Glizdka
Key Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- Polish
- Home Country
- Poland
- Current Location
- Poland
My guess is that the English are just very conservative (look at the Royal Family). In American English, there have been a few reforms, but not too many either.
I wonder why, has any of you dug deep enough into the topic?
Thought, through, though, thorough are great examples of historical spelling, but there are many much more confusing examples:
"I live where my father lives. There's a big tree with many leaves in the garden. I love the tree, so whenever a leaf falls from it, it ruins my life, in fact, it ruins both of our lives. I would leave this place because of that, but my father never leaves this place. This is too much, I'm gonna turn on the TV, my show is going live."
Some things like read [reed] and read [red] are even worse. This is the same verb, different tenses, same spelling, different pronunciations. Why not change the spelling to "red"? Because it could be mistaken for the color red? They are different parts of speech, the context would make it much less confusing than having the present and past form of the same verb look the same.
Why hasn't English ever adopted diacritic symbols (likę śómę óf thóśę)?
And of course, let's not forget this poem.
At least it's not Tibetan I guess...
I wonder why, has any of you dug deep enough into the topic?
Thought, through, though, thorough are great examples of historical spelling, but there are many much more confusing examples:
"I live where my father lives. There's a big tree with many leaves in the garden. I love the tree, so whenever a leaf falls from it, it ruins my life, in fact, it ruins both of our lives. I would leave this place because of that, but my father never leaves this place. This is too much, I'm gonna turn on the TV, my show is going live."
Some things like read [reed] and read [red] are even worse. This is the same verb, different tenses, same spelling, different pronunciations. Why not change the spelling to "red"? Because it could be mistaken for the color red? They are different parts of speech, the context would make it much less confusing than having the present and past form of the same verb look the same.
Why hasn't English ever adopted diacritic symbols (likę śómę óf thóśę)?
And of course, let's not forget this poem.
At least it's not Tibetan I guess...