@oristarA,
oristarA wrote: I suggest, OmSig, if you insist the LAW of PRECISENESS AND LOGIC all day long,
that you MUST spell ALL your words in stardard English spellings.
For brevity, I will address you as A, if that is OK with you.
I was born in New York, and lived in Arizona & in California for a few years,
but I have lived my entire life (except for vacations) in America.
My education was in America. I was a trial attorney in New York for a few decades.
I am retired from the practice of law for many years.
When I was in practice as a lawyer, it never occurred to me
for a minute, nor any fraction thereof, to use fonetic spelling.
I had more important things to do. When addressing the Court
in writing as well as addressing other lawyers or anyone else,
I used fully paradigmatic spelling for years and for decades.
After my retirement, in retrospect,
I felt
guilty about contributing to the perpetuation of the illogical and inefficient
aspects of traditional spelling. I have some familiarity with the Spanish Language,
whose spelling is
very nearly 1OO% fonetic; it is spelled as it sounds.
Logically, that puts English to shame.
Almost all English words are
already pronounced the same as they are spelled,
but a far
inferior percentage than Spanish. The Spanish did it and
DO it the logical way.
When I began to use the Internet, around 2OOO, I decided to set a
good example
for my fellow citizens to encourage them to tear down
so much of conventional spelling as was illogical and inefficient.
I decided to show them better ways of spelling,
in hope of having them adopt the easier ways,
rejecting the bad old ways.
I am trying to support a paradigm shift among my countrymen.
This was attempted (unsuccessfully) by a very popular and respected
President of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, about 1OO years ago.
Now, the youth of America are supporting faster & easier writing.
I hope that this will accelerate and come to predominate.
On the
merits, the old paradigm does
not deserve to endure intact.
For instance: there is
NO logical reason
to add the letters
UGH to the word
tho.
There is no logical reason to
SOMETIMES, but
not always
spell the sound of
F as "ph"; that is foolishness, with no redeeming value.
In the words wou
ld, cou
ld and shou
ld, the letter L serves
no purpose.
It is simply
not helpful, yet 3OO,OOO,OOO Americans remain doing it year after decade, after century.
That is violence against logic and against efficiency; I choose not to be an accomplice thereto.
Among my own countrymen, I seek to
support a
REBELLION in defense of sound reasoning,
against stupid traditions of spelling. My ancestors were
less than perfect logicians qua spelling.
When I express myself on the Internet, I address my fellow native speakers of English.
Nearly all of them are adults, with years of linguistic experience.
They
KNOW and
understand the pattern that I am trying to tear down,
to the extent that it is not fonetic.
HOWEVER, in addressing an alien who requests advice on correct English,
I am very uncertain as to the propriety of showing you any variation
from orthodox usage, thoUGH I have
done it (perhaps out of habit).
It 'd be very unreasonable of me to enlist your support
in our local rebellion.
If you wish me to employ fully orthodox usage of English
on your threads, then I shou
Ld understand and comply with your wishes and your needs.
oristarA wrote: Precisely and logically speaking, What is u and r?
The letter
u is the only functionally operative part
of the word that is commonly written: you.
The letter
r is the only functionally operative part
of the word that is commonly written: are.
My ancestors were
foolish and illogical
in unnecessarily lengthening those words.
By showing the
correct ways of spelling them on Internet fora,
I was hoping to encourage everyone to adopt the better methods,
rejecting the bad, old traditions, the atavistic throwbacks to Chaucerian times
or earlier when English was closer to its Germanic origins.
oristarA wrote:Your persistence on these informal, wrong or short-lived cyber spellings has obviously put you in an inferior position in the debate and, contributed to the stark contrast to your "precise and logic image."
I respectfully disagree.
A
failure of
PERSISTENCE is inappropriate in a rebellion,
until success has been achieved. Between myself and my fellow citizens,
I argue that the short easy way is the
CORRECT way
and that the old established
non-fonetic way of spelling is incorrect
and an offense against sound reasoning
EXCEPT when rendering advice to an alien to the English Language
who solicits advice on conservative usage.
Note that in my advice to you, I have
NEVER suggested that you adopt
fonetic usage. I will not suggest that to you.
My dispute with Mr. Setanta concerned correct use of
grammar,
to wit: his
run-on sentences (too persistent in his years of posting).
This is an error of punctuation.
He never disagreed as to the error of using run-on sentences,
nor did he deny the definition of this particular error.
He merely threw another Setantrum.
His side of the argument was purely
ad hominem.
His side of the argument consisted of his questioning my mental health
and consisted of his declaration that I am a member of a different species
(indeed, one whose
hooves wouLd prevent him from typing Internet posts).
He then (ignominiously) fled the scene, not seen on this thread since.
His position was untenable.
When I have employed short fonetic forms (like u instead of you),
I did so in the belief that even with your limited knowledge of English,
you wou
Ld get the idea, because of its simplicity.
I re-iterate:
if you wish that I use only purely conventional English when addressing you,
I will comply because of your unique circumstances.
In any event, my advice as to your actual usage of English
has ALWAYS contemplated your use of perfectly standard, orthodox English spelling.
David
