English spelling reform proposals

cubeeggs   Thu May 06, 2010 12:53 am GMT
cubeeggs   Thu May 06, 2010 12:57 am GMT
Sorry, the Deseret link should be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet
Thaddeus   Thu May 06, 2010 12:58 am GMT
It's amazing that people would waste their time trying to fix something that's not even a problem. English spelling is pure perfection the way it currently is and needs no reform ever.
Leasnam   Thu May 06, 2010 3:35 am GMT
Oh, yoo hav got too bee kidding me right?

Not dhiss again
Uk   Thu May 06, 2010 7:33 am GMT
There is no problem with the English Spelling..!! The English don't have no problems with it, same as the none English people don't have problems spelling their language.

Instead of coming on here and crying about it just go learn it..!!
Bee   Thu May 06, 2010 10:28 am GMT
"The English don't have no problems with it, same as the none English people don't have problems spelling their language."

Uk- your spelling isn't a problem, but your grammar certainly is...

English spelling is difficult, and often doesn't make much sense. Written English is highly irregular, and many people have trouble with it. Including native speakers, I might add. While English is very difficult in this way, we're used to it. I seriously doubt that it will be changed in one big sweep. Over the centuries changes will obviously occur, but I doubt anyone will be willing to adhere to new spelling rules. The written structure of languages isn't that easy to change.
...   Thu May 06, 2010 12:55 pm GMT
I'm sorry Bee, but as difficult as English may be, stripping the language off of 98% of its contents and turning it into a kind of retarded bastard is NOT a solution.

Only because people don't put any effort into studying English, it doesn't mean that it needs to be simplified. People are the problem, not English.

It's not Chinese goddammit, it's English.
Bee   Sun May 09, 2010 3:51 am GMT
"I'm sorry Bee, but as difficult as English may be, stripping the language off of 98% of its contents and turning it into a kind of retarded bastard is NOT a solution."

I never said it was. I said that it's difficult. I also said that it won't be changing any time soon. I never suggested that we should re-work English.
Leasnam   Sun May 09, 2010 12:54 pm GMT
Shut your stupid mouth Bee, you don't know what your talking about..!!
Steak 'n' Chips   Sun May 09, 2010 3:35 pm GMT
Gosh, all this guff again.

All the phonetic "reform" do-gooder ideas would do is split a common written language into written dialects (rhotic vs non-rhotic, etc).

The most English should do is consider shifting BrE spelling to the US standard. But there's really no point in that except to save publishers a few pennies.

At a push, maybe we could consider deleting a few of the letters that are universally unpronounced in the English speaking world, like the GH in "I'm throuGH with this stupid topic".
Fo'c'sle   Sun May 09, 2010 4:14 pm GMT
I think, that the only change could be done by replacing some messy spellings by very informal ones. What about words: through-> thru, love -> luv, something - sumthing, though- tho', biscuit- bizkit, nothing - nuthing, light -lite, night - nite - but it's just a few words and plus maybe dieresis will be back (optionally)...
Bee   Mon May 10, 2010 7:47 am GMT
"Shut your stupid mouth Bee, you don't know what your talking about..!!"

Oh, really? Your eloquence astounds me. That's put me in my place, hasn't it?
Leasnam   Mon May 10, 2010 8:36 am GMT
Yes.!! now keep it shut..!!
Hoaxed   Mon May 10, 2010 11:06 am GMT
That's not the real Leasnam writing you, Bee. Best to ignore it till the monitors can delete it.
Bee   Mon May 10, 2010 12:00 pm GMT
Hoaxed, shall we get together for a deep throat session or what..?