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"?