One issue that you've brought up before is that if we have standardized phonetic spelling, what dialect do we standardize to?
That's a good question. It's probably easier to answer if we forget about all English outside of North America, because I don't know if it's possible to come up with a good compromise if you include British and North American English.
But the problem with North America is that we don't have one dialect that is clearly the most prestigious. The most "standard" dialect is the Midlands (number 11 on
this map), which is also very similar to the rest of the West. So that would be the safest bet.
I am wondering how they deal with that in modern European languages, many of which have extremely phonetic spelling and also have various regional dialects. How hard is it to learn how to spell when you speak a non-standard (by standard, I mean the spelling standard) dialect? Is it more difficult than modern English, where it makes sense for no one?
In some European countries, the dialects are really closer to separate languages. You grow up learning your own language at home, and then you go to school and learn the standard dialect. I don't know if most people ever formally learn how to write in their native dialect. In English, we just have to deal with a crazy spelling system.
I'm also thinking about the value of being able to see etymologies from the word's spelling. It's neat in a gee whiz sort of way, but does it really add much of value, for the average person, to the language, like phonetic spelling would?
With some unfamiliar words with familiar roots, recognizing the etymology helps you understand the meaning. Of course, then you have to know the roots, and last I checked word roots—whether English, Latin, or something else—were not taught much in school. Plus, there are already many words with etymologies that are rather opaque, so preserving old spelling doesn't always help.
