I will sign any petition that includes the following points:
I don’t much care about spelling rules-exceptions and such; that’ll drift over time anyway. (But if it drifts towards making leet-speak anything other than ironic, someone’s going to get their ass kicked.)
Really interesting. And I was unaware of that m’self. I would also argue that it “grates” because of the emphasis in English of subject verb agreement of number that has translated into other bits of the sentence–to agreement between original pronouns and ones that come later in the sentence.
And if I use this wonderful bit of info, there are still, unfortunately, lots of grammarians who still follow this silliness so I can a) teach my students that it is perfectly okay and have them argue for the rest of their lives against people (and grammar books) that haven’t gotten the memo, b) teach them that it is a great sin (which will satisify the grammar nazi’s and go against English tradition as shown in your example) or c) go on message boards and campaign that we simplify the whole bloody mess. :).
In other news, Weird_AL_Einstein, :o
I had no idea that anyone cared!
“I want the equivalent of mullato for all race combinations and I want all punctuation outside the fucking quotation marks Come to think of it I also want a puncuation mark that indicates a statement was intended to be ironic” “”.,.
Like this?
“Y’all” has a Scottish equivalent: “Yous”
C annoys me a lot. Are there any instances where it couldn’t be replaced by a k or s?
Same with X.
And I hate -ough. To quote a piece from Eddie Izzard’s Dress to Kill:
But you spell through THRU, 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 “OU” sound?”
“Well, a “U” will work,”
“What about an “O” as well?”
“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. We need a silent “G” in the background, in case of any accidents or something.”
“Well, all right.”
“And an “H” as well.”
“Fucking ‘ell! Hang on.”
“An “H” in case some herbs come along.”
“All right…”
“And a Q, and a P, and a Z… Look it’s a word in Scrabble that’s 480 points!”
The sad thing is that all it would take to set some of these good ideas in motion (particularly the pronouns) would be a column by William Safire declaring them to be right and good and then one brave writer for the New Yorker willing to use them. You think Shakespeare asked permission to make up those 1700-odd words?
I submit that if “mu” can be used to mean “no,” that most people will use it for “no.” I am still looking for a good definition as to why this is a good word to add. I don’t think anything about essential Buddha-nature will get my gramma to start using the word.
I agree with Drastic: punctuation marks OUTSIDE of quotation marks!
Muad’Dib
I’d get rid of apostrophies (present company excluded, of course)
They only create problems for poor spellers, and add nothing at all to the language.
Remember when people (and some Brits still do) would spell 'phone and 'bus for (telephone and omnibus)?
Did that help anyone?
And all the trouble over “its” and “it’s” - when they are indistinguishable in speech there can hardly be a case for demanding a difference in writing.
Regarding Mu:
You could always say “Moot!” with emphasis, finality, and an “I know the word is Mu” smirk.
Well, probably obviously, I’d be in favor of a. I’ve been fighting the good fight over they, split infinitives, and prepositions at the end of sentences (same source as the “they” prohibition) for some time now. If they run into me, they will get the memo.
A previous poster said it was a pity that we couldn’t get William Safire to declare all these things right and proper and then adventurous writers use them–but see, at least as far as adding new words we don’t actually need William Safire, and we’re all of us here adventurous writers of one stripe or another. I love the idea of yes/no/mu (or whatever), and if we all started using it today, we might be awhile explaining it to the people around us, but maybe it would catch on. That’s how things like that work.
I also love the idea of a genderless honorific (and more specific pronoun, since “they” only works for indefinite cases). Why not settle on one and see if we can’t spread it around? I also love the idea of an irony punctuation mark–it won’t catch on unless it’s something on the keyboard already. Declare it an SDMB convention, whatever it is, and then use it wherever you go. Come on, if we want change we have to make it.
Now, I do think spelling won’t be as easy to change–it takes longer than just adding new words. But why not try a few new words and see what happens?
[Barry White Voice]Just trying to spread a little love. [/Barry White Voice] 
Hey man, I’m all for the grassroots thing. A nod of approval from the keepers of the canon would certainly go a long way in expediting the process of legitimation. Lexicographers scan periodicals and note the frequency of the use of a word to determine it’s eligibility for promotion to The Book.
The call for a genderless honorific reminds me of a bit that Larry David did in a standup routine in the pilot episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Something along the lines of :
‘Before I start I’d just like to warn that if I happen to lapse into Spanish at any time during the set I’ll be using the informal Tu form rather than the more formal Usted. Please don’t read anything into this.’
There’s a Hindi word, transliterated here - <i>puhurso</i>.
It means either the day before yesterday or the day after tomorrow. I’d like English to have two words - one that means the former, and the other the latter. Much more convenient.
There’s another Hindi word I like - <i>hungama</i>, emphasis on second syllable. It’s impossible to translate easily - it means a general to-do, hullabaloo, something involving a lot of hassle and activity. It could be a party, could be an argument, could be anything. I like the word so much I use it when speaking English, too. Useful as all-get-out.
Lots of good suggestions here.
So please apply your collective intelligence to this nagging quagmire: How do y’all propose we fix the its/it’s problem?
I would like to see english and its various disciplines take on the same value and prestige as math.
For instance all those insulting public service announcements for the Dept of Education (or wherever they’re from) that imply that you’ll end up a bag lady without calculus.
I’d like to see english and those who have a powerful command of it be as highly thought of as the mathematicians.
Well, I’d like to draw your attention to a wonderful Swedish word that I would suggest gets introduced into English:
lagom (pronounced “lah-gom”)
It means “just the right amount”. Nothing more is weighed into the word, so it’s the perfect degree of vagueness but used right, the meaning is crystal-clear.
E.g.
*- Is it too hot outside?
No, it’s lagom!
My apartment is just the lagom size for two people.*
Used incorrectly though, the conversation will be a bit fuzzy, e.g.
*- How many potatoes do you want?
Oh, just give me lagom.
How hot do you want me to run your bath?
I like it at lagom temperature,please.*
That’s great. Does anyone else have any interesting words from other languages that would be usefull to add?
I think we should have different words for different types of love. If someone says, “I love my mom, so for Mother’s Day, I got her this hat that I know she’ll just love. But my husband, who I love dearly but who has no sense for clothing, says that the thing is 100% Carmen Miranda on crystal meth,” that person means the word “love” in very different ways in each case. (At least, I hope that person does. I don’t want to have much to do with anyone who loves her mom and her husband in the same way!)
Ain’t how language works, guys. “They”/ “he/she” is an effective quick and dirty IQ test, to keep the ins in and the outs out, and that’s the one of the most important functions of language.
So you would say that grammar is a gatekeeping device?