"Would it not be easier if words were spelled phonetically in a consistent manner across all languages using a universal alphabet?" asks Jaber Jabbour,
IPA is as u say too much for general use, altho it contains all the phonemes of known languages, as well as all known speech sounds
Many peple have tried to have a universal alphabet, without success. U can look them up, and see their weaknesses and strengths,

A language can be both spoken and script.
The script is for both reading and writing

I will concentrate on the relation of other alphabetic languages to English.
English spelling is closer to words in many other languages than the spoken word.
Partly this is because of shared roots, and partly because of shared words (e.g. computer, taxi) and partly because English takes a long time to change the spelling of words it borrows from other language, especially French.
Dialects also make a universal alphabet problematic for writing as we speak.

Many peple think that English should be spelled the Continental way.
Then 1. It would not have printed resemblances to words in other languages.
2. Consonants would be the same, but the problem is with the vowels, especially a e I o u, which only occasionally match, as in pasta, ballet, police, depot, tabu.

I think that the printed resemblances could be made greater, e.g with Latinat words. That would be a great advance.

But the two spelling sistems mismatch of the primary vowels is difficult to overcome.

When lerning another language, it can take an afternoon to lern a consistent alphabetic sistem, set out on a quarter page. So I am inclined to keep the mismatch, but make the English spelling sistem mor efficient, so that it is as easy to lern to read it. Some leeway is allowabl for writing, as long as it is within the phonemic basic sistem.

And see my article in OnLine Opinion
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14976

@ozideas: you are right; there were several attempts to establish universal alphabets that didn't succeed. We hope that with the internet and technology, this attempt could have more chance.

We agree that if English was spelled the Continental way, it would have less resemblance to words in other languages. However, because of machine translation, this is not an issue anymore. We believe that the only remaining issue for cross-language understanding is pronunciation and oral communications.

A spelling reform that keeps the mismatch of English vs other languages would certainly be easier to implement in the immediate future, but there might be a need to do another spelling reform at a later stage to have consistency on a global scale.

I agree, Saypu, but it might be easier to transfer the English spelling sistem to another sistem later, after it has been cleand up. The public could handl that better.

Should the traditional long vowels be assigned to
á é í ó ú as in the Webster Dictionary or
ei i: ai ou ju: as in most dictionaries that use an abbreviated IPA notation. Try to read the following: (Webster code is slightly shorter here).

Í sé @ grát dél @v valú in bóth nótásh@nz.
*y sii * greyt diil *v vaeliu in bowth nowteysh*nz.

Both @ and * can be replaced with a turned e when available.
Those adept in traditional English spelling would find
the Webster notation easier. Most words could be correctly
identified without pronouncing them as a sequence of sound
signs. Reading by letter sound tends to be slow.

Logographic reading is fast but it take a long time to memorize
over 4000 word signs. You can read an alphabetic or highly
phonetic writing system slowly after about 15 min. of study.
There are only about 40 paired associates to learn.

The crib sheet for a phonemic notation is smaller than a postcard.

@Majorbett: Agreed that the Webster’s notation will always be shorter than the IPA’s. However, IPA’s would offer more flexibility with other languages.

It seems extremely arrogant (but typical) for a businessman to suddenly pretend to have a pet solution to a problem others spend years debating online, and before consulting with said others. Why doesn't he come up with a Unified Field Theory of physics, while he's at it, before his flight gets in? Or indeed, the solution to conflict in the Middle East?

@Londheart: Not sure if you have visited the website. As mentioned in the article, this is a collaborative crowd-sourced project where people who speak different languages can add, comment and vote on the spelling of words on the website. You are more than welcome to login and propose alternative spellings to new or existing words in English or in other languages www.saypyu.com.

By the way, a number of experts in the field have been consulted about this project.

The main aim of the project is simply to make the pronunciation of foreign words easier by those who are not familiar with the international phonetic alphabet. This could help learning foreign languages.

Yes, Jaber - I have visited the website, and, was already aware of your claim to invite alternative spellings, but find it bogus, in the sense that there are too many instructions to the visitor for it to qualify as genuinely inviting alternative spellings. It's like saying, "This is how it is/how I like it - are you sure you really want to change it, after I have consulted with unspecified experts?"
I am not in a position to confirm nor deny whether you have consulted with experts. It seems unlikely you would lie about that, but you are less than open about it (and so, presumably, are they?). What I do know is that there are regular discussions about these things at the Yahoo! Group 'Saundspel,' which you are yet to join, and at the Simplified Spelling Society, where, for reasons not yet clear to me, you had the privilege of being invited as a (passing?) guest speaker. I do condone and applaud your basic aim 'simply to make the pronunciation of foreign words easier by those who are not familiar with the international phonetic alphabet.' This is a laudable aim, and your work exposes the failure of academic linguisticians worldwide (presumably the very 'experts' you refer to?) to have done it first. But I do feel that you should have researched, googled and consulted more widely before setting up your (expensive and?) flashy website with its restrictive preconceptions.

BTW, altho the IPA has signally failed the linguistic communities who largely fund it via public funding for academic instutions, by the clumsy, inflexible, gauche, elitist, obscurantist and pedantic nature of the script the Association has favoured since its inception, and by failing to produce a simplified alphabet for general public consumption and enlightenment, it does nevertheless require capitalisation of its initials: 'International Phonetic Alphabet.'

...having said that, the capitalisation of the name of the (first?) international phonetic alphabet by the International Phonetic Association (also 'IPA') is arguably, if you'll pardon the pun, the ultimate capitalisation by capitalisation. In other words, it might have been humbler for its learned initiators to call it 'an international phonetic alphabet;' or, with hindsight, we could refer to it as 'IPA1.'

So is SaypYu = IPA2? I think not. The one-man origin is a bad sign, if not a disqualifying factor. SaypYu is Eurocentric, even Anglocentric. Again, these are not disqualifying factors for a workable script - 'IPA1' is also rather Eurocentric. But if we are to have a Eurocentric or Anglocentric script for general use, perhaps the wishes of the speakers of English and other European languages should be taken into account, especially, perhaps, vis-a-vis an innovator of external origins. Jaber tells us 'we don't need C, Q and X.' Even if correct, it seems a bad idea, psychologically, to start by telling people - especially Europeans, perhaps, but Anglos in particular - what we can't do. No, X isn't strictly necessary, but it saves time, a quality otherwise somewhat lacking in European scripts ever since the fall of some of our ancient civilisations. And time is of the essence. 'Virtual' in SaypYu becomes 'vɘɘrtshuɘl;' 'words' become 'wɘɘrdz.' Such examples do not indicate a general failure of SaypYu to compete with traditional spelling in terms of brevity - on the contrary - but they do undermine confidence in the idea that this is 'the next best thing since sliced bread.' SaypYu may well help us to get a grip on the pronunciation of foreign words and names - but it seems a bit premature to call it a 'Univeral Alphabet.'

Since my previous posts on this forum, evidence from the public domain has come to my attention of the key, formative 'discussion with expert(s)' to which Jaber Jabbour refers. What it appears to involve, for example, is the bypassing of open online forum discussion on the subject, and an email dialogue with a well-known American forum moderator on the subject (presumably the modern businessman hasn't got time to waste in discussions with the inferior class of spelling reformer?). While said US forum moderator - Steve Bett - commands wide international respect, both for his tireless list moderation and his self-taught command of the subject, he - along with key members of the London-based Simplified Spelling Society - appears to have been taken advantage of, both by Jaber Jabbour and SaypYu, in the way indicated. I have yet to see or hear of any real evidence of discussion between Jaber Jabbour and any qualified expert(s) in linguistics.