At 06:10 PM 6/9/03 -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Awlthoh that wuznt reelee fuhnehtik, I agree with Steverigo in priciple. The only problem is that we are trying to create an encyclopedia (not insyklohpeedeeuh) that is, in most ways, similar to others. That's really what it comes down to. If you want to convince Fred that Internet-encyclopedia should use pseudo-phonetic spelling, then fine. Stevertigo isn't trying to promote illiteracy, he's trying to do a very noble thing to start a movement to make English more regular and accessable. Actually, I'm trying to do the same thing. It would be nice to collaborate with Steveritigo on first making English easier and then making a wikipedia in that language.
The problem with phonetic spelling is, always, whose dialect? The Texan one that Molly Ivins renders by spelling business "bidness"? New York, with our wondrous mix of four centuries of languages and accents? Glaswegian? A friend of mine was greatly confused when someone told her that "The mile is on strike"--she wondered what that meant, and whether they could use kilometers instead, before realizing that while she'd heard "mile", her Australian friend had meant "mail."
As for making English easier, the language has the momentum of a billion speakers. Efforts at standardizing on any simplified English have fallen down because people want the flexibility they get from wide vocabulary (which is not unique to English--the same problem would emerge in trying to standardize and simplify any living language).
Making individual articles, paragraphs, and sentences clearer and easier to read is a worthwhile task. It's one of the ways I make my living. And it can't be reduced to a formula.