RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

Talk:English spelling reform

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Why spelling reforms won't happen[edit]

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). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The existing system[edit]

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).

The peculiarities and paradoxes of English as it is can be used to confound malign computers (in the stories) and the spell check (in reality). Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Add some variant of the 'English spelling reformed into German' joke. Anna Livia (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not familiar with it. How does it go? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is one version [1] - though it produces 'Deutlish' rather than German. Anna Livia (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
A version of that first one is already in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please strike out this absurd association of graphic reform with crankhood[edit]

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[edit]

Can occur in a very short time - look at 'TV and sound recordings' of even a few decades ago (and when [2] was written the last two lines of the first verse rhymed).

Should there be mention of Newspeak? Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)