@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:except that going by the bulk of other words similarly spelled they woulde not be pronounced the same as the words the rest of the world spells would, should, and could, but like cud, what a cow chews, and the other would rhyme with that, wud would not be pronounced lkike that other word that's pronounced like wood. Your system adds another layer of non-systematicness to the language. And it is NOT phonetic, since you don't know phonetics and English has something approaching a dozen and a half more phonemes than we have letter, in total contradistinction to Spanish, which is very close to having one phoneme per letter. Until you actually address the specific structure of English, David, you're going to keep on producing a half-assed non-system that is no improvement on the one we have now
TRUE that it is not a system.
As I 've posted quite a few times, I 'll leave that to professional
lexicografers who write a fonetic dictionary.
My chosen function is to show easier, faster and less ridiculous ways of spelling.
I 'm (figuratively) sanding down n smoothing out the ruffest edges.
In the 1960s, thay used to say: "if u r not part of the solution,
u r part of the problem." I am guilty of spelling the rong way,
paradigmatically, most of my life. I was complicit
in perpetuating the anti-logical inefficiency.
David
