Print

Print


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 <>.

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.