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

On 5/29/06, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> > > Here's a poll:
> > (P, Newton wrote:
> > Ooh, polls are fun.
> YES!!
> >
> > > 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.
No, these differences should be brought to life in our pronunciation
and celebrated!  "laugh" = /lawx/, "enough" = /enoux/, "might" =
/mIxt/, "mite" = /mitE/.  /hwat a great idea/!  ---larry