Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:parados wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:
Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.
ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.
I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows,
inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either,
robust fellow that he was.
David
Example #1 for you David,
You didn't deal with a single thing I said in my post. Why? It was clear and to the point. Instead you posted a non sequitor.
Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:parados wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:
Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.
ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.
I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows,
inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either,
robust fellow that he was.
David
Example #1 for you David,
You didn't deal with a single thing I said in my post. Why? It was clear and to the point. Instead you posted a non sequitor.
I think that the pivotal point,
the pivotal difference, is this:
whereas MY adaptations are done to be easy n convenient,
your use of pig Latin is NOT easy to understand.
There 's the contrast.
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.
Everyone knows pig latin. Why wouldn't they? It is easy to understand.
Did anyone claim to understand the fractured spellings you peddle?
I don't believe they did.
Yet you claim they should understand it just because you use it. I think my point is made but I don't think you will ever get it.
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:
Did I claim to know pig Latin ?
I don t believe that I did.
Everyone knows pig latin. Why wouldn't they? It is easy to understand.
Did anyone claim to understand the fractured spellings you peddle?
I don't believe they did.
Yet you claim they should understand it just because you use it.
I think my point is made but I don't think you will ever get it.
Lemme get this straight:
do u assert that when a citizen of A2K
reads
vu instead of
view,
or
enuf instead of
enough, he will not understand what it is ?
and that the context is irrelevant ?
David, your "adaptations" are neither easy nor convenient, nor are they consistent. Since I do in fact know something about phonetics--and I see little evidence that you do--when I see "vu" I read it as most phonetic systems would pronounce it, which in usual English orthography would be "voo" (like the French "vous"). It is, of course, not that in your personal idiosyncratic system. Nor is it the same "u" vowel sound in your word "shud". Nor is it the same vowel sound as in "mud", which you also used in your post. It is, in other words, a completely new inconsistency that you are foisting upon us, that you expect us to decode, in the name of "convenience".
Your system is half-assed. It is not well thought out. It is not systematic. It is not shared by anyone other than you, and so it does not promote communication.
To take another really ill-considered example. You replace "paradigm" with "paradime", but leaving aside the question of whether you are really ahead when you replace a spelling with one silent letter with a spelling that has a completely different silent letter, WTF are you going to do with the adjectival form "paradigmatic", which has a not-at-all-silent hard G? If you spell it "paradigmatic", you have lost all connection with the noun it comes from ("paradime"). If you spell it "paradimatic", from your "paradime", it isn't phonetic because you have lost the hard G that is in the actual word as it is pronounced. Half-assed all the way.
For some reason, David reminds me of William Steig's kid's-book classic "C D B! (See the Bee!)" (except that Steig was easier to understand, and more fun).
O, O, I C A B. K-N U C D B ?
S, I C A B 2. E S A L-O B.
E S A B-Z B.
Kepe eeyore bluddy hanz awf r langwidj (that's phonetic. Really easy, quick, and convenient to read, isn't it?)
Kepe eeyore bluddy hanz awf r langwidj (that'z funetic. Reelee ez, quick, n convenyent 2 rede, izn it?)
