A Quick Alternative: Digraphs with Acute Accents

Because I've had little time to come back to this blog, I want to first apologize for the errors in grammar and spelling that exist in my first post. Secondly, for that same reason, I am going to quickly outline an alternative to the diacritics that I've rough-drafted. I'll list out some basic explanations, but obviously leave out the lengthy stuff for later. So, without further ado...

The Basic Basics

Since I have made this blog to express my views on reforming English spelling but have little time at the time of this post, I will outline the very rudimentary reasons for why I believe reforming is necessary, and I will also outline the system that I've drafted so far.

(Note: I wanted to write this here, despite its awkward placement, before I forgot. If there are any major punctuation or grammar errors in this post, please respectfully note them to me so that i can make the necessary edits.)

However, before I delve into the body of this post, I want to say four things.

1. First, I encourage any who read this to educate themselves over the International Phonetic Alphabet, as I will use that phonetic alphabet and none other in order to standardize any sound which I wish to notate, and over general linguistic terms, as I will often use terms you may not understand.
2.  Second, I understand that my system is not perfect (what is?) and, in order to allow for corrections that would still maintain my overall goal, I am open to changing and willing to change my system appropriately so that it can be adapted as necessary now and in the future. 
3. Third, I will over time explain all aspects which I wish to address in this blog. There is much to explain on this topic and I have many opinions concerning it, so please understand that future posts will not only explain my opinions in further detail (or introduce things that I haven't already written on this blog) but also more than likely reference back to this post. Just because a topic isn't yet in this blog doesn't mean that the topic won't be mentioned eventually.
4. Fourth, I do believe that the nations that speak English natively should come together and establish an international body that governs the English language, creates efficient and understandable rules, and is willing to adapt the language as time goes on. To my knowledge, English is the only language among the current top ten that doesn't have a governing body; that really is a shame.

If you have any questions or points to make, feel free to add them. I will only ever delete them if they're unprofessional, unproductive, or any other characteristic that I feel requires deletion.

To begin, there are three basic reasons for reforming English spelling (though there are many more which I, as already stated, will explain in the future).

1. People who speak English as their first native language have  had issues with the spelling for a long time, and that's frankly not to mention the troubles that foreigners have when learning the language. More often than not, English-speaking nations have higher illiteracy rates than other developed nations simply because English has so many inconsistencies. Children of Finnish or Spanish, for example, traditionally take months (around six months) to learn their language whereas English children take years to learn English. Another example of many others is the concept of a spelling bee. To America or the U.K., a spelling bee is legitimate because it's well known that English is an honest challenge to spell; in many other nations, such a concept is quite unreal since it's hardly a challenge to spell when the language you speak uses a phonetic spelling. Therefore, in short: making English spelling more simple would help literacy rates increase and make "orthographically challenged" adults/professors/editors not so challenged. (Some information from here.)
2. Since English is currently the world language, why not make it simpler? Grammatically speaking, English is much less complex than, say, German or Spanish or Mandarin or Russian or even Swedish, for it lacks grammatical gender, has very little inflection anywhere, and is fairly flexible in syntax; English greatly has an advantage in simplicity over many other languages. But, in reality, the real obstacle is having to memorize how to pronounce words on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, it isn't very obvious that the actual phonetic difference between woman and women lies within the first syllable instead of the last, as indicated by the inflectional morpheme.
3. English is known to have adopted many words without changing the spelling, even though the word become a commonplace English. Examples include naïve or tequila. Why not adapt those into an English spelling system? Few, if any, truly pronounce naïve as /nɑ.ˈiv/ without having been told how to "correctly" pronounce it. Additionally, there are, etymologically speaking, many words of English that have been adapted from another language. For example, again stems from the Swedish igen. If we are willing to adapt that word into English, why not tequila? Case in point, we reforming spelling would eliminate confusing words that are still spelled foreignly.

Please note that I am still playing with the idea of using acute accents on vowels to indicate irregular stress, but will keep them out of the following (though I may add them in later if I ever find a solution) in order to keep things fairly simplified, especially because this is supposed to be a post of the "basic basics" and I may have written too much at this point.

In reference to the diacritics, I am planning to treat diacritics as variations of the "parent" letter (like how German treats its umlauts) and not as separate letters altogether (like how Swedish treats its umlauts and the letter å), mainly so that there aren't an excess of letters in the official alphabet.

Please know that there are many aspects and reasons for my decisions. As I have already written in this post (several times), I will mention and explain those later, in varying degrees (e.g., I may mention in one post but explain in another).

Also: Though this frankly isn't perfectly accurate, I'll pull the IPA info from here so that there's an easy reference for everyone, even if Wikipedia isn't correct with the actual official IPA. I also may not always use Wikipedia as my IPA source.

Now, below is my rough-draft proposed writing system.

Alphabet, in order:

1. Aa, Àà, Āā
2. Bb
3. Cc
4. Dd
5. Ðð
6. Ee, Ēē
7. Ff
8. Gg
9. Hh
10. Ii, Īī
11. Jj
12. Kk
13. Ll
14. Mm
15. Nn
16. Oo
17. Pp
18. Rr
19. Ss
20. Tt
21. Uu, Ùù, Ūū, Ůů
22. Vv
23. Ww
24. Yy
25. Zz

Phonetic value of each above letter:

1. A —— /ɑː/
2. À —— /æ/
3. Ā —— /eɪ/
4. B —— /b/
5. C —— /tʃ/ or /dʒ/
6. D —— /d/
7. Р—— /θ/ or /ð/
8. E —— /ɛ/
9. Ē —— /iː/
10. F —— /f/
11. G —— /g/
12. H —— /h/
13. I —— /ɪ/
14. Ī —— /aɪ/
15. J —— /ʃ/ or /ʒ/
16. K —— /k/
17. L —— /l/
18. M —— /m/
19. N —— /n/
20. O —— /oʊ/
21. P —— /p/
22. R —— /r/ 
23. S —— /s/ or /z/
24. T —— /t/
25. U —— /uː/
26. Ù —— /ʌ/
27. Ū —— /juː/
28. Ů —— /ʊ/
29. V —— /v/
30. W —— /w/
31. Y —— /j/
32. Z —— /z/