-ogue spellings

John   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 04:25 GMT
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''.
Chilli   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 15:33 GMT
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.
Ryan   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 18:27 GMT
They've already lost out in American English. People definitely don't spell "analog" like "analogue" in the US ever.
Swinehole   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 20:29 GMT
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"?
mjd   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 20:42 GMT
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.
John   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 21:30 GMT
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.
English is crazy   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 22:11 GMT
''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"?
John   Saturday, March 27, 2004, 22:23 GMT
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''.
Rachel   Sunday, March 28, 2004, 12:50 GMT
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!
Swinehole   Sunday, March 28, 2004, 14:49 GMT
Nah, I reckon

Cud, Wud, Shud are better.
John   Sunday, March 28, 2004, 19:46 GMT
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''.
Adam   Monday, March 29, 2004, 09:43 GMT
"Through" will never become "thru", It is just slang, and is not American English. "Catalogue" will never become "catalog", except in the US.
Simon   Monday, March 29, 2004, 10:39 GMT
Could actually used to have no L. It was contamination from the should and would that gave it one.
Chilli   Tuesday, March 30, 2004, 06:54 GMT
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.