No, no, no

7 Aug 2008 10:00 pm
karohemd: by LJ user gothindulgence (Balthasar)
[personal profile] karohemd
and no.

I'm all up for simplifying spelling (good examples of spelling reforms: Norwegian, Danish and Dutch, bad example: German) but allowing variations only leads to even more confusion.

Date: 8/8/08 01:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] echo-echo.livejournal.com
But without those changes language would never evolve. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, who knows. Shakespeare for example, was notoriously variable in his spelling and prone to inventing words, yet who would argue that English as a language is not richer for it?

Date: 8/8/08 05:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] slev.livejournal.com
At the minute though, we have no standard system of spelling, only a large list of standard spellings with no rhyme or reason.

This is why, as a dyslexic, I had such trouble learning to spell - I was looking for a system where none exists.

Date: 8/8/08 08:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thepussykat.livejournal.com
Interesting, surely if we adopted spelling simplifications along those lines we'd just be writing in American rather than English?

(Sweeping generalisation I know but...)

Date: 9/8/08 03:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dreamsewing.livejournal.com
I agree. English being the most hodge-podge irregular language in the world, it does NOT need more "varients" in existing words than it has already.
Trying to explain "right,wright,write,rite" ( which comes up a lot when trying to leave notes for my foreign local help) usually gets the reponse; " but why don't you have different words for these things" . * snort* yeah. It's really a mad language.

June 2025

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 14 Nov 2025 04:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios