We should get rid of the word ''too'' and use ''also'' or ''aswell'' instead and we should get rid of the word ''two'' and use ''twain'' instead and then we will have gotten rid of two (that should be ''twain'') of our homonyms and then we won't have such a big problem with having spelling reform. One of the main arguments for spelling reform is that homonyms would be all written the same.
Who is "we" and how will "we" enforce this diktat?
"One of the main arguments for spelling reform is that homonyms would be all written the same."
I actually think that's a great argument against spelling reform.
I agree with you mjd. It's incredible how English has so many phonemes and yet there are so many homonyms.
That Steve K. is a cocky bastard, must be american.
All cocky bastards are American or all Americans are cocky bastards? Please elaborate. And where do you hail from, and what generalizations can we make about your nationality?
I am Canadian btw.
The point of my post is that language is free and we do not need any authority telling us which words to use. I suspect, however, that Mr. Ro's post was tongue in cheek, poking fun at the proposal to reform spelling.
Mr. Ro, why should we ban the words ''two'' and ''too''? Do you have any good reason(s) why we should?
Boring. Socialist. Slow. Beer loving. Lives in an igloo. Says 'eh' a lot. Smokes a lot of pot. Queer lovers . . .the list goes on. I've heard many more.
I apologize for labelling you a "cocky bastard" before getting to know you better.
I wouldn't say that all Americans are cocky bastards, I dislike blanket generalizations just as much as the next person. I apologize for stereotyping. You have backed me into a corner with this one and I concede.
I hope that from now on our exchanges will be more cordial.
You are right Adam... clearly some Cocky Bastards are also Canadians.
I am Canadian, by the way.
I had surmised from some of your other posts that you are Canadian, glad to know there is another of my fellow countrymen or women posting on this forum.
Toaste and Adam..birds of a feather. Much given to the empty bleating of self-righteous indignation and gratuitous insult as a substitute for reasoned opinion and discussion.
Enough with the appeasement.
People who are too precious about obviously unfounded generalisations might benefit from a bit of over the top abuse here and there. Loosen them up a bit.
By the way all Americans trying to hide call themselves Canadian.
I've never suffered from much, if any, confusion from "two", "to" and "too" being pronounced the same. In speech, I don't get them confused.
Would anyone care to explain how writing them the same would cause confusion?
I like tu spell the number tu the same as I spell its tu homophones, and I think you should, tu.
I suppose you'll tell me you had a hard time understanding that, right?
Yet somehow, I suspect everyone was able to get my meaning with very little problem.
Would anyone care to think of a REAL objection to spelling reform other than change takes more effort than stagnation? (which is really what our spelling is)
We have no problem differentiating the separate meanings of "have" in writing, or the meanings of "right" or of "stick" or any number of words.
Should we write the auxiliary verb "have" as "hav" and the verb meaning "to possess" as "have" and the verb meaning "to be obliged" as "havv"? Should we write "right" as in "human rights" as "right" and "right" as in "correct" as "ryte" and "right" as in "right-hand" as "riet"? How about "stick" as in "twig" as "stik" and "stick" meaning "to pierce" as "stick" and "stick" as in "to put" as "stikk"?
If you think it's good to distinguish "two" and "too" in writing even though they're not distinguished in pronunciation (note that "to" is not always pronounced the same as "two" and "too"), then you should be just as enthusiastic at finally removing the ambiguity caused by right-ryte-riet all being spelled the same.
If you think it is so important that homophones be differentiated in writing, then why do you (I assume) rightly think those suggestions are ridiculous? Because your real objection has nothing to do with confusing homonyms but with simply being opposed to change.
If you think that spelling homonyms the same is a real objection to spelling reform, then you must logically come to the conclusion that differentiating the spelling of homonyms currently spelled the same would be more desirable than the current situation.
''Should we write the auxiliary verb "have" as "hav" and the verb meaning "to possess" as "have" and the verb meaning "to be obliged" as "havv"? Should we write "right" as in "human rights" as "right" and "right" as in "correct" as "ryte" and "right" as in "right-hand" as "riet"? How about "stick" as in "twig" as "stik" and "stick" meaning "to pierce" as "stick" and "stick" as in "to put" as "stikk"?''
Think of how many different spellings for ''set'' we'd need if we did that.
There's nothing wrong with spelling all homonyms the same way.
Should we write,
pen - ''pen'' (writing instrument) and ''penn'' (enclosure)
drink - ''drink'' (drink something), ''drinc'' (a beverage), ''drinck'' (drink alchohol), ''drinkk'' (a alcoholic drink).
date - ''date'' (on the calendar), ''dait'' (go on a date), ''deit'' (the food).
fish - ''fish'' (the animal), ''fysh'' (the plural of ''fish''), ''phish'' (to catch fish), ''physh'' (the meat from a fish).
vacuum - ''vacume'' (a vacuum cleaner), ''vaccume'' (space), ''vakume'' (to clean with a vacuum cleaner).
one - ''wun'' (the number), ''wunn'' as in (something one will find there).
Do we need all those distinct spellings? I don't think so. Nor do we need to spell ''two'', ''to'' and ''too'' differently.