A bit OT but American English is becoming very popular over here in the UK. It's very common to see z instead of s in words for example. I wouldn't be surprised to see the u dropped at all.
I grew up here in the US saying "zee". It's only now, in my wiser years, that I'm realizing the obvious: with "bee", "cee", and "dee" (amongst others) all sounding similar-ish already that we really ought to embrace "zed" for clarity.
Why add another consonant to the name of a consonant? Literally the only letter that's like that.
Americans and the British (and a couple billion other people) share a language that is spelled like shit. We should steal simplifications from each other as much as possible.
It's because the English alphabet is not a phonetic lettering system. If I were American I'd:
a) start saying "t" in the middle of a word as a "t" instead of a "d", and
b) vastly improve the standard of my spelling and those around me
before telling anyone, especially British people, that words shouldn't be spelt "like shit".
Personally, I'm with the Arguments against reform section of Wikipedia[1]:
> English is a West Germanic language that has borrowed many words from non-Germanic languages, and the spelling of a word often reflects its origin. This sometimes gives a clue as to the meaning of the word. Even if their pronunciation has strayed from the original pronunciation, the spelling is a record of the phoneme.
Which is how I can usually guess the correct pronunciation and meaning of an unfamiliar word while I see highly educated Americans butcher the pronunciation of anything outside the common vernacular. These "simplifications" are doing anything but.
However:
> Another criticism is that a reform may favor one dialect or pronunciation over others, creating a standard language
If I could force North Americans to speak better then I might be persuaded.
> a) start saying "t" in the middle of a word as a "t" instead of a "d"
Americans do not have a distinction between intervocalic /t/ and intervocalic /d/. (Though you have to be careful - that analysis requires you to commit to a "syllabic /n/" model of words like "kitten".)
But while /t/ and /d/ are pronounced identically in that context, you can't say that /t/ is being pronounced "as /d/". They are both flapped, which is a sound just as distinct from [d] as it is from [t].
I'm an American, but I use "zed" over "zee" in some contexts (such as ham radio) because "zee" is too easily confusable with the other letters it rhymes with: bee, see, dee, gee, pee, tee. It's definitely an advantage. And you don't have to drop into NATO phonetic with its multiple syllables per letter.
More people in the world say “zee” than “zed”. I’m surprised to hear a British person wants to sound like they’re French. (I’m just kidding as I hope you are about beating children)
Whatever the internet tells you about what is "standard"... as someone who has spent his life in New Zealand, I can assure you the majority of under-30s usually use "zee". "Zed" is on its way out.
It probably started with the popularity things like Sesame Street and Dragon Ball Z (Dragon Ball Zee).
However, interestingly, the one time everyone uses "zed" is when we acronymise the country name -- NZ, or N-Zed.
You've given a figure that is around a third of the entire population of the United States, so I think I'm on safe ground, even taking into account the Indian government's well known inability at accurate record taking, but thanks for the list, Pakistan has "187,758,480" under English speakers. No chance of them saying "zee".
Thanks to India, more people in the world say "w" like "v" but I feel safe knowing that Indians have a better accent and better spelling than anyone in North America, and I would never joke about anything this serious.
