<Derek Jensen Jan 12, 3:35 pm
Newsgroups: alt.language.english.spelling.reform, alt.english.usage
From: "Derek Jensen" <djen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: 12 Jan 2005 15:35:46 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 12 2005 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: Why Reform?
Iain--
A complete overhaul of English spelling is probably both mechanically
and socially impossible, but that's no reason to give up trying to at
least improve it. It's true that pronunciation is always changing, but
it doesn't change so quickly that the spellings can't eventually catch
up. It's also true that pronunciations differ from place to place, but
we live with different US/UK spellings now; there's no reason we can't
have "labratory" in the US and "laboratry" in the UK. That would make
more sense than "color" and "colour."
>
i tend to agree with you on most of your points. is it really
impossible to do a complete overhaul of english spelling? that's
actually almost what's needed to bring it into a truly logical system.
now, i'm just a layperson and not ejumacated in all the ins and outs of
linguistics, but i did test with an above average iq and i think i can
think at least as logically as the next person. why should we have to
put up with silly things like the silent "h" in "why" (for instance)?
why isn't it possible and understood as desirable to overhaul spellings
that make no sense? i can think of lots of reasons why it would be
difficult to make a major revision in our spellings, but considering
how difficult the current state of affairs makes it on people who are
learning to spell or have difficulty spelling the long term benefits
might just make the pain of revision justifiable.
fone'tik:
ie tend too agree' with ue on moest ov uer points. iz it reelee
impo'sibel too doo a komplee't oeverhahl ov english speling? thats
aktue-alee ahlmoest wuhts needed too bring it intoo a truelee lojikal
sistem. nou, iem juhst a laeperson and not ejuemakaeted in ahl the inz
and outs ov lingwi'stiks, but ie did test with an abuh'v averej iq and
ie think ie kan think at leest az lojiklee iz the nekst person. wie
shud wee hav too put uhp with silee thingz liek the sielent "h" in
"why"(ts) foer instans? wie izent it posibel and uhnderstu'd az
dezierabel too oeverhahl spelingz that maek noe sens? ie kan think ov
lots ov reezonz wie it wud bee difikult too maek a maejer revizhen in
our spelingz, buht konsi'dering hou difikult the kerent staet ov afaerz
maeks it on peepel hoo ahr lerning too spel oer hav difikuhltee speling
the long term benefits miet juhst maek the paen ov revizhen
juhstifie'ebel.
|
