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

Nik:
> 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"
The child should set the options on their software to convert Old
spellings to New. As time goes on, that should fix more and more
instances of the problem.

--And.