--- On Sun, 1/20/13, Mathieu Roy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> What do you think of such "controlled" modifications over natlangs? 

Generally speaking, needless monkeying around by puffed up elitists who
can find nothing better to do than discover and "fix" problems that aren't
really problems in the first place.
> What do you think of people "writing in sound" (the way they hear).

Bad social engineering. English with its unreformed orthography allows
the engaged reader to read (though not necessarily understand) everything
ever written all the back to the Beginning of History when Julius Caesar
invaded England, thus causing the English language. The more "reformed"
we make an orthography, the harder it will be for anyone brought up on
the new version to read anything in the old version.

When you do something like this, and begin to teach
the younger generation to read and write this way, you end up destroying
their ability to read anything written before the Reform. You cut them off
from an independent study of previous generations' literature and force
them to read whatever it is the Central Committee decided is worthy of
translation into the new orthography. If language informs culture, then I
as a Central Planner could determine the way future culture moves by the
nature of the orthographical Reform and the content of the literature
that gets "translated". Or at least make an attempt at the same.

For example, were I such a Central Planner, I may not want the newly
educated children to read such dangerous books as the Bible or Moliere or
Locke. Whereas those little skulls full of mush are perfectly fine with
Harry Potter or teenage werewolves or any other relatively innocuous 
stories that don't obviously put subversive thoughts in their heads.

There's always the risk of a Winston Smith to come along, though.

> Mathieu