Talk:NuEnglish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] More Practical?
This reform would be great if it were implemented, but it is more radical than Cut Spelling and some of the others and wouldn't be as easily excepted.Cameron Nedland 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
- "N'wenglish spelling is so regular and so similar to traditional spelling that proficient English readers can read N'wenglish in about an hour of study and practice, and regain their former reading speeds in a few months. Compared to proposed spelling reforms such as SR1, Cut Spelling, and the Shavian alphabet, N'wenglish is possibly the most practical reform."
Any of the above claims would be fine if they were attributed to sources, and ideally accompanied by those sources' reasons for believing them. But as they stand they're exceedingly POV. Rizome 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No search results for "NuEnglish"
A search for "N'wenglish" is redirected to "NuEnglish", but a search for "NuEnglish" yields no results. How can this be corrected?
[edit] u / ur
The example provided states that letter 'u' in words ( nuspeak ) wuz, thu ( both before vowels and before consonants? Or the spelling differs in this case? ), wurd, wurld represents the same phoneme as in word ( english ) 'nut'. May this aspect be highlighted in the article by someone who knows the subject? Especially regarding 'wurld'. And the same for 'Fothur' and 'not'.Linefeed (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone who has studied George orwell will not accept this.
It's an awful thing to do to an innocent language. Are we really so arrogant as to expect to change an entire language merely because it's illogical?
90.204.43.14 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who has studied George Orwell would know there is a difference between Newspeak and a spelling reform. Your comment is double plus ungood. --Anthonysenn (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
