Is There a Letter You Feel Needs to be Added to the Alphabet?

The English language, though a catch-all of various sounds and influences, can sometimes feel incomplete. Over the years, scholars and enthusiasts have proposed adding new letters to the alphabet to better represent certain sounds. One such letter, the eth or ethel (e), has been reintroduced as a symbol for the sound now written as th'.

Historical Context and Current Alternatives

While the ethe has not been a new concept, its use as a distinct letter has been recently reintroduced. However, finding it on a standard keyboard is challenging. A quick search on Google reveals its existence. This reintroduction serves as a reminder that the English language continually evolves, acquiring new symbols and letters as needed.

Interestingly, many of the sounds required by English already have their own corresponding letters or diacritical marks in other languages. For example, the ? in French represents the ? sound in the name Renault. This illustration highlights the rich diversity of language systems and the complex ways in which they represent sound.

A Proposed Relaunch: Thorn and Insular G

I believe a more worthwhile approach is to reintroduce or experiment with the ancient Germanic letter thorn (T/t) and the insular g. Reintroducing these letters would simplify certain linguistic phenomena while maintaining a relatively consistent and recognizable visual structure for the English language.

Thorn (T/t) could take on the voiceless th sounds in words like thin and think. This would allow the current th digraph to be reserved for voiced th sounds as in the and this. Consequently, words like torn and thick would be written as tin and tic.

Insular G could be introduced in two forms:

As e (representing /e/) or t (representing /θ/) to replace the current g in words like gem (em) and baggage (bagi). As the final sound of rough (ru), which occurs most commonly between vowels, such as in vision (viin) and lesion (líin).

While the introduction of new letters can alter the appearance of English, I prefer to avoid overly transforming the language. I would limit the use of visually complex diacritical marks like ij, ji, and je. Instead, I propose augmenting existing letters to represent specific sounds:

Augmenting Existing Letters

Tonic Syllabic /r/: The letter e or u could be used before a silent g. For example, ergè (ergé). For the letter ng:

Since English uses the letter ‘n’ for both the sounds /?/ (as in ‘singer’) and /?g/ (as in ‘finger’), I would introduce a cedilla (?) before g when ng is pronounced as /?g/. This would mean finger would be spelled as figer, avoiding the spellings fingger and figger.

Characters for maintaining /s/ sounds: These would prevent future spellings from sounding like /z/ (simplified to use z) or /k/ (simplified to use ck). For example, chology (tolgy) and school (skul).

Phonetic Transcription of The Gettysburg Address

Here is a sample of how The Gettysburg Address might look with these changes:

For sorr'n sev'n yers agò ar fàthers bràt fort àn thi càntanint a nu nāshn concívd in libìty n dédirétid tu the pràposishn that al me? ar criétid ēqual. Now wé ar ingéjd in a grét ceilí testing whether that nāshn or iny nāshn so concívd n so dédirétid ken làng indu. We ar met àn a grét bartíld av that ceilí. We hav còm tu dédirét a porchn av that fìld as a fynl resting plé for thos hu hir gév thèr lyvs that the nāshn myt liv. It is altìgh òt ?àt fìtting n pràper that we shùd du thi. Bòt in a laré ?àt kànsecrét — wé ken nàt hàlo — the ground. The brév men living n dédir ít cànsecrétid it far abòv ar por power tu ad or detract. The òld wil litl not ?àg remember what wé sé hér bòt it ken nèver forget what thé di hí. It is for òs the living ?àt tu bét dedíretid hí tu the unfiníshéd wc which thé hu fàt hí hav thòs far so nobly avant. ít is rather for òs to bé hir dedíretid tu the гrét task remayning before òs—that fròm òs ìnerd déd we teq incríst devoshn tu that causa for which thé gév the last fùl meer av devoshn — that wé hir hyly rezolv that òs déd shál nàt had ?ì d? —that this néshn ònder Gàd shál hav a нu ìt av frìdom — n that гòvermtime av the pípl by the pípl fir the pípl shál nàt pèrshì fròm the et.

This reformed text demonstrates the potential for more consistent and understandable spelling in English, aligning more closely with the spoken language. The transcription includes numerous examples of the proposed phonetic rules and letter augmentations, making the text both phonetically clear and visually simplified.

Conclusion

Introducing a new letter or augmenting existing ones can significantly enhance the phonetic precision of the English language. With careful consideration, these changes could lead to a more accessible and user-friendly system for both native and non-native speakers alike. By maintaining a consistent visual structure and avoiding overly complex transformations, the proposed reform could pave the way for a more inclusive and linguistically accurate English language.