Talk:English spelling reform
Why spelling reforms won't happen
The bakery product eaten with cream and jam is pronounced two different ways, and the place in Scotland from which the stone was taken has a third; 'you say tomayto I say tomato'; I say 'book, us and five' others in the UK say 'buuk, uz and faive.'
No doubt there was as much discussion on Spelling Reform when 'scholars, traders to towns outside the locality and others' communicated outside their localities - and when printing made general literacy practical. (And wasn't the reference in 1066 and All That to 'weeny, weedy and weakly' a reference to different pronunciation systems in Latin - which might have caused problems). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The existing system
Can have a certain logic to it (some of the prefixes, suffixes, verbal endings etc) which would be lost if the spelling were 'reformed.'
Quite a lot of puns and other humour, and other aspects would be lost (the Sherlock Holmes story where 'plow/plough' on a business card is a giveaway).
- Not familiar with it. How does it go? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Please strike out this absurd association of graphic reform with crankhood
Being crank has nothing to do with linguistic/semiotic expression. Just look at all the sensational spellings in brands & art. Drawing a line between art & formality is beyond the scope of science, to which pertain the topic of pseudoversions & crankhood. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Changes over time
Can occur in a very short time - look at 'TV and sound recordings' of even a few decades ago (and when  was written the last two lines of the first verse rhymed).