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.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org