More off-topic drivel: Re: Language and English

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_conman.org>
Date: Fri Jan 4 18:34:53 2002

It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>
> If we could simply agree to spell through thru, as it's often done already,
> and tough as tuff, etc, it would be an improvement. Of course, there are
> still lots of possible syntax errors, e.g. there vs. their vs they're.

         A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
                          by Mark Twain

        For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

        Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

        Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

  -spc (Wondurfl!)
Received on Fri Jan 04 2002 - 18:34:53 GMT