Title: A Piece on English Spelling Reform
Post by: Dominic NY18 on July 27, 2009, 05:41:51 pm
Post by: Dominic NY18 on July 27, 2009, 05:41:51 pm
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.
It's often attributed to Mark Twain, but those who know about his works say there's no evidence he wrote this.
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.
It's often attributed to Mark Twain, but those who know about his works say there's no evidence he wrote this.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 27, 2009, 05:52:23 pm
Post by: DarthPaul on July 27, 2009, 05:52:23 pm
Funnily enough if you edit the protocol in your brain to accommodate each rule change as stated you will be able to understand this entirely. The problem I faced was accidental starting this message the first time with all the new rules applied.
Needless to say thank you Dom I laughed my ass off. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Needless to say thank you Dom I laughed my ass off. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 27, 2009, 06:49:46 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 27, 2009, 06:49:46 pm
Funy, I guess. I don't like the voist part, because when said voiced and voist sound plenty different. So maybe voisd.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 27, 2009, 08:03:44 pm
Post by: philsov on July 27, 2009, 08:03:44 pm
but if we got rid of X, why is it in the final sentence?
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 27, 2009, 08:35:43 pm
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 27, 2009, 08:35:43 pm
Quote from: "philsov"but if we got rid of X, why is it in the final sentence?I was thinking the same thing.
:gay:
Except I didn't point a gay sign at it.
Title:
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on July 27, 2009, 08:46:28 pm
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on July 27, 2009, 08:46:28 pm
Title:
Post by: PX_Timefordeath on July 27, 2009, 08:57:36 pm
Post by: PX_Timefordeath on July 27, 2009, 08:57:36 pm
Read the sentence before that.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 27, 2009, 09:01:51 pm
Post by: DarthPaul on July 27, 2009, 09:01:51 pm
Quote from: "philsov"but if we got rid of X, why is it in the final sentence?
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.
Title:
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 08, 2009, 05:19:52 pm
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 08, 2009, 05:19:52 pm
Bump