Tristan Alexander McLeay wrote:
> imho, <z> is just about the ugliest letter in the world! (Although I've
> modified my console font to make it look a bit better) Any excuse to be
> rid of the creature is a good one! (I once created a revised spelling
> system that used <s> for /z/ (and <c> for /s/)...)
Heh. Reminds me of my comment to a correspondent whose typewriter's `c'
key was broken:
In zirkumstanzes suxh as yours, it is kustomary . . .
> Me? I find the British spellings illogical, the American revisions
> illogical (why get rid of the <u> in <colour>, when it's presence
> doesn't do anything (it being an unstressed syllable),
To save ink?
> but leave the <u> in <four> intact, even though that's the one that's
> going to make it rhyme with `hour'?).
Because <for> has another meaning, and is normally pronounced
differently.
> . . . Why use dbl quotes for a single quote?
Why use single quote for double quote?
American practice is to put the weaker mark within the stronger mark.
The difference between quotation and narrative outweighs that
between outer quotation and subquotation.
--
Anton Sherwood -- http://www.ogre.nu/