>(M.E.) As I have said before, in my view the only credible spelling reform
>English would be that devised by Axel Wijk. This would not radically
>transform English spelling, but would simply clean up some of the worst
I have been a member of the Simplified Spelling Society (SSS) since March
(it has been in existence for about a century - the history of reform
attempts has indeed been long and 'thankless') and they are still
'wrangling' over the 'best method' of cramming some 44 (give or take...)
phonemes into 26 (inherently meaningless) 'signs' while trying to avoid
'scaring the horses' (making words look too bizarre). In France, too,
'everyone' agrees that spelling reform is 'absolutely necessary' but don't
you dare touch our beautiful, 'historic' national pride and joy! I agree -
let's try something 'completely different' - and which offers ONE (logical,
decipherable) sign for only one sound - does this sound like a 'wreckers'
> (M.E.) Doubtless the only way such a spelling reform were to be
implemented, however, would be if the non-native speakers of the world were
to get together and decide that they were going to do it.
The SSS includes a certain number of proposals by such speakers, notably
from 'the Indian sub-continent', but again they're trying to do it with the
alphabet - and any such changes will inevitably 'look strange' to anyone
who has already learned to 'spell'!
>(M.E.) The natives don't seem to have the will for it.
I had hoped I was addressing here an 'enlightened' (thus open to the
'spirit' of reform) group here - yes, its a struggle, and it may have its
'down-side' but for the reasons I set forth in my original 'letter' and
possibly even more especially for 'literacy', I believe a new way of reform
is more than worth pursuing!
JoAnne Marie, email@example.com
CV, Phonetics and Poetry on:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT