Language revival (was Re: Which auxlangs? (was Re: Iwon't[to]start a flame war))

John Cowan wrote:
> True in case of radical ("by the roots", etymologically) spelling change;
> not true of a modest reform.
But what would be the point of a modest reform?  It would be hard to
come up with a spelling change that regularizes English without making
it illegible to Old Orthography Users.

And, think about this: many people find archaic spellings very
difficult, even when they're only slight differences like interchaning
"v" and "u" or "y" and "i" and "j".  Even a modest change would probably
still put older writing in a definitely archaic category, especially
since, I suspect, it would be easier to read the New Ortography if you
knew the Old than the other way around (due to the large number of
irregularities in the Old).  Imagine the poor child who only learned
"thru" encountering "through", or who knew "tuf" encountering "tough"

--
"Old linguists never die - they just come to voiceless stops." -
anonymous
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor