A person would know about the homograph problems when they use it in practice but I should explain about it: written communication is target audience from different contexts so contextual information is often not available to clarify the homophones. Furthermore. the readers cannot always ask the writer to clarify the homophones since the written massages is written at a different time period, location, and situations from the readers. Spoken communication, in contrast, often involve parties within similar situation so the homophone could be clarified with shared contextual information. Spoken communication is often a two-way process so the listener can, directly or indirectly, ask the speaker to clarify the homophones. On 28 Jul 2017 at 21:41:22, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Why is that a problem? Clearly, the fact that these words are homophonous is not a problem in speech, so why would it be a problem if the same words were also "homophonous" (homographous) in writing? Aside from simply having to adjust to the change after already having learned the existing system, that is, which which is a problem regardless of the precise nature of any reform proposal. >Not that I'm against using silent letters to distinguish homophonous words; I think that's a perfectly fine approach, and can even be made into a principled one in a few different ways (I'd suggest using silent coda consonants derived from the modern word's etymology- whatever used to be there before sound changes created the homophones in the modern language.) I just don't see why it should automatically be assumed to be necessary.