk) 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I just added more disadvantages, trying to make them specific and objective. I don't know if everyone can agree with these changes or if they can allow the tag to be removed. I hope to add sources later. SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
After careful consideration of the disadvantages, I removed the unbalanced tag. SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The system does not represent phonetic spelling of words and it will not eliminate all of the problems that the current english spelling system has. People will still be confused when they read other languages such as spanish which has a very regular phonetic spelling sytem.
I've looked at many spelling systems, and SoundSpel is definitely the best one. It's easy to learn and the end product looks good. This page has left me with two uncertainties about it, however, which I hope can be cleared up.
Firstly, is it correct that "er" can vary in length? It's described as the sound in "per", /3:/, but in the texts I find "larjer and brieter", where it's the schwa, /@/.
Secondly, can "oi" also be written as "oy" (cf. "ou/ow" and "au/aw")? If it can't, then it should, for the sake of classes of word like "boy" and "enjoyable", because "boi" and "enjoiabl" look silly.
Custardslice7 ( talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Custardslice7 ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.140.121 ( talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking for a reference for the statement, "SoundSpel has been endorsed by the American Literacy Council because English speakers can easily read it", I found http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soundspel/ . This site mostly just copied what the Wikipedia article said at the time.
I found a good reference for the above statement from an article written by Rondthaler, who is the Chairman of the American Literacy Council (see http://americanliteracy.com/alc-board.htm). He uses the words "the American Literacy Council's 'SoundSpel'." - SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
For the Advantages, I found exceptions to the "no unusual notations" rule, looking through the Phonetics section. 'ae' and 'aa' are rather obscure, but they are used in "formulae" and "aardvark". I know of no words that use "uu" for the sound in "book" or zh for the sound in "azure."
The references I have added show where most of the information comes from. I have removed the "Unreferenced" tag.
I removed the following, which has weasel words, being my own speculation.
"it could be difficult to reach an agreement on a new system that is more phonemic, especially if it will still represent multiple dialects."
- SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could provide a better diversity of references, but reliable sources are hard to find. I haven't been able to get the "Dictionary of American Simplified Spelling". Maybe I could have some help exctracting advantages and disadvantages from http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/pvs/pv8rondthaler.php#anser? Sorry I'm slow with it. - SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me, the majority of items in the "disadvantages" list, and some in the "advantages" list, apply to all or most proposed reforms. Should the lists be edited to reflect this, or those items replaced by links to appropriate sections of English spelling reform? Jim.henderson ( talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm back, with two more questions. Firstly, because there are numerous words that differ only in a final [s] or [z] after a vowel -- examples include "gross/grows", "dice/dies", "horse/whores" -- can we use the digraph SS to represent a final [s] that's not a plural or verbal suffix? The examples I listed then become: groess/groes, diess/dies, horss/hors. I know there were already and continue to be many pairs or groups of different words that are spelt the same, but having a bit of extra distinguishability cheaply can't be a bad thing; and it would be a shame if someone wanted to write "I don't like orange juice" and was misunderstood :-)
My second question is: how is the "yor" phoneme represented (as in Europe, mural, fury, pure)? Is it "yor/yur" or something prettier, e.g. "eur"? Custardslice7 ( talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I discovered a slight typo. The table documents that /iːr/ = <eer> as in "beer". I believe it is supposed to be /ɪɹ/ = <eer>.
The SoundSpel Converter turns "beer" into <beer> as the table indicates. But it also turns "ear" into <eer>, "near" into <neer>, and "here" into <heer>, and "weird" into <weerd>. You might think this is because "beer" and "weird" and "ear" all contain the long-e sound /i/ or /iː/. If they did, then Soundspel orthography might be being derived by combining long-e sound /iː/ <ee> with the /ɹ/ sound <r>. This would make /iːɹ/ = <ee + r> = <eer>.
But that isn't exactly how it works. You see "beer" and "ear" and "weird" are not pronounced that way.
word | IPA dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
RP pronunciation | GA pronunciation | other pronunciations |
American Heritage Dictionary |
SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ear | /ɪəɹ/ | /ɪə̯/ | /ɪɹ/, /iɹ/ | îr | eer | |
beer | /bɪəɹ/ | /bɪə/, /bɪː/ | /bɪɹ/ | near–square merger: /bɛə/ | bîr | beer |
near | /nɪəɹ/ | /nɪə/ | /nɪɹ/ | near–square merger: /nɛə/ | nîr | neer |
here | /hɪəɹ/ | /hɪə/ | /hɪɹ/ | hîr | heer | |
seer | /sɪəɹ/ | /sɪə/, / 'siː . ə/ | /sɪəɹ/, / 'si . əɹ/ | sîr | seeer | |
weird | /wɪəɹd/ | / ˈwɪəd/, / 'wiːəd/ | / 'wiɚd/, / 'wɪɚd/ | wîrd | weerd | |
Note that in RP the /ɹ/ sound is not pronounced at the end of a syllable or reduced to the /ə/ schwa sound. Also, note that /ɚ/ in "weird" = /əɹ/. |
From this table we can see that all six of these words are generally pronounced with the /-ɪə(ɹ)/ sound: /ɪə/ or /ɪː/ in the RP and /ɪɹ/ or /ɪəɹ/ in GA. /ɪə/ is a diphthong in Received Pronunciation. The first five words all show up in the wiktionary page for words that rhyme with /-ɪə(r)/. "Weird" also contains /-ɪə(r)/ with the addition of /d/.
According to the Pronunciation Respelling for English Table, (îr) is the AHD respelling for /ɪəɹ/ (in IPA for dialect-neutral English pronunciation) and /ɪɹ/ (in IPA for General American pronunciation according to "A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English" (1944 [1953]), John S. Kenyon, Thomas A. Knott).
That means the /ɪəɹ/ = RP:/ɪə/ = GA:/ɪɹ/ or /ɪɚ/ = AHD:((îr)) = SoundSpel:<eer>. The only word in our table that does not follow this pattern in SoundSpel is "seer" which is rendered as <seeer> with three e's. We will come back to this in a minute.
The only pronunciations in the previous table that corresponds to something like /iːɹ/ are a US variant "ear" pronounced /iɹ/, variants of "seer" pronounced according to dialect-neutral notation as / siːə(ɹ)/, and variants of "weird" pronounced according to dialect-neutral notation as / 'wiːə(ɹ)d/. We can see that in Received Pronunciation (RP) when the /ɹ/ sound follows the /iː/ sound they cannot simply drop the /ɹ/ sound other wise the word would be indistinguishable from words that are identical except for the final /ɹ/ sound. So "seer" would sound identical to "see" unless they add the final /ə/ schwa sound. So "seer" sounds something like (see-uh). This means that /iːɹ/ is roughly equivalent to RP:/iːə/ and GA:/iɹ/ and could be written as /iːə(ɹ)/ in dialect-neutral notation.
According to the Pronunciation Respelling for English Table and the Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, /iːr/, /iːə/, /iɹ/, and /iːə(ɹ)/ do not even have official phonemic respellings.
The only words I can find that rhyme with /-iːə(ɹ)/ or /-iə(ɹ)/ are "freer," "skier," and "seer." However, the pronunciation and phonetic notation of these words are not always given in dictionaries because they are listed under their lemma or dictionary forms: "free," "ski," and "see."
These words -- which are pronounced /fɹiː/, /skiː/, and /siː/ -- all contain the so-called long-e sound /iː/ as in the FLEECE lexical set which is respelled ((ē)) by the AHD system. Therefore, these words are respelled as ((frē)), ((skē)), and ((sē)). When adding the /ər/ sound to these words you might combine the /iː/ sound with the /ər/ sound, which is respelled ((er)) as in butter.
Therefore:
root word | word + agent suffix /ər/ | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IPA | AHD | dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
AHD | SoundSpel | |||||||||||||||
-eer | iː | + | əɹ | = | -iː . əɹ | ē | + | ər | = | -ē-ər | ee | + | er | = | -eeer | ||||
free | fɹiː | frē | freer | fɹiː | + | əɹ | = | 'fɹiː . əɹ | frē | + | ər | = | frē-ər | free | + | er | = | freeer | |
ski | skiː | skē | skier | skiː | + | ər | = | 'skiː . əɹ | skē | + | ər | = | skē-ər | skee | + | er | = | skeeer | |
see | siː | sē | seer | siː | + | ər | = | 'siː . er | sē | + | ər | = | sē-ər | see | + | er | = | seeer |
The only word that does not actually fit this pattern is "skier." The SoundSpel Converter does not transform "skier" at all, rendering it as "skier." Leaving "skier" unchanged is either a bug in the converter software or an inconsistency in the SoundSpel system.
Therefore, we would get the following table:
word | IPA dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
RP pronunciation | GA pronunciation | other pronunciations |
American Heritage Dictionary |
SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
freer | / 'fɹiː . əɹ/ | / 'fiː . ə/ | / 'fri . əɹ/ | ?? | frē-ər | freeer |
skier | / 'skiː . əɹ/ | / 'skiː . ə/ | / 'ski . əɹ/ | ?? /skɪə̯/ | skē-ər | |
seer | / 'siː . eɹ/ | / 'siː . ə/ | / 'si . əɹ/ | /sɪəɹ/ (sîr) | sē-ər | seeer |
There are two different pronunciations of "seer" depending, in part on definition, / 'siː . eɹ/ meaning a person who sees, and /sɪəɹ/ meaning a person who prophesies or known to have powers of divination. The first ought to be respelled AHD:((sē-er)) SoundSpel:<seeer> and the second AHD:((sîr)) SoundSpel:<seer>.
word | IPA | AHD | SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|
seer | /sɪəɹ/ | (sîr) | <seer> |
/ 'siː . eɹ/ | (sē-ər) | <seeer> |
It seems to me that SoundSpel simply choose one of the two morphologies since the two pronunciations and meanings are so close anyway. This explains why "seer" was spelled wrong in the first table under the SoundSpel column.
To conclude, it seems that SoundSpel intends to translate /ɪə(ɹ)/, /ɪɚ/, & /ɪ(ɹ)/ into <eer> not /iːə(ɹ)/ & /iː(ɹ)/. The /iːə(ɹ)/ sound is a combination of the /iː/ sound respelled as <ee> and the /ə(ɹ)/ sound respelled as <er> to form <eeer>. The following table explains this.
IPA | AHD | SoundSpel | Example |
---|---|---|---|
/ɪə(ɹ)/ | (îr) | <eer> | beer |
/iːə(ɹ)/ = /iː + ə(ɹ)/ | (ē + ər) = (ē-ər) | <ee + er> = <eeer> | freer becomes freeer |
Is there any official documentation I can check my hypothesis against?
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Those so-called disadvantages don't sound bad to me.
Wow! - this sounds ace. I really like the idea, and completely agree with what the user above says about the "disadvantages" not really being disadvantages.
--
Just The Q
01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the mention of how SoundSpel is based on General American. To state this as a disadvantage is POV. Any reform that attempted to bring phonemic consistency to English would have to base its phonemes on a particular accent. I realize it may seem offensive to some people, but it's not about cultural superiority. It wouldn't necessarily matter on which accent a given reform is based, as long as the end result unified English pronunciation into *some* consistent model. 70.153.125.99 ( talk) 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, a number of perceived disadvantages - which were not sourced - were removed from the article, while perceived advantages - also not sourced - were kept. The "advantages" should be provided with a source or removed, because as it is they are just an opinion. And if they are sourced and kept, disadvantages should also be listed with sources. -- Bonadea ( talk) 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I just added more disadvantages, trying to make them specific and objective. I don't know if everyone can agree with these changes or if they can allow the tag to be removed. I hope to add sources later. SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
After careful consideration of the disadvantages, I removed the unbalanced tag. SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The system does not represent phonetic spelling of words and it will not eliminate all of the problems that the current english spelling system has. People will still be confused when they read other languages such as spanish which has a very regular phonetic spelling sytem.
I've looked at many spelling systems, and SoundSpel is definitely the best one. It's easy to learn and the end product looks good. This page has left me with two uncertainties about it, however, which I hope can be cleared up.
Firstly, is it correct that "er" can vary in length? It's described as the sound in "per", /3:/, but in the texts I find "larjer and brieter", where it's the schwa, /@/.
Secondly, can "oi" also be written as "oy" (cf. "ou/ow" and "au/aw")? If it can't, then it should, for the sake of classes of word like "boy" and "enjoyable", because "boi" and "enjoiabl" look silly.
Custardslice7 ( talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Custardslice7 ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.140.121 ( talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking for a reference for the statement, "SoundSpel has been endorsed by the American Literacy Council because English speakers can easily read it", I found http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soundspel/ . This site mostly just copied what the Wikipedia article said at the time.
I found a good reference for the above statement from an article written by Rondthaler, who is the Chairman of the American Literacy Council (see http://americanliteracy.com/alc-board.htm). He uses the words "the American Literacy Council's 'SoundSpel'." - SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
For the Advantages, I found exceptions to the "no unusual notations" rule, looking through the Phonetics section. 'ae' and 'aa' are rather obscure, but they are used in "formulae" and "aardvark". I know of no words that use "uu" for the sound in "book" or zh for the sound in "azure."
The references I have added show where most of the information comes from. I have removed the "Unreferenced" tag.
I removed the following, which has weasel words, being my own speculation.
"it could be difficult to reach an agreement on a new system that is more phonemic, especially if it will still represent multiple dialects."
- SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could provide a better diversity of references, but reliable sources are hard to find. I haven't been able to get the "Dictionary of American Simplified Spelling". Maybe I could have some help exctracting advantages and disadvantages from http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/pvs/pv8rondthaler.php#anser? Sorry I'm slow with it. - SpellcheckW7 ( talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me, the majority of items in the "disadvantages" list, and some in the "advantages" list, apply to all or most proposed reforms. Should the lists be edited to reflect this, or those items replaced by links to appropriate sections of English spelling reform? Jim.henderson ( talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm back, with two more questions. Firstly, because there are numerous words that differ only in a final [s] or [z] after a vowel -- examples include "gross/grows", "dice/dies", "horse/whores" -- can we use the digraph SS to represent a final [s] that's not a plural or verbal suffix? The examples I listed then become: groess/groes, diess/dies, horss/hors. I know there were already and continue to be many pairs or groups of different words that are spelt the same, but having a bit of extra distinguishability cheaply can't be a bad thing; and it would be a shame if someone wanted to write "I don't like orange juice" and was misunderstood :-)
My second question is: how is the "yor" phoneme represented (as in Europe, mural, fury, pure)? Is it "yor/yur" or something prettier, e.g. "eur"? Custardslice7 ( talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I discovered a slight typo. The table documents that /iːr/ = <eer> as in "beer". I believe it is supposed to be /ɪɹ/ = <eer>.
The SoundSpel Converter turns "beer" into <beer> as the table indicates. But it also turns "ear" into <eer>, "near" into <neer>, and "here" into <heer>, and "weird" into <weerd>. You might think this is because "beer" and "weird" and "ear" all contain the long-e sound /i/ or /iː/. If they did, then Soundspel orthography might be being derived by combining long-e sound /iː/ <ee> with the /ɹ/ sound <r>. This would make /iːɹ/ = <ee + r> = <eer>.
But that isn't exactly how it works. You see "beer" and "ear" and "weird" are not pronounced that way.
word | IPA dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
RP pronunciation | GA pronunciation | other pronunciations |
American Heritage Dictionary |
SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ear | /ɪəɹ/ | /ɪə̯/ | /ɪɹ/, /iɹ/ | îr | eer | |
beer | /bɪəɹ/ | /bɪə/, /bɪː/ | /bɪɹ/ | near–square merger: /bɛə/ | bîr | beer |
near | /nɪəɹ/ | /nɪə/ | /nɪɹ/ | near–square merger: /nɛə/ | nîr | neer |
here | /hɪəɹ/ | /hɪə/ | /hɪɹ/ | hîr | heer | |
seer | /sɪəɹ/ | /sɪə/, / 'siː . ə/ | /sɪəɹ/, / 'si . əɹ/ | sîr | seeer | |
weird | /wɪəɹd/ | / ˈwɪəd/, / 'wiːəd/ | / 'wiɚd/, / 'wɪɚd/ | wîrd | weerd | |
Note that in RP the /ɹ/ sound is not pronounced at the end of a syllable or reduced to the /ə/ schwa sound. Also, note that /ɚ/ in "weird" = /əɹ/. |
From this table we can see that all six of these words are generally pronounced with the /-ɪə(ɹ)/ sound: /ɪə/ or /ɪː/ in the RP and /ɪɹ/ or /ɪəɹ/ in GA. /ɪə/ is a diphthong in Received Pronunciation. The first five words all show up in the wiktionary page for words that rhyme with /-ɪə(r)/. "Weird" also contains /-ɪə(r)/ with the addition of /d/.
According to the Pronunciation Respelling for English Table, (îr) is the AHD respelling for /ɪəɹ/ (in IPA for dialect-neutral English pronunciation) and /ɪɹ/ (in IPA for General American pronunciation according to "A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English" (1944 [1953]), John S. Kenyon, Thomas A. Knott).
That means the /ɪəɹ/ = RP:/ɪə/ = GA:/ɪɹ/ or /ɪɚ/ = AHD:((îr)) = SoundSpel:<eer>. The only word in our table that does not follow this pattern in SoundSpel is "seer" which is rendered as <seeer> with three e's. We will come back to this in a minute.
The only pronunciations in the previous table that corresponds to something like /iːɹ/ are a US variant "ear" pronounced /iɹ/, variants of "seer" pronounced according to dialect-neutral notation as / siːə(ɹ)/, and variants of "weird" pronounced according to dialect-neutral notation as / 'wiːə(ɹ)d/. We can see that in Received Pronunciation (RP) when the /ɹ/ sound follows the /iː/ sound they cannot simply drop the /ɹ/ sound other wise the word would be indistinguishable from words that are identical except for the final /ɹ/ sound. So "seer" would sound identical to "see" unless they add the final /ə/ schwa sound. So "seer" sounds something like (see-uh). This means that /iːɹ/ is roughly equivalent to RP:/iːə/ and GA:/iɹ/ and could be written as /iːə(ɹ)/ in dialect-neutral notation.
According to the Pronunciation Respelling for English Table and the Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, /iːr/, /iːə/, /iɹ/, and /iːə(ɹ)/ do not even have official phonemic respellings.
The only words I can find that rhyme with /-iːə(ɹ)/ or /-iə(ɹ)/ are "freer," "skier," and "seer." However, the pronunciation and phonetic notation of these words are not always given in dictionaries because they are listed under their lemma or dictionary forms: "free," "ski," and "see."
These words -- which are pronounced /fɹiː/, /skiː/, and /siː/ -- all contain the so-called long-e sound /iː/ as in the FLEECE lexical set which is respelled ((ē)) by the AHD system. Therefore, these words are respelled as ((frē)), ((skē)), and ((sē)). When adding the /ər/ sound to these words you might combine the /iː/ sound with the /ər/ sound, which is respelled ((er)) as in butter.
Therefore:
root word | word + agent suffix /ər/ | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IPA | AHD | dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
AHD | SoundSpel | |||||||||||||||
-eer | iː | + | əɹ | = | -iː . əɹ | ē | + | ər | = | -ē-ər | ee | + | er | = | -eeer | ||||
free | fɹiː | frē | freer | fɹiː | + | əɹ | = | 'fɹiː . əɹ | frē | + | ər | = | frē-ər | free | + | er | = | freeer | |
ski | skiː | skē | skier | skiː | + | ər | = | 'skiː . əɹ | skē | + | ər | = | skē-ər | skee | + | er | = | skeeer | |
see | siː | sē | seer | siː | + | ər | = | 'siː . er | sē | + | ər | = | sē-ər | see | + | er | = | seeer |
The only word that does not actually fit this pattern is "skier." The SoundSpel Converter does not transform "skier" at all, rendering it as "skier." Leaving "skier" unchanged is either a bug in the converter software or an inconsistency in the SoundSpel system.
Therefore, we would get the following table:
word | IPA dialect-neutral English pronunciation |
RP pronunciation | GA pronunciation | other pronunciations |
American Heritage Dictionary |
SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
freer | / 'fɹiː . əɹ/ | / 'fiː . ə/ | / 'fri . əɹ/ | ?? | frē-ər | freeer |
skier | / 'skiː . əɹ/ | / 'skiː . ə/ | / 'ski . əɹ/ | ?? /skɪə̯/ | skē-ər | |
seer | / 'siː . eɹ/ | / 'siː . ə/ | / 'si . əɹ/ | /sɪəɹ/ (sîr) | sē-ər | seeer |
There are two different pronunciations of "seer" depending, in part on definition, / 'siː . eɹ/ meaning a person who sees, and /sɪəɹ/ meaning a person who prophesies or known to have powers of divination. The first ought to be respelled AHD:((sē-er)) SoundSpel:<seeer> and the second AHD:((sîr)) SoundSpel:<seer>.
word | IPA | AHD | SoundSpel |
---|---|---|---|
seer | /sɪəɹ/ | (sîr) | <seer> |
/ 'siː . eɹ/ | (sē-ər) | <seeer> |
It seems to me that SoundSpel simply choose one of the two morphologies since the two pronunciations and meanings are so close anyway. This explains why "seer" was spelled wrong in the first table under the SoundSpel column.
To conclude, it seems that SoundSpel intends to translate /ɪə(ɹ)/, /ɪɚ/, & /ɪ(ɹ)/ into <eer> not /iːə(ɹ)/ & /iː(ɹ)/. The /iːə(ɹ)/ sound is a combination of the /iː/ sound respelled as <ee> and the /ə(ɹ)/ sound respelled as <er> to form <eeer>. The following table explains this.
IPA | AHD | SoundSpel | Example |
---|---|---|---|
/ɪə(ɹ)/ | (îr) | <eer> | beer |
/iːə(ɹ)/ = /iː + ə(ɹ)/ | (ē + ər) = (ē-ər) | <ee + er> = <eeer> | freer becomes freeer |
Is there any official documentation I can check my hypothesis against?