|
|
|
|
|
by pessimizer
1438 days ago
|
|
Why add another consonant to the name of a consonant? Literally the only letter that's like that. Americans and the British (and a couple billion other people) share a language that is spelled like shit. We should steal simplifications from each other as much as possible. |
|
Ay, see, ef, jee, aitch, aye, jay, kay, oh, kyuu, yuu, double-yuu, eks, why?, zed.
It's because the English alphabet is not a phonetic lettering system. If I were American I'd:
a) start saying "t" in the middle of a word as a "t" instead of a "d", and
b) vastly improve the standard of my spelling and those around me
before telling anyone, especially British people, that words shouldn't be spelt "like shit".
Personally, I'm with the Arguments against reform section of Wikipedia[1]:
> English is a West Germanic language that has borrowed many words from non-Germanic languages, and the spelling of a word often reflects its origin. This sometimes gives a clue as to the meaning of the word. Even if their pronunciation has strayed from the original pronunciation, the spelling is a record of the phoneme.
Which is how I can usually guess the correct pronunciation and meaning of an unfamiliar word while I see highly educated Americans butcher the pronunciation of anything outside the common vernacular. These "simplifications" are doing anything but.
However:
> Another criticism is that a reform may favor one dialect or pronunciation over others, creating a standard language
If I could force North Americans to speak better then I might be persuaded.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...
Edit: an important point was missed!