Food for thortPATRICIA Hughos (July 4) argues that we should re-spell words to simplify the language. What she actually advocates is to match pronunciation closely, but without considering the wide variation in pronunciation! Such words as "thought" becoming "thort" compound the problem of illogical spelling for some folk instead of simplifying it. In Scotland, the "r" in "thort" would be pronounced, and the words "oar", "or" and "awe" sound completely different, whereas in London they— are identical. Changing "mountain" to "mountan" is a poor approximation ("in" would be better), but in any case some people prefer words ending in "-ain" to rhyme with "twain" (many poems spring to mind). Such changes also might detract from the beauty of the language in print. Language changes in use anyway: fones, nites, catalogs and disks abound. Computers, of course are the main culprits. — D S Taylor. Uttoxeter, Staffs. I DO NOT agree with Patricia Hughes' argument (July 4) about the advantages of making speling ecer. The more varid it is the mor interesting it is and also a certan Ics of sutelt results from having everithing mayd to logical. Nevertheless, I do agree that pedantic pedagogy is something "up with witch we should not put". — John Thirkil,. Norwich
|
