Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!fortune!polard
From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Phonetic spelling
Message-ID: <4631@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Nov-84 12:14:11 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.4631
Posted: Tue Nov 13 12:14:11 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Nov-84 01:19:10 EST
Reply-To: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 37
Keywords: English spelling orthography
Summary: Guidelines for investigating orthographies proposed.


The discussion about reforming the spelling of English has,
in true Net fashion, consisted of assumptions being propounded
as truths.  These assumptions include:

	An alphabetic writing system is best if it is phonetic.

	There is such a thing as a phonetic writing system.

	English spelling must be phonetic.

	Modern English has always been spelled the same way,  
	and any spelling reform will make English classics
	inaccessible.

	Our current writing system presents insuperable difficulties.

	ANY spelling reform will be radical/arbirary/unaesthetic/bad.

	Our current writing system presents no difficulties.
	
	Any difficulties presented by our writing system are
	inconsequential/worth the effort/a worthy challenge to 
	one's intellect.

I propose that we stop taking these assumptions for granted and examine
them in at least a near-scientific manner, supporting each point by 
apropriate references.

IF there are any linguists on the Net, please don your asbestos 
overalls and speak up.

-- 
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.