Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)

Jake X wrote:

>>Of course. Just as if nowadays you want to read books published four
>>hundred years ago in the original editions. Anybody with antiquarian
>>tastes or a fondness for the smell of old books would generally be
>>the sort of person with a taste for quaint orthography too.
>>
>>Certainly I don't think that millions of innocent children should be
>>unnecessarily tortured by orthography, just so the tiny minority who
>>enjoy the smell of antique books will not be alone in having to learn
>>archaic spellings.
>>
>>
>
>I protest your use of "archaic" but give in to the larger point without
>needing much convincing.  I hated spelling (even though I was good
>at it compared with my classmates).  Still, I would gag if it meant that
>all _our_ work learning this $%@{~ orthography would be lain to waste.
>
Look at it this way: if we respelt aul the current irregular wurds, the
present spellings *wood* be arcaic(?). And if Regularised Inglish wer
adopted, and I can certenly see it happening tomorroe, not aul ov yoor
wurk wood be 'lain too waste'; yoo'd simply need to remember the rules
and forget the exceptions. Yoo'd aulmoste certenly hav an easier time
lerning the new spellings than the Grade Prep or Kindergarten etc.
students ov the wurld.

(And I imagine a cupple of years arfta the change it'd look sumthing
like this in at least wun cuntry:
Look at it this way: if we respelt aul the current irregula wurds, the
present spellings *wood* be arcaic(?). And if Regularised Inglish wer
adopted, and I can certenly see it happening tomorroe, not ool ov yor
wurk wood be 'lain too waste'; yoo'd simply need to rememba the rules
and forget the exceptions. Yoo'd ormoste certenly hav an easia time
lerning the new spellings than the Grade Prep or Kindagarten etc.
students ov the wurld.)

Tristan

>
>

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?