Hoo wunts speling too chaenj?
<<witch - wich (cf. ''sandwich'', ''rich'')
switch - swich
pitch - pich
glitch - glich>>
No, I wouldn't change "tch" to "ch", because "tch" and "dg(e)" are, in fact, the regular "doubled" form of the affricates "ch" and "j". If anything, "rich" and "sandwich" are the irregular spellings.
Remember, my suggestions were just intended to make things a little more consistent, not to make sweeping changes.
I'd prefer ''controle'' and ''patrole'' over ''controll'' and ''patroll''.
<<paid - payed
laid - layed (cf. ''played'', ''prayed'')>>
<<I'd prefer ''controle'' and ''patrole'' over ''controll'' and ''patroll''.>>
Al, you've started to open up a whole can of worms and reminded me why I'm opposed to spelling reform in the first place. ;-)
/waI A@r ju @gEnst spElIN rIfOrm hu Ev@` ju A@r/
I wonder who can read that?
Sorry, the "Guest" above is me.
Here are my suggestions. Remove all the unnecessary double letters rather than unnecessarily lengthening words:
more - mor
before - befor
fell - fel
bell - bel
etc.
We don't really need double letters at the ends of words. We don't write ''redd'', ''onn'' and ''fedd'', so why should we write ''fell'' and ''bell''? We don't need double letters there anymore than we need them in ''red'' and ''fed''.
It would save a bunch of paper and many environmentalists would prefer it.
<<Here are my suggestions. Remove all the unnecessary double letters rather than unnecessarily lengthening words:
more - mor
before - befor
fell - fel
bell - bel
etc.
We don't really need double letters at the ends of words. We don't write ''redd'', ''onn'' and ''fedd'', so why should we write ''fell'' and ''bell''? We don't need double letters there anymore than we need them in ''red'' and ''fed''.>>
Well in this instance I have to stick up for many of my fellow Eastern New Englanders who preserve the horse-hoarse distinction, and would pronounce "more" and "before" as [mO@] and [bIfO@] but "mor" and "befor" as [mQ] and [bIfQ]. Again, you're reminding me why I am opposed to spelling reform. ;-)
<<Well in this instance I have to stick up for many of my fellow Eastern New Englanders who preserve the horse-hoarse distinction, and would pronounce "more" and "before" as [mO@] and [bIfO@] but "mor" and "befor" as [mQ] and [bIfQ]. Again, you're reminding me why I am opposed to spelling reform. ;-)>>
For us rhotic Eastern New Englanders that preserve the distinction (me included) they'd be:
more - /mor/
before - /bIfor/
mor - /mOr/
befor - /bIfOr/
The main matter is that any attempt to "fix" the current system will probably just have as many problems as before, as in many cases, there is practicaly no consistent underlying pattern to make things consistent with in the first place. All one will end up doing is creating new exceptions or just creating exceptions to the exceptions at best. This is part of why I prefer a more systematic approach, despite the difficulties of such, because such produces something that is logically clean and consistent (if done right) from the ground up rather than attempting to make do with something which is probably best left put rather than twiddled with so as to make it more "logical".
What's the horse-hoarse distinction?
Of course, I'm not saying that creating a new system from the ground up is easy. Hell, just trying to agree on what the phonemes to represent are in the first place would be quite hard in practice...
Uv koors, aim not seing dhaet kri'eting a nu sistam frum dha graund up iz izi. Hel, djust traiing tu agri on hwat dha foniemz tu reprizzent aar in dha ferst plees wuod bi kwait haard in praektis...
>>What's the horse-hoarse distinction?<<
It's a distinction between /or/ and /Or/ that some dialects have; in this case "horse" would have /Or/ and "hoarse" would have /or/.
I second Lazar's thauts.
Another change that I could tolerate would be the extension of the American "instil < instill", "fulfil < fulfill" modification to include words like "control (< controll)" and "compel (< compell)".