Why do English spelling reforms insist on fixing things that aren't broken? In this short sentence alone we've got murdering the vowels without warrant (manhandling English into a continental vowel system DOESN'T WORK, people), orthographically indicating epenthetic sounds (like the [š] in <true>) which aren't necessarily features of all dialects of English but which are completely predictable when they do occur, orthographic distinctions between identical sounds (why are <why> and <I> spelled with |ai| while <like> is spelled with |í|?) and orthographic representations which make no sense (does anyone have a voiced /gž/ in <obnoxious>?).Tropylium⁺ wrote:Tcru, wic iz wai ai wónt bi siriusli yúzing enithing obnogzus lík dhis in publik.
Has anyone made an English spelling reform which doesn't make me want to tear my eyes out, but doesn't completely ignore this page which points out that a lot of English spelling IS predictable - there's no need, for instance, to change the general orthographic pattern <CVC/CVCe> which allows English to distinguish "short" and "long" vowels (mat/mate, pet/Pete, kit/kite, dot/dote, cut/cute) nor the extension <CVCC-/CVC-> for forms with a suffix (matted/mated, petter/Peter, kitted/kited, dotting/doting, cutter/cuter).