tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35250790.post2134454551218139964..comments2008-08-23T13:27:23.923-07:00Pro Inmigranthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07336684187225085098noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35250790.post-43318582621526238082008-08-23T10:49:00.000-07:002008-08-23T10:49:00.000-07:00If the new standard for spelling becomes "the ability to convey meaning", then one could regularize some spellings.<BR/><BR/>Here are 3 attempts at reducing irregularity in print:<BR/><BR/>"The standard for new spelling is the ability to convey *meening."<BR/>This notation removes superfluous letters and standardizes some long vowels before a consonant: <BR/>rate reed rite rote <BR/><BR/>Lojikl: The standrd for nu speling iz the ability t kunvae meening. <BR/><BR/>Webster: Ðè standàrd fôr néw spelìng iz ði àbilìty tü cònvey ménìng.<BR/><BR/> Such renderings would probably still be open to complaint and to charges that the spellings were uneducated. <BR/><BR/>Part of being educated is learning which of the plausible spellings of a "speech sound" is the one that was picked back in the early 1700’s.<BR/><BR/>The Spelling Society has always been for standardized spelling. They just want a new standard with less irregularity. <BR/><BR/>In order to get there they might have support variant spelling in correspondence. <BR/><BR/>Speed readers don't like variant spellings.stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18432844170967983124noreply@blogger.com