Re: USAGE: English spelling reform`
|From:||John Cowan <cowan@...>|
|Date:||Friday, May 12, 2000, 20:35|
Nik Taylor scripsit:
> John Cowan wrote:
> > And indeed, how hard will it be to read the original? Not very, I submit.
> The more you talk about Regularized Inglish, the more that seems to be
> the only reasonable proposal I've seen. Of course, most proposals want
> as close to a one-to-one correspondence, which *would* make Old and New
> spelling mutually unintelligible. That's the kind of thing I was
> talking about.
Excellent! I've been promising to create a Reg.Ing. web site for
months now, and this weekend may actuall be when I get to work on it.
> > /ow ~ @w/: do (for "dough"), tho, altho;
> How's _do_ spelt?
"Doo", of course.
> > /ok/: hock (for "hough");
> What's that mean? I don't think I've ever seen that word. Also, why
> the final -ck, and not -k?
1) a certain cut of meat (part of the leg, or perhaps the whole leg,
I'm not sure)
2) to cripple by breaking the leg
3) apparently, some sort of digging tool
The first sense, at least, and maybe the others, have the alternative
spelling "hock", which is adopted by Reg.Ing.
spellings "hough" and "hock". Reg.Ing. discards the first in favor
John Cowan email@example.com
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin