Author Topic: A Modest proposal: Replace homophones with singular compromised spellings  (Read 1260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Henning

  • Official Forum Artist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
  • Mad "Liker"
    • Anomalina
Frankensteining more letters and apostrophes to include all spellings is maddening to my brain and eye...
Why not go the opposite way and pare them down...


their there they're = ther (only the letters they share, not all the letters)
your you're = ur (txt-speak has already provided us with a perfectly usable abbreviation)
two too to = to or 2
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. -- Hitchens.

Offline fred.slota

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: A Modest proposal: Replace common homophones with portmanton'ts
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2018, 09:17:08 AM »
Frankensteining more letters and apostrophes to include all spellings is maddening to my brain and eye...
Why not go the opposite way and pare them down...


their there they're = ther (only the letters they share, not all the letters)
your you're = ur (txt-speak has already provided us with a perfectly usable abbreviation)
two too to = to or 2
Its's a building up process.  My initial thought was not trying twoo be precise or efficient, but trying twoo evolve from the starting point of "Should I use its or it's?" with the simplest answer: "Its's: Use both".

Again, the origin of my musing was seeing a wild occurrence of "your're", an instance where, rather thaen using a correctly spelled word in the wrong situation, a new spelling was created that just resonated with me.  It was the best of both wor(l)ds.  A "portmanton't", if you will.

You know that saying that theiyr're is a fine line separating genius from insanity?  I think that the genius/insanity gradient is at least a quadratic equation, if not a polynomial in even higher orders.  You know, the "It's just so crazy it might work" area.




Of course, in reality, this modest proposal can't consciously work off of the above logic, because the homophone misuses that actually occur take place by people who either aren't aware of the difference, or aoure misinformed on what the distinctions aoure, and who either don't use grammar checking or who ignore it.

Offline Shibboleth

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8452
If we do this can we please replace diphthongs with single vowels? Maybe make some new vowels to fill the gaps. Because of my dyslexia diphthongs are my nemesis.
common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4205
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
If we do this can we please replace diphthongs with single vowels? Maybe make some new vowels to fill the gaps. Because of my dyslexia diphthongs are my nemesis.

I have long advocated for diacritical marks with vowels in English to help with pronunciation - umlauts, slashes, tildes, etc.

âãäå
Amend and resubmit.

Online Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 158
I have long advocated for diacritical marks with vowels in English to help with pronunciation - umlauts, slashes, tildes, etc.

I agree.  English used to have some of these not so very long ago.  For example, cooperate used to be spelt coöperate to make it clear that it was pronounced co-operate, and not cooper-ate.

I'm all in favour of bringing back diacritical marks.

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
I have long advocated for diacritical marks with vowels in English to help with pronunciation - umlauts, slashes, tildes, etc.

I agree.  English used to have some of these not so very long ago.  For example, cooperate used to be spelt coöperate to make it clear that it was pronounced co-operate, and not cooper-ate.

I'm all in favour of bringing back diacritical marks.

I don't like diacritics but feel you should feel free to use them if you like them. Nothing is stopping any of us from using our own pet writing system improvements save the potential objections of others forced to read our creations. The New Yorker magazine still use diæreses and their readers coöperate in maintaining this tradition but this is an unusual case. As for want of a consensus there have been many proposed spelling reforms for English but they lose steam and then die. As an aside, native speakers like to think English spelling is difficult, that may be, but try Persian orthography or Japanese.

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4205
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
As an aside, native speakers like to think English spelling is difficult, that may be, but try Persian orthography or Japanese.

Yeah, those guys should adopt English letters - I mean come on.

Ever see an Arabic crossword puzzle?  Ridiculous.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6005
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
How about your'e instead of your'er?

Would, wood: woud

Do, due, dew: duew
Heh, I like the economy of your'e, but the non-grammatical "'e" bugs me despite the non-grammaticalness of my base concept.


The origin of this came from my having watched one of those montages of humorous mistakes and spotting a "your're" in use, which just struck me less as the typo/error that it was and more as a "the hell with it, let's just throw everything into the mix at once" and so I was toying with other similar constructs.

That wild use of "your're" just struck me as so inspired.  Like that Old El Paso hard/soft taco commercial.

The offensive economy of your'e - and the fact it is wone of my most common typos - leaed me twoo propose it as a proper option yinn this modest proposal. :)
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1839
The offensive economy of your'e - and the fact it is wone of my most common typos - leaed me twoo propose it as a proper option yinn this modest proposal. :)

That sentence is enough for me to say no to compromised spelling  ???  ;)  ;D

Just spell out both words if it's a combination like you're or they're.

At least some ignorant people would realise that should've, could've and would've end with 'have' and not 'of' (not should of, could of, would of) My personal pet hate in poor grammar.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6005
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
gneiss, nice: gnieicsse
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't