🚀 go-pugleaf

>...it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words.  If you
>can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it.

Any written language that is *not* this regular is a pile of sh`t in my
self-righteous mind.  SHAME on the ineffectual linguists for being to
candy-@ssed to overcome the politics that have prevented such a revamping
as was done in the USSR.


>The thing to remember about all of this nonsense about reforming orthography
>is that English is comprised of words from many other languages...

This is indeed a problem.  Today, however, we can afford to take the effort
to corrupt foreign words to more compliant spelling forms.  A word in a
foreign language is *not* an English word.  If we as English-speakers embrace
it and choose to adopt/steal it, we have the right to butcher it as we see fit.
In fact, we have a responsibility to see that all new words, regardless of
their origins, conform to a given set of logical rules.
   Anyone who argues against the uniform application of logical rules in a
modern language in favor of artistic flavor or inorder to preserve the history
of the word is fighting against progress.  ;-)


>The beauty of this is that intelligent people...
>can look at a word they don't know, and make logical guesses about the meaning
>of the word, because of its spelling, which reflects the original language.

So true!  And I'm all in favor of storing as much information about a semantic
symbol (ie:  word) within its spelling, but we don't have to sacrifice
intuitive (with respect to a given logical set of rules) spelling to achieve
this:
>For example, take the two words threw and through.
   They're both spelled with counter-intuitive (<same paranthetical espression
as above>) spellings.  That's serves nothing but confusion.  Admittedly the
greatest mark of a language is what one can do with it, but another important
mark is its ease of acquisition.  Just because in the past languages that were
more powerful were more difficult to learn doesn't me they have to remain that
way.  All I'm arguing for is the policing of the English language to minimize
hap-hazardness and resolve seemingly conflicting rules.  It's not just
spelling.


>Clearly, these ('threw' & 'through') are from
>different root words in their original languages, and this information
>would be lost if spelling reformers got their hands on them.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    A comment like that reflects a half-baked thought.  (No flame intended.)
It is perfectly possible to adopt new spellings which embody *all* the
information contained in the archaic spellings and still conform to more
logical spelling rules.
   The presence of homonyms in any language reflects either a lack of
coordination or logic or both amongst its founders.  This is just another
example of the hap-hazard nature of English.  It's most intolerable amongst
people who respect order.


>So, as awkward
>as English orthography may be, it's best to leave it.

   You're more than welcome to be insensitive to the illogic of the English
language.  *I* would jump at the opportunity to reform it.

 
>Finally, if you want to change spelling so that it matches pronunciation,
>on whose pronunciation would you base it?  The Queen, or the people of
>Queens (NY)?  Ok, so that's extreme... here in Canada, the last syllable
>of Nissan (the car company) rhymes with "man," not "on."

   Regional dialects are rapidly evaporating as mass communication becomes
an integral part of modern society.  I don't give a hoot as to *whose*
pronounciation system we adopt ...so long as its logical and regular.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Brian (miller).
						       brian@cat50.cs.wisc.edu