-ogue spellings

Do you think that -ogue spellings, such as catalogue, analogue, and dialogue are losing out in American English? They are really commonly spelled ''catalog'', ''analog'' and ''dialog''.

It's how English changes itself to become more streamlined (and why spelling reforms are pointless). Gradually 'through' will become 'thru' etc. etc. Eventually the -ogue spellings will vanish and in three hundred years time, someone will read toays literature and think it unintelligible, the way we look at Chaucer now.

They've already lost out in American English. People definitely don't spell "analog" like "analogue" in the US ever.

It makes sense to do that, in England it will eventually get like that.

The same thing should happen to "could" "should" "would"

Why not just have them as "coud" "shoud" "woud"

or even...
"cud" "shud" "wud"

Neighbour / Neighbor

Why not just "naber"?

When writing formally I always include the "gue." I don't think they've entirely lost out. One doesn't see "monologue" written as "monolog" too often.

The same thing should happen to "could" "should" "would"

Why not just have them as "coud" "shoud" "woud"

or even...
"cud" "shud" "wud"

No, ''coud'', ''shoud'' and ''woud'' look like they should rhyme with ''loud'' and ''cud'' ''shud'' and ''wud'' look like they should rhyme with ''mud''. ''Cood'', ''shood'' and ''wood'' would be better.

''Cood'', ''shood'' and ''wood'' would be better."

But then won't some people think that they should rhyme with "mood", "food", and "brood"? What about "flood"?

Well, there's also ''good'' and ''wood'', so, they would work. ''Coud'' ''shoud'' and ''woud'' don't work. When is ''ou'' ever pronounced that way? ''cood'', ''shood'' and ''wood'' are better. ''flood'' though could be respelled ''flud''.

I think that spelling has a lot to do with how words exist phoenetically. To me, there is a difference, albeit subtle, between how one would pronounce catalog and catalogue. So, at the risk of sounding like a grade 1 teacher, spelling is important!

Nah, I reckon

Cud, Wud, Shud are better.

Quote-''Nah, I reckon

Cud, Wud, Shud are better.'' Swinehole, no they're not. How can it be better to spell those words into a way that makes much less sense. Okay, Name one word that ends in -ud that's pronounced to rhyme with ''good''. ''Cud'', ''wud'', and ''shud'' look like they should rhyme with ''mud'' but they don't. ''cood'', ''wood'' and ''shood'' are better and make much more sense. ''could'', ''would'' and ''should'' rhyme with ''good'' not ''mud''.

"Through" will never become "thru", It is just slang, and is not American English. "Catalogue" will never become "catalog", except in the US.

Could actually used to have no L. It was contamination from the should and would that gave it one.

I am never going to use the words 'spelling reform' ever again.

Adam, why so uptight about words changing and evolving? What offends you so much about 'thru' as opposed to 'through'? Why does it upset you? You realise, of course, that language, like everything else, survives only by adapting, and if that means losing extraneous bits (the way that snakes lost legs and birds envolved feathers) that it can only be a good thing, right?

Keeping a language fixed in a stasis of perceived perfection is no more realistic now than it was in the eighteenth century when Jonathan Swift et al were trying to do the same.