Re: USAGE: No rants! (USAGE: di"f"thong)

li [Roger Mills] mi tulis la

> > > 1) Do you think English spelling should be reformed?
> > >
> > >  [X] No, it should not be reformed
> > >  [?] Yes, it should be reformed, but only slightly
> > >  [ ] Yes, and we need a whole now spelling
> > >  [ ] I don't care
> >
> Rather than should, I'd say _could_, but tinkering with one
> thing might open
> the proverbial can of worms. Perhaps the best candidate for
> elimination is
> "-gh", which happens informally already-- thru, thoro, -boro,
> nite, lite,
> plow ~plough, bow ~bough; regularizing cough, tough, laugh,
> enough would be
> a Good Thing....  but then site, mite, rite, bite et probably
> al. become
> ambiguous.
This is already fairly common with product names.  Advertising and
marketing people seem to love using things like "kwik", "rite", "tite",
"thru", "tuff", etc. when thinking up names for their warez.

But then again, what would happen to "there", "their" and "they're"?

Reply