i wonder if he meant 'judgement' *with* E becoming acceptable? cf: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judgment%2Cjudgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= anyway, the problem with losing final "silent" <e> on a large scale is that now we'd have no way to differentiate the spelling of (what are traditionally called) long and short vowels. at least in the US, silent-E is deeply ingrained in our perception of how long vowels should be written. you can eat something that is calorie-lite, shop at Rite Aid, wish someone good nite, eat a Veggie Delite. i know this particular thing was not even mentioned in the article. but i am really excited by the idea of English orthographic change, however gradual, so i thought i'd bring it up. on a tenuously related note, i am all for bringing back <þ>. matt On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Mechthild Czapp <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 01.06.2013, at 19:22, Matthew George wrote: > > > Americans managed to drop many of the worst orthography-pronunciation > > mismatches, but we still preserve lots of them. It'd be nice to lose the > > worst offenders against clarity - particularly 'ugh', which is perfectly > > easily understood by itself but takes on a bizarre suite of > pronunciations > > within words. > > > > I suppose it would be too much to hope for to make a few extra letters in > > addition... > > > > Matt G. > > I think your best bet for a completely regular orthography is a North > Korean invasion with subsequent forbidding or discouragement of the use of > the Latin alphabet.