Print

Print


Peter Clark scripsit:

>         None, really. I've heard the arguments and I just don't buy them. The plain
> and simple fact is that English dialects have diverged on such a wide scale
> that it would be impossible to invent a phonetic system to cover all of them.

Very true, hence RI is not a phonetic system.

>         No offense to the supporters of English spelling reform, but it's a lot like
> auxlanging in my mind; interesting in theory, but annoying, futile, and
> pointless in real life. I have no problem with toying with different schemes
> (much like the ideal auxlang discussion, rather than the usual flame-fest),
> but hypothetical simulations are as far as these proposals are ever going to
> get.

Probably true, but I like them for the same reason I like making up auxlangs.
Spelling reform is a species of engelanging.

--
John Cowan      [log in to unmask]        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?