Talk:Cut Spelling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are there other spelling reforms that are this compact?Cameron Nedland 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Warmest" becomes "warmst" 2 edible → edbl 3 Example texts 4 Criticism 5 Ho likes ths 6 Awful 7 Are there supposed to be THAT MANY spelling errors within the article???

[edit] "Warmest" becomes "warmst"

"warmest → warmst". I certainly disagree with this respelling. "warmst" looks like a one syllable word, like "midst". What were they thinking when they proposed this respelling? Voortle 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that it would remove doubled letters so you have: big, bigr, then bigst, etc.Cameron Nedland 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edible → edbl

Another bad respelling. "edbl" looks like a two syllable word, pronounced "ed-bul", whereas "edible" is a three syllable word pronounced "ed-i-bul". I totally dislike the ideas of cut spelling. For one thing, the orthography would look very ugly. Voortle 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is to reduce the confusion between -able and -ible. For instance, being able to reduce is not reduceable as you might think, but reducible.Cameron Nedland 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I much rather write "able" for both, than have them both become "bl". "edbl" indeed looks like it has two-syllables rather than three. Voortle 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I was just explaining the rationale.Cameron Nedland 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example texts

Um, the examples are two-thirds of the article now. One or two examples is sufficient, I think, we can just point to more in the External links section. —johndburger 02:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can find the links, I say trim the fat and put the ref under External Links. --SigPig 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I strongly feel that this article needs a section devoted to criticism, but although I am highly literate and, if I do say so myself, highly educated as to English's quirks, I am no linguist; therefore I do not feel qualified to create such a section wholecloth. I would only be able to point out the obvious flaws: that Cut Spelling, in its quest to truncate spelling, only muddies the waters (as Voortle pointed out); that it ignores the main problem in English, that of wildly inconsistent vowel orthography; and that the vastly incomplete nature of its reform is somewhat akin to demolishing an old building without constructing a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.65.154 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-21T16:53:10

I am a major supporter of spelling reform, but I can see some minor flaws in this system. You go ahead, I'll see what I can do to help.Cameron Nedland 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you folks' opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. I am a linguist, but editors are not to insert their own criticisms—go find a source to reference, and base any Criticism section on that. —johndburger 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

True, sorry.Cameron Nedland 02:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ho likes ths

Even assuming this was invented before "ho" became a common spelling of "whore", a new spelling of "who" must be "hu" or "hoo". You can't go change the spelling "do" to "du" and simultaneously rhyme "ho" with "do". I protest! I protest! This not spelling reform; this is nonsense.

Sorry I changed only one instead of all three. I almost changed the other two after you changed the first one back.

-- Randall Bart 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but this article describes a particular spelling system that already exists. All of the words in the examples are spelled correctly according to the rules of Cut Spelling. Please do not make changes according to what you think "must be", that would be original research. —johndburger 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite? Neither external link tells me about this bizarre spelling "ho". (I would like a cite for "du" also.) In fact the book ad says "The aim of this book is to sow ideas. It is not to proclaim a dogma." Are you arguing for dogmatically following an error? There are some words that looked a little off to me, but the only one that's reads wrong is "ho". It's not a simplified spelling. English has enough anomalous spellings. Why would anyone create a new one? -- Randall Bart 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A handbook to simplifying written English by omitting redundant letters, page 219. The basic idea here seems to be to cut letters (hence the name). W is silent in who, hence it goes. (I think most of this is nonsense, but that's irrelevant to writing an article.) —johndburger 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To address the side issue of du, the spelling of do is unchanged in Cut Spelling. However, due becomes du. Indefatigable 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awful

Is it just me that finds this spelling reform awful? It is aesthetically unpleasant. Deaþe gecweald 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This spelling reform and American/British English have their ups and flaws. Which is better? Who, do, and due, or hu, đu, and đue? Dough or đô? Rough or ruf? Row or rô? Roof or rûf? Ghoti or fish? Edible or ed[-]bl? Theater or theatre? Color ol colour?

No no, American and British English are similar enough in that one can READ the other without tripping over oneself. Theatre and Theater are both read exactly the same, while edible and edbl are not (as referenced above). Kareeser|^Talk! 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are there supposed to be THAT MANY spelling errors within the article???

Are there supposed to be that many errors in one section of the article b/c just reading 1 and 1 half sections of the article on this when it gets to examples and all that, I find 44 spelling errors just by reading 2 parts from that particular section!!! Somebody please edit this article!!!Wikiguy2.0 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)