*sigh* OK, since the hopes of passing the topic quietly were for naught, I'm 
going into Rant Mode then.

[Tristan:]
> > unless we plan on creating two spellings for a fairly large
> > collection of words, "laff" is the most sensible spelling.
[Philip:]
>I'd rather say that unless we plan on creating two spellings for a
>fairly large collection of words, _"laugh"_ is the most sensible
>spelling, because it's what people are already used to.
>
>Current spelling is approximately phonemic; it might not be great but
>it serves its purpose more or less. It also blurs some distinctions
>(or underspecifies the sound), letting people with different accents
>each read their own vowel sound into the word.

So, you argue that the current spelling is phonemical enuff to work? And 
yet, "laugh" is not a phonemical spelling. Even the reason you give for 
defending it is people being used to it.

Yes, "laff" is not a perfect solution, but it is still *more phonemic* than 
the current spelling! The argument that dialects exist would be a very good 
one if I were proposing, say, conflating <wh> with <w>, or <ew> with <oo>. 
But *absolutely nobody* (or, to play safe, at best a minority so small that 
they can and should be ignored) pronounces "laugh" as [lO], or whatever the 
vowel you have in "caught" etc. is. Everyone has an /f/ at the end, and this 
/f/ is not reflected the least bit in the spelling.

"Laff" also already exists as a recognized alternate spelling. It gets 
almost 2M hits on Google; "laugh" 96M. That's 1-2% by _usage_. I know it's 
markedly "lower class", but I don't let that get in the way; it's still far 
from being as sanctioned as "U" or "sum" or "fite"...

(And why two effs? Simply because the general rule is that a final /f/ after 
an orthographic short vowel is written double.)


>See also http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm
>: J.C. Wells on "English accents and their implications for spelling
>reform".

I've read it long ago already. These are good reads too:
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html


>I think that varieties are too diverse for you to be able to make a
>completely phonemic orthography for English

And you are right. IMHO, estabilishing some sort of only slightly bug-fixed 
standard English for international usage + allowing more freedom dialectally 
seems like a good solution. Yes, that would require many people to 
essentially learn two languages, but you are _already_ doing that with the 
current spelling system; only the other one is always written, and the other 
one (almost) always spoken.


>and I'm not sure how much headway would be gained by making
>minimal changes that would make some bits more phonemic
>_for everyone_.
>
>Cheers,
>Philip

Even if you ignore the ubiquitous vowel length issues, English still has 
*heaps* of atrocities which violate the spelling rules in ALL dialects, such 
as "build", "choir", "colonel", "does", "island", "lose", "machine", 
"tongue", "would", "you"... I once made some statistical research on this, 
and such words make up at least some 2% of the language.


>It's somewhat similar in effect, though not magnitude, to
>someone arbitrarily deciding to spell /&/ with <aleph>. Stumbling block for 
>readers.
>
>--
>Shreyas

You don't think the purpose of spelling reform would be to help those who 
already have learned all the irregularities, do you? No, of course it's 
ultimately for the benefit of *new* learners, be they nativ or forrin.

John Vertical
PS. I hope I don't come across as hostile; I'm just stating my reasons.