On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Languages change a little bit each day. The spelling is not regular
> because the language changed out from under the spelling. If we
> completely cleaned up and regularized spelling today, in a few hundred
> years, after more changes to the language, that "regularized" spelling
> would be irregular again, because it would no longer match the new
> pronunciation and usage.

So all we have to do is regularize the spelling, then use the spelling to
establish what the correct pronunciation is.  Of course, there will be
cries of prescriptivism, but it's necessary to prescribe a standard if
we're going to maintain a single language; the alternative is splitting
into dozens and then hundreds of mutually incomprehensible dialects and

Besides, we already maintain a prescribed standard for spelling.  It's just
that it's contrary to intuition, difficult to learn, and requires massive
amounts of memorization of arbitrary exceptions.  Why not bite the bullet
and establish a similar standard for pronunciation?

Matt G.

German has a very straightforward and quite simple spelling system, and
it's very closely related to English.  Why can't we manage it?

> The Chinese have found the solution to that problem. Make spelling to
> be about meaning, not sound. Even that is no guarantee. Don't forget
> the proverbial high compliment given St. Paul's Cathedral: "awful,
> pompous, and artificial."
> --gary
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Mike Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hum, any here worked as a clerk or typist? Typing goes faster if you do
> not
> > have to stop and remember some exception to the normal way of things..
> >
> > Ti-is SH in "motion" and the O has a U sound, at least in the way I
> speak.
> > And I believe in several other forms I know how to speak.
> >
> > So the spelling might be Mowshun? and not Motion? Or Moeshun?
> >
> > Mike