Linguistic Shortcomings.

Jean-Luc Delatre (Kevembuangga) jld at
Fri Sep 14 23:17:00 PDT 2007

Le Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:22:39 -0400,
Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntwork at> a écrit :

> Ha ha! /me points.
> I just noticed that your last example is in fact rubbish!

Excuse me but instead of bickering about current spelling may be we could settle the disputes by *improving* the spelling according to an already known plan:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling, by Mark Twain.

For example, in Year 1 the useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased
either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet.
The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which
will be dealt with later. 
Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same 
konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 
might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing
awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and
the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. 
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez 
"c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- 
tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, 
kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list