Aw, c’mon, Excalibre. Why would you want to deny the non-linguists their opportunity to tell those of us trained in the matter that we don’t know what we’re on about?
Just wanted to add that Noah Webster started the campaign to simplify English orthography. Mark Twain also argued “In Behalf of Simplified Spelling” and his sentiments were echoed by Shaw .
My real frustration is not with those who haven’t studied linguistics but with the educational system that permits people to grow up without basic knowledge of such matters. Anyone with a well-rounded education - in fact, any high school graduate - is expected to have at least some modicum of understanding of chemistry, biology, American and world history, literature, math, and so on. But there is no basic education in linguistics; most people can even graduate college without ever having studied the subject at all. Combine it with the poor way that English grammar is taught and people end up not even fully understanding the difference between a writing system and a language. It’s usual for people to attempt to justify pronouncing a word a certain way, for instance, on the basis of its spelling, or to suppose that English has five vowels (and sometimes Y and W . . . here I will let forth a rather melodramatic sigh.) It seems to me that high school English classes should take some time to teach a little bit about English - its history, elementary phonetics and phonology, grammar that’s founded in the study of English rather than Latin and Greek, and so forth. It’s funny that, while no one imagines anymore that one has to study classical languages to have a well-rounded education, what miniscule bit of grammar that’s taught to non-specialists is still heavily based upon those languages as models.
This isn’t the type of subject that requires in depth, specialized knowledge to understand. But it does require some basic knowledge, and for some reason the decision has been made not to give children even that.
At the very least, the relative simplicity of verb conjugation in English gives it an edge when being learned as a second language (which is what I thought we were talking about). Compare the conjugations of simple verbs like run, have, do and go. English typically uses a single form (except, oddly, for third person singular), while the Romance languages have different forms for each (vais, vas, va, allons, allez and vont for the French aller).
In any case, this is getting beyond the scope of a discussion of simplified English spelling.
That doesn’t give English an edge as a foreign language to be learned. Language is composed of far more than verb conjugation. Reducing the complexity of the conjugation or declension stresses the importance of word order, for example. Then there are the varying types of clause construction. Focusing on one aspect of the language gives a false idea of its simplicity relative to another language. As mentioned, time and time again on these boards by actual linguists, all natural languages are equally simple/complex.
But you’re imagining that the languages that are familiar to you are representative of most or all languages. There are plenty of languages with less verb morphology than English; in Chinese, for instance, no inflection whatsoever attaches to verbs. They only have one form, period. That’s not at all unusual. Further, as someone who’s studied several foreign languages, I have to say that for me at least learning verb forms in Spanish or French is pretty easy. Learning that kind of thing requires effort and rote memorization, but it’s not a particularly large part of what makes learning languages difficult.
Note, also, that for regular verbs in French, most of the difference is entirely a matter of spelling (we return to that subject once again. :)) Take, say, chanter. All three singular forms are identical, along with the third person plural. So there are actually only three different forms of the present tense - and in casual speech, even one of those isn’t needed (nous chantons can be replaced with on chante in most contexts.) And if you screw up your verb inflection in French, you’ll still be easily comprehensible - you’ll just sound stupid. Much like with your English example. Broken French can be understood, just like broken English can. Hell, if you omit your verb inflection entirely in French, you’ll still be comprehensible, albeit with increased effort.
Good point, and one I should have thot of. 
My 1940s-era editor grandpa reminisced that linotype operators, at least on small-town weeklies such as his, were itinerants and (generally) drunks. I suppose it would have made sense to make their jobs as trouble-free as possible and not ask them to hammer out a lot of superfluous ughs.
Here’s an interesting (well, to me, at least) discussion about spelling reform. Of particular note is the number of vowel sounds in English:
Thus, a proposed spelling reform, if it were to accurately portray English would have to account for not only the differences in dialect, but also have from 40 to 49 characters. Then it would also have to take into account stress where that is a distinctive feature if one truly wants the proposed reform to be a true representation of the sounds of the language.
I have no idea why I am admitting this, but that’s the first time I’ve understood that joke, in decades of Monty Python fandom. :smack: . I’d always assumed it was just a classic MP nonsense sound. :smack: :smack: :smack:
:eek: I’m not sure why you’d admit that either. 
Two smileys in one post. Oh well, I was already bound for hell anyway.
This might be the first thread in which; Noah Webster, Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt, Melvil Dewey, George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Franklin, Daniel Webster, Mark Twain, and The Chicago Tribune are (indirectly) called “ignorant illiterate fucktards with zero influence” 
!
[Eddie Izzard]…you say ‘erbs,’ and we say ‘herbs!’…because there’s a fucking ‘h’ in it.
But you spell ‘through’ ‘T-H-R-U,’ and I’m with you on that.
Cause we spell it ‘thruff!’ And that’s trying to cheat at Scrabble.
“How can we get that ‘ooo’ sound?”
“Well, a ‘U’ will work.” “What about an ‘O’ as well?”
“No, we don’t need it, we’re fine.” “No, I think an ‘O’ in.”
“Well, all right.” “And a ‘G’ as well.”
“What?” “Yes, a ‘G’ would be good.”
“…‘guh’ sound?” “Yes, we need a – a silent ‘guh,’ just in the background, in case of any accidents or something.”
“Well, all right.” “And an ‘H’ as well!”
“Fuckinell, 'ang on!” “An ‘H!’ In case some herbs come along!”
“All right.” “And a ‘Q,’ and a ‘P,’ and a ‘zed.’ Look! It’s a word in Scrabble that’s 480 points!”[/Eddie Izzard]
Clearly, we must prevent a Scrabble gap!
Whyyeth doough youugh haytethz Ammerrieckquaa?
CMC fnord!
okay, does it make me stupid or smart that I couldn’t read half of those “easy” to read words?
All languages are equal, but some languages are more equal than others!
Can’t you non-linguists get this through your thick, equal skulls?!
Sadly, in 20 or 30 years, when the “I be teh 133t txtor dude” generation grows up and starts running companies and such, I see a formal corporate comunication going something like this:
“yo dude! i nd 2 c u in my offc tmrrw mrn 4 20 min. txt bk if u cnt mk it.
laterz”
Not exactly quite what the OP was talking about, but u get teh point.
And composing that dreck made me forget an"m" in kumyoonicayshun. :smack:
Bad news: neither. Those so-called easy-to-read scrambled passages are not really representative of the language, IMHO. One can just as easily pick words that will not lend themselves to that kind of manipulation. Consider an entire passage like that. The simple fact of the matter is that the language is not driven by the writing system.
A word’s shape is called its bouma. Is that what you are thinking of?
A third theory, and one that appears to have eye-movement and brain response studies to back it up, is parallel letter recognition. The letters are seen individually but simultaneously. I can dig up some info if you are interested.
Aw, John. Do you really think that would be a good thing?
Could you break that down for me?
I’m a speed reader; I’ve been clocked at 6000wpm (yes, that’s three zeros; no, it’s not the world record).
While I can decipher that, I have to go word by word, which brings my speed down to about 70wpm; usually I read by whole lines.
So, while you can read it, maximum speed goes down be a factor of about 90. I already learned “written English as a foreign language” once - I’ll pass on learning it twice.
Were it NY Daily News, the proposed changes would’ve been dose, troos and dawts. Nites is more universal.
Yes! thank you.