contrex wrote:
Quote:By that reassoning, for the benefit of those people,
we shoud interfere with smoothly organized systems
to introduce unnecessary troubles n inconveniences.
Not at all. In any case, I wasn't advancing any "reasoning";
I was just observing that dumbing down a rich, complex and subtle language
to conform to crackpot notions would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It is very surprizing that u choose characterize the idea
that the spelling of words shoud conform to their pronunciation
as "crack pot notions". I take exception to your assertion that
conforming one to the other is "dumbing down" anything.
It boggles the mind that u think that adding UGH to the word tho
is helpful somehow, or that it is more intelligent to spell
the word enuf as enough. That is just rong; it makes no sense.
Do u think it will be better if the Spanish change their spelling
to ways that it is not pronounced? Will thay be better off, if thay do that?
As opposed to "dumbing down" English by rendering its spelling fonetic,
woud the Spanish
SMARTEN UP their spelling by twisting it
out of accordance with how thay speak?? I don't think so.
If u put that to a vote in Spain, I believe it woud not prevail.
The Spanish woud probably consider that to be a "crack pot notion."
Your reference to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
seems to suggest that I had recommended ending the use of English.
The vast majority of English words r already fonetic; only a relative few remain to be fixed.
I agree that English is "a rich, complex and subtle language"
and I expect it, as spoken by Tom Brokaw, to take over the world,
but we have yet to
polish it to smooth out some ruff edges;
work that shoud have been done long ago; better late than never -- for the children.
and for Tom Brokaw
David
