Brighteye said:
People who can't understand British spelling need to spend more time improving their brains.
People who think that obsolete spellings that have no predictable pronunciation patterns are a good thing need to spend more time improving their brains.
Brighteye said:
The second 'vowel' in gaol is more of a grunt, as far as I can tell, in most British and American pronunciation. It's not portrayed by any of our vowels.
No. You're simply referring to the second part of the diphthong. jail/gaol are both pronounced /dʒeɪl/. You're referring to the [ɪ]. But this is part of a single diphthong - /eɪ/. This phone in the diphthong is in many English words as a separate phonem, such as "bit", "nit" and "fit". The diphthong /eɪ/ is the "long a" and is represented in many ways, the most common being [a..e] and [ai].
However, these are still single syllable words. The reason why [ao] was used was because it was spelled like that in old french - jail/gaol come from Norman Old French "gaole". They represent the same sound, as you can see in "pail", "mail", "fail", etc.
And don't say that it's not portrayed by any of the "vowels" - you're confusing phonology with orthography. The spellings [a e i o u] are not vowels.
"gaol" fails basic English pronounciation rules; [g] before [a] tends to be /g/, not /dʒ/. It offers nothing other than a meaningless complexity outside of historical etymology, and that's a really poor reason to keep an obsolete spelling. [ao] is very rare to begin with, and therefore it was simply to merge it with [ai] and make the original [g] [j] as it is pronounced via spelling rules (/dʒ/).
Brighteye said:
Why should spelling reflect your pronunciation? There is huge variability in pronunciation, and how the word used to be written adds character and nuance by reminding the reader of the associations.
Because they have the same pronunciation in the standardized dialects?
You can still create a written system which has the maximum number of phonetic distinctions between its dialects, you know.
Also, those spellings can still be predictable considering the predictability of sound changes. You can still designate the differences between [which] and [witch] (as, say, [which] and [wich]) and if your dialect makes a wine/whine merge, you can still predict the pronounciation of the spelling.
Or if you actually want a standardized
language, you can use a single dialect as your basis and include the pronounciation in it and then people will just have to learn it when looking at the written tongue.
That's not an excuse for poor spelling conventions, however.