If you're reading this and you have fifteen minutes of free time on your hand, could you weigh in on the following article?
It recently made Yahoo! headline news, and while there are many things that I want to say to it, most of them rhyming with 'full mitt,' my elitism troubles me a little more than the Simplified Spelling Board's proposal does.
But I'd like to hear what you think about the idea of a purely phonetic English spelling system.
Push for simpler spelling persists
By Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer
Wed July 5, 5:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON - When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?
Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.
Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun.
It's been 100 years since Andrew Carnegie helped create the Simplified Spelling Board to promote a retooling of written English and President Theodore Roosevelt tried to force the government to use simplified spelling in its publications. But advocates aren't giving up.
They even picket the national spelling bee finals, held every year in Washington, costumed as bumble bees and hoisting signs that say "Enuf is enuf but enough is too much" or "I'm thru with through."
Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.
"It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," says Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways.
Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy