It's too ridiculous for being modern. Simplify it!

"Except that 'koo-loo-ah' is not the French pronunciation anyway. I meant that out of 'color', 'colour' and 'couleur', the final spelling makes the most sense to me *if* it is pronounced as an English word with an RP accent. "

I never said that I knew the correct French pronunciation. I was merely pointing out the meaning of their post, which you seemed to miss. You should have directed that response to them, not me.

Robertico, I know you're talking about spelling with more sense than these people. They're breaking their heads trying to fix the English
instead of ignoring its crazy rules. The real English is made in England,
and the other ones are reformers or dialects which will change so much
to become new separate languages.

"The real English is made in England, and the other ones are reformers or dialects which will change so much to become new separate languages"

That's what's happening in England itself where only a minority speak the English that was made in England. The speakers of RP are that minority.

<<The speakers of RP are that minority.>>

At least, so they think.

I was recognized for my brilliant idea to do a spelling reform which became a huge failure and time loss.

I've heard that some people who have learned to speak English, have got
sick mentally. Don't be them, too.

<I am a little disturbed myself that there is a growing trend in Australia to spell words like "centre", "theatre", "colour" and "humour" the American way: "center", "theater", "color" and "humor".>

Hear hear, Jim.

<Nothing against British English per se, it's sometimes more erudite and grammatically correct than American English>

No truer statement has been made on this forum, Brennus, although you could change "British" to "Commonwealth" and "sometimes" to "invariably", and it would still be correct.

"The R is a separate issue if you're rhotic (as you should be)."

Sorry Madam, but I just don't have the time to pronounce all the extra syllables required of rhotic speakers.

Life is far too shorr-ut, and even if I had all the time in the worr-uld to give it a whirr-ul, the efforr-ut would have sapped my enerr-ugy so much I'd probably not have found the perr-ufect girr-ul, Shirr-uley, mother of our twins Pearr-ul and Carr-ul, or have made the dollarr-us to buy our house in Perr-uth, our larr-uge aparr-utment in Barr-ucelona or our time-share in Berr-umuda.

Argh, not the "suckle at the teat of mother Jack Union" routine again. The Queen is quite happy as an independent woman without such tittle-tattling.

Please stop embarrassing the other Antipodeans and excommunicate yourself back to Tasmania, father Ted. Cheers, mate.

You're the only one displaying the Tasmanian extra head, "Guest", which may be some compensation for your spinelessness.

Fine, Father T, but the allegiance cliché is juvenile at this point in history.

Uriel Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:07 am GMT
>>Colour, humour, favour -- I've never understood why it takes two letters to spell a schwa! ;) <<

Certenly that's true!

"'Twas modelled on the French." is as good a why it takes two ... wasn't that three? ... letters to spell a schwa as you'll ever get.

<<Life is far too shorr-ut, and even if I had all the time in the worr-uld to give it a whirr-ul, the efforr-ut would have sapped my enerr-ugy so much I'd probably not have found the perr-ufect girr-ul, Shirr-uley, mother of our twins Pearr-ul and Carr-ul, or have made the dollarr-us to buy our house in Perr-uth, our larr-uge aparr-utment in Barr-ucelona or our time-share in Berr-umuda.>>

Nice try, but coming from a rhotic speaker, all those words with r's that you added an extra syllable to have just as many as the non-rhotic version. For example "short" - one syllable, "Shirley" - two syllables.

And what's the point of arguing with Ted? He obviously believes what he wants to believe. Wait til a Briton comes and says only BrE is correct and all other variations (including Commonwealth English) are wrong. Ted here will be fuming. Transparent as they come.

Spelling reform might be simple in other languages, except in English.

Some samples which could confuse in spelling reform.

know no / noe ???
no no / noe ???

to tue / tu / too / teu ???
too tue / tu / too / teu ???
two tue / tu / too / teu ???

they're dhae'r / dhe'r ???
there dhaer / dher ???
their dhaer / dher ???

capital capitul / kapitul ???
capitol capitul / kapitul ???

There's no precise and individual orthographic adaptation for us in English. This language was created from Old English, later with Norman French, a bit of Latin and Greek, which it became Middle English. In Modern English the pronunciation was changed and the spelling as well.

There's no excuse to change the spelling to follow the origin of each word, but that's what happened to words like "recei(p)t and dou(b)t".