Surprise

[Alison Murie]

Right on, Scot!
There's a sort of inherent contradiction in this whole enterprise of
totally revising the written language when so little regard is shown
for literature.
I was sitting here bemusedly regarding TZ's curious post (below)  &
thinking it odd that TZ has no apparent interest in the development of
English  & the riches hinted at by the retained spellings of
centuries, & wondering how to put it, when  your post popped up.
AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Feb 18, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Scot LaFaive wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Scot LaFaive <slafaive at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Surprise
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Why not "laf" instead of "laugh"?  This is working with what we
>> have, not
> what we had centuries ago.
>
> Some of us actually like the history inherent in those old, unusual
> words.
> To hell with efficiency, I say.
>
> Scot
>
>
> On 2/18/09, Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: Surprise
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I was taught that there was no "t" pronounced in "often" and so I
>> obeyed.  I was taught that there was no "r" in surprise, and so I
>> obeyed.  I
>> would hope it that reasonable minds would work toward a common
>> English so
>> that there is minimal misinterpretation.  That includes the
>> reduction of
>> homonyms expecially created by the awe to ah merger.
>>
>> The spelling of English "serves well"?  Not as good as it could.
>> There are
>> twice as many dislectic English speakers as Italian speakers.
>> Italian has a
>> more consistently phonetic spelling.
>>
>> Actually, with pronunciation changes should come spelling changes as
>> well.  No?  Why not "laf" instead of "laugh"?  This is working with
>> what we
>> have, not what we had centuries ago.
>>
>> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org