Re: more English orthography

From: "AcadonBot

> > DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> > Well, I was born just outside the standard Newyorkese isogloss bundle
> > (/oi/ -> /@/, e.g.) but I have [mejri], [m&ri], and [mEri] quite
> > clearly.
>
> All three are the same for me
It was John Cowan who has the three-way distinction. I have a two-way
distinction. You make no distinction. Most of the literature I've read on
the subject notes these three types of dialectal variety. What does any of
this mean in terms of orthographic reform?

My two cents: I don't consider myself that old, but I guess I'm a
curmudgeonly old traditionalist. Words like "thru", "lite", and "nite" are
so intimately attached to (gimmicky) advertising in my mind ("drive-thru",
"Seven Seas Lite Dressing", and perhaps on a cinema marquee [where space is
limited] "Half price tonite")(where I readily accept them), that aside from
experimental poetry, I'd have a hard time dealing with such spellings in a
serious piece of prose. Should they ever become the standard spelling, I
would rather see it occur as it does now, slowly and naturally over time
(as, say, "draft" for "draught" or "plow" for "plough"), than through some
sweeping spelling reform. To be sure, other languages have had their
spelling reforms, but my recent experience with Germans over the latest
German spelling reform is that they're confused about some of the new rules,
don't agree with some of the others, and reluctantly think some are those
whose time has come. I would suspect that there will be, therefore, a
generation, maybe two, of spelling mush. And how much better is that than
just letting orthographic nature run its course?

Asbestos donned,

Kou