Lordyaswas wrote:OF COURSE!
My issue with it is the fact that you spell your words how you
possibly pronounce them, as opposed to the universal way that everyone is taught.
I use English as spoken in New York.
That is how everyone
shud speak it. Its Manifest Destiny
, what Nature intended.
For instance, when I see your word 'cud' for could, I immediately think 'cow chewing'.
I know, but the same spelling can apply to 2 different definitions.
Seldom do we have occasion to refer to the digestion of cattle.
Maybe, to differentiate, we can decide that cows will chew their cudds.
I will not be invited to decide the details.
When I was on-the-job, my spelling was fully paradigmatic;
I feel guilty
for that. I was complicit in illogic.
If you wish to spell could the way it is pronounced, surely you would try cood.
But then again, cood with a double o could also be pronounced like food is pronounced, or door.
My technique of doubling the d rendering it: cudd is easier to handle. "Where there is a will, there is a way."
So it's not very clever, is it?
No, it IS
and your question implies a non-sequitur
Better to stick to how we were all taught at school,
rather than save a few seconds here or there on a misguided economy of effort,
No. That is very poor reasoning
and toxic for future generations whose minds will be abused in school
for no reason other than a lazy failure to up-date since Chaucerian times,
and disdain for logic and efficiency. We got to the top of the food chain by use of correct logic.
Let 's not betray that logic. I 'm very pleased
that the young
have trained themselves in fonetic spelling for use in their fones despite
is a testament to the versatility, creativity n liberty of the human mind.