A fascinating subject, and there's an extension of it about which I've been curious for years, it's why English doesn't use diacritics or accents on alphabetical characters as do many European languages—French, German, etc. For instance, in French the letter
'e' can take four forms—without accent, grave
è, acute/aigu
é, circumflex
ê. This makes the letter much more flexible and greatly assists with pronunciation.
So why doesn't English use them? It's clear the language needs them with words such as through, thorough and thought which are confusing enough for native speakers let alone those learning English as a second language. And how about inconsistencies such as the verb to lead and the metal Pb lead, or other strange 'gh' words such as cough?
Similarly, proper nouns such as Wycombe, Warwick, etc. defy logic when it comes to pronunciation and would greatly benefit from diacritical marks.
I've never considered myself a particularly good speller and I reckon I would have benefited from diacritics had English used them.
So why doesn't English use them? It's clear the language needs them with words such as through, thorough and thought which are confusing enough for native speakers let alone those learning English as a second language. And how about inconsistencies such as the verb to lead and the metal Pb lead, or other strange 'gh' words such as cough?
Similarly, proper nouns such as Wycombe, Warwick, etc. defy logic when it comes to pronunciation and would greatly benefit from diacritical marks.
I've never considered myself a particularly good speller and I reckon I would have benefited from diacritics had English used them.