http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/pamflets/p8fonetik.php
I think it's a wonderful idea, but it would be difficult for me to master it. It would take an entire generation of believers to make it work. I don't evin no if I speld dhu werds ubuv riet.
Wut wud bee dhu reezult uv adopting a noo speling?
2006-07-18 16:53:09 · 12 answers · asked by cucumberlarry1 6 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
The result of a new spelling system would be that even if it caught on, everyone would have to learn the old one, until every important book, magazine, or catalogue, from the dawn of the age of printing until now, was re-written into "new-spell".
40 or more years ago, a Chicago newspaper tried simplified spelling, and basically had to give it up. Regardless of how lousy our present spelling rules are, no one wanted to learn a second set of rules, and frankly, some of the simplified spellings looked either unsophisticated or stupid, and none of the readers wanted to be thought of as stupid.
2006-07-18 16:59:22 · answer #1 · answered by Ogelthorpe13 4 · 9⤊ 2⤋
I have already learned one spelling system for English. Although I am aware that the spelling system I know is not a very good representation of the pronunciation of English, I have no reason to learn another one at this time. Call it laziness.
(Actually, I am actually already capable of using an alphabet which has a one-to-one relationship between symbols and the sounds they represent. It's called the IPA, the International Phonetic Alphabet. So maybe the simplified-spelling people should look into it.)
2006-07-19 07:13:22 · answer #2 · answered by drshorty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as what you wrote can be understood, I don't think the spelling matters. There is such an emphasis placed on spelling in today's elementary schools with a spelling test each week, and What we really need is grammar structure. There are people from other countries in america that do not speak proper language yet their point is understood. So if this is acceptable, why should we fret over spelling? If it was all oral, no one would even realize you misspelled something!
2006-07-18 18:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by garielee2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can type over 65 words a minute but if I changed to simpel speling it would be more like 5 words a minute. Makes my head hurt.
2006-07-18 17:16:19 · answer #4 · answered by superrrmodel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, this would be the forum to break ground with, as there are so many folks here who already seem to do it because of their haste, poor education, or because they think it is cool. I feel as though I'm reading simple spelling in nearly every post on Yahoo Answers.
2006-07-18 17:19:18 · answer #5 · answered by Vet Tech Steph 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
um...how much simpler should it be?...we are supposed to become more developed as time goes by...and personally, i think that spelling in that way will not help (perhaps i just say that because i am used to splling like this, but still, i would not support the movement to change our way of spelling)
2006-07-18 16:59:16 · answer #6 · answered by nDn tigress 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Short answer, NO!!! Too many people spell like that already and they are totally unintelligible and come off looking (sounding) as dumb as bricks.
2006-07-19 00:13:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well simple speilling is to make stuff smaller... and
Wut wud bee dhu reezult uv adopting a noo speling?....
well... bee (too long) reezult (too long) ...and i dont even know what the rest says... so simple spelling is to make **** smaller not longer... plus it looks stupid!
2006-07-18 17:00:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, cucumberlady - aye dunt tink sew.
2006-07-18 16:57:45 · answer #9 · answered by Serena 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not.
2006-07-18 16:55:54 · answer #10 · answered by GTO 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋