صبايا هذا النص اللي قال عليه دكتور اللغويات , سويت له نسخ , الله يوفقنا جميع

if indeed the origins of the alphabetic writing system were based on a correspondence
between a single symbol and a single sound type, then one might
reasonably ask why there is such a frequent mismatch between the forms of
written english (you know) and the sounds of spoken english (yu no).
The answer to that question must be sought in a number of historical influences
on the formof written english. The spelling of written english was largely fixed
in the form that was used when printing was introduced into fifteenth-century
england. At that time, there were a number of conventions regarding the written
representation of words that had been derived from forms used in writing other
languages, notably latin and french. Moreover, many of the early printers were
native dutch speakers and could not make consistently accurate decisions about
english pronunciations.
Perhaps more important is the fact that, since the fifteenth century, the pronunciation
of spoken english has undergone substantial changes. For example,

although we no longer pronounce the initial k sound or the internal ch sound,
we still include letters indicating the older pronunciation in our contemporary
spelling of the word knight. So, even if there had been a good written-letter to
speech-sound correspondence at that time, and the printers had got it right, there
would still be major discrepancies for the present-day speakers of english.
If we then add in the fact that a large number of older written english words
were actually ‘recreated’ by sixteenth-century spelling reformers to bring their
written forms more into line with what were supposed, sometimes erroneously,
to be their latin origins (e.g. Dette became debt, iland became island), then the
sources of the mismatch between written and spoken forms begin to become
clear. Even when the revolutionary american spelling reformer noah webster
was successful (in the usa) in revising a form such as british english honour,
he only managed to go as far as honor (and not onor). His proposed revisions of
giv (for give) and laf (for laugh) were in line with the alphabetic principle, but
have obviously not been generally accepted. How we go about describing the
sounds of english words in a consistent way, when the written forms provide
such unreliable clues, is a problem we try to solve in chapter 4.