🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2763@puff.cs.wisc.edu> brian@cat50.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) writes:
>>...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.

(How many people outside the USSR speak Russian?  How many people
outside of the US speak English?  Not very comparable.)

What is the value of a language?  Well, if I know English I can listen
to radio phone-in shows and I can read USENET.

I can also read Shakespeare (Though I'm not sure I know how to spell it).

What if we regularized English?  

First, to get people to change, we would need French-style language
police (only worse) checking up on the radio shows and trying to
control us on USENET.  How successful would they be?  How many people
do you personally know who speak Esperanto?

In a `free society' I don't think it would work, nor would it work
here.  

It would only make matters more muddled and worse--but--it might
accomplish *just* enough that any children or grand children I ever
have might *not* be able to read Shakespeare, and certainly not
Chaucer.

English is an extremely powerful and rich language, it is *the* most
widely known language (yes, more than even Chinese), and (to put it in
computer terms) it has the largest installed base (i.e., literature).

Do you really think some language committee would do any better?  Then
have the US Congress, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Ireland, many others, *and* the UN each tack on a few
amendments?  Translate everything in the New York Public Library and
Harvard's Libraries and the Library of Congress and the British Museum
and ...

Don't be silly.  

Kent Borg
kent@lloyd.uucp
or
...!husc6!lloyd!kent