David, law and grammar are similar in many ways.
They are both public consensus, the 'rules of the game'.
Why are you so strongly favoring one (constitution and law)
and completely disregarding the other (grammar)?
Just curious, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
I take it that u r probably referring to my fonetic spelling, Dag.
( If I fell into some different error of grammar, please indicate that with greater specificity. )
My loyalty is to sound reasoning
, including efficiency, rather than to tradition.
For many decades, I used conventional spelling, and corrected the spelling of my secretaries,
( this was before computers with spell check )
giving the matter little thought. I had other concerns.
Of more recent years,
I became aware ( as did Teddy Roosevelt ) of the inefficient foolishness
of continuing to support and perpetuate
an orthografic paradime
that is ( in some small
measure ) non-fonetic,
simply out of respect for wasteful tradition;
( i.e., that we shud CONTINUE
making this mistake because our forefathers made this mistake ).
Enuf is enuf.
I am aware of the simplicity of fonetic spelling in Spanish.
Thay teach their children to spell the natural way.
The Spanish shud not have a monopoly on good sense.
Ever hear of the Edgar Caycee story, of how his father
was emotionally tormenting him into learning to spell the rong way ? the unnatural way ?
I think that 's child abuse.
NOW is the time to subvert the old norm,
to the extent that it deviates from sound reasoning.
It is alien to reason to put an L
into wud, cud or shud.
There is no reason to add the letters UGH to the word tho,
and no good comes from doing it.
The convenient shorthand of text messaging is helping to accelerate
the adoption of logical spelling, realizing Teddy Roosevelt 's desires.
I believe that our species is tiring of carrying the useless wate
of non-fonetic spelling, and will soon lay it down.
It wud do so if I never existed, but I like to help the good side win
by showing another, easier
, alternative; a blessing of ease
n convenience to American children of the future.
I feel like a passenger in a car with many other people and a flat tire.
I suggest that we change the tire; I argue in favor of doing so.
I am confronted with indignant challenges that we have gone a long way
in these circumstances, and it is the consensus that I shud not be so radical
( nor so disrespectful of tradition )
as to suggest what I claim to be a more efficient way to travel.
I behold my fellow man persisting in error, for years n for decades.
I think that I shud ring the alarm bell LOUDLY
enuf to get attention
and then tear down the consensus and get the tire changed
I am sure that better foneticists will come along and polish
the result up. I don 't claim that my version is necessarily perfect.
Thanx for asking.