I ran into this phenomenon when I was idly learning the Shavian alphabet. It's not actually a phonetic writing system for me, because I don't have the same accent as the person who devised it. So, while it wasn't too difficult for me to learn to read it, (accurately) writing it would have required about as much rote memorization as it does in any other alphabetical language I'm familiar with.
> It's not actually a phonetic writing system for me, because I don't have the same accent as the person who devised it.
The alphabet was designed to be phonemic instead of phonetic for the exact reason you claim.
> While sometimes referred to as “phonetic” it is, in truth, phonemic, as Shaw wished. A phonetic alphabet would look quite different depending on the accent it represented. Shavian, on the other hand, does not purport to represent exactly sounds, but classes of sounds. A person from London, from New York and from Sydney all pronounce the AH sound differently, but each would recognise the sound when said by the others. In Shavian they would all write 𐑭 for this sound.[1]
I think the problem that you encountered is rather that there are certain dictionaries that spell words in a dialect that you don't use (think of how a British person says "past" vs an American person). But that is a different problem from what you described. You can very well use Shavian with any accent of English because it is designed that way.
As a southern American, I use pretty much the same vowel in "y'all" that most English people would in "past" or "bath". "Past" and "bath" are the same vowel as "cat" uses in the Queen's English.
It's an immensely useful word. Cf. "yinz" of western Pennsylvania, which is a contraction of "you 'uns" of Appalachia, which is a contraction of "you ones". The popularity of rap has spread it immensely in the past thirty-odd years, because Black English is strongly influenced by long association with white Southern dialect (and vice versa).
That distinction doesn't really resolve it, though. English dialects are diverse enough that there are many pairs of words that are homophones in one accent, and sound different in another. For example, I have relatives who pronounce "pen" and "pin" identically, and are generally hard-pressed to hear the difference in how I pronounce them. On the other side, I also have relatives who distinguish between "ferry" and "fairy", which I don't.
So, depending on your native accent, Shavian might still require you to use more than one letter for the same sound (and therefore have to remember which words use which), or use the same letter for multiple sounds. Or, at least, it will if you want to have standardized orthography.
> I have relatives who pronounce "pen" and "pin" identically, and are generally hard-pressed to hear the difference in how I pronounce them. On the other side, I also have relatives who distinguish between "ferry" and "fairy", which I don't.
Yes, some hard choices do need to be made. In cases like these, it’s almost always better to err on the side of preserving distinctions even if the speaker does not recognize the distinctions. Because over time, they will start to recognize patterns and understand the distinctions more while nothing of value is lost in English.
> Shavian might still require you to use more than one letter for the same sound (and therefore have to remember which words use which)
Yes and for the most part I think this is a good thing. It is a very small concession to make considering the alternative.
> Or, at least, it will if you want to have standardized orthography.
One single prescriptive spelling for global english may be impossible for the time being. But I am very interested in further researching a kind of neo-mid-atlantic accent.
(https://www.shavian.info/)