Remix.run Logo
▲ glitchc 9 hours ago

This is a good start, albeit I don't share the author's enthusiasm for eliminating letters that are used in sounding out the word. I would rather we focus on popular words and remove any ambiguity in how someone would speak them if they read it for the first time. I think it is essential for the future of English that people communicating online (using text) can avoid the ambiguity in how the receiver would read and speak their message. For that reason, truncating smaller words to use fewer letters while retaining how they sound is far more valuable.

As an example, bothering with miscellany is a waste of time. Almost no one uses it when writing a tweet or a text message. It's a bigger bang for buck to change words like through to thru or knife to nyfe and so on.

▲left-struck 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder why the e is needed on the end of knife or nyfe. Seems to me the way you pronounce it would be the same with or without

▲gnabgib 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

niff without the e. (see: life, wife, fife, strife) The k is arguable (but you can find eloquent people who enunciate it)

▲left-struck 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I would argue that if we’re going to simplify English we should use one letter for i as in the sound used in knife, and one letter for i as in the sound used in niff, rather than having some other letter in a completely different part of the word (and later in the word no less!) modify the sound. How ridiculous our language is!

▲gnabgib 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Mhm mhm, a lot of fixes ahead.. what's your plan on sow, sew and so? You, ewe and yew (bonus: eww)?

Or live and live/lead and lead (context dependence means you can never be sure)

▲lowdownbutter 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

but that's the magic e.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI9hHo9_QB8