Does anyone else out there think that the English language is just totally confusing? I mean, by looking at a word there?s a million ways to be pronounced, yet only one is ?correct?. Each syllable has a whole bunch of different spellings, and different spellings have a bunch of syllables. For example, look at ?threw?, it sounds the same as ?through?, yet is spelled completely differently, yet ?dough? looks the same as ?through?, and isn?t even pronounced anything remotely like it. That was why a few years ago a grammar committee gathered in hopes of simplifying the English language in terms of spelling for the future generation.
The first change was to replace the ?kuh? sound with just a k. That would mean all ?K?s? would be replaked with k. It took a while for the kommittee to get used to it, but after a while, they did. The next step was to khange the ?phuh? sound with just ?ph?. So now we?re down to 24 letters, and many more to go still. The letter ?c? has also brought mukh konphusion to the world. Replaking it with a replaked letter, ?k?, they thought, would simpliphy things even phurther.
Another way to shorten words up was to replake ?x? with ?x?. So then went on and on, proposing a khange phor ?g? to be ?j?, ?el? to bekome just ?l?, ?be? to be ?b?, ?d? to ?d?, ?s? to ?s?, and phynally ?y? to ?y?.
And so they would tst thys new lanjuaje phor a phew weex to see how mukh sympler yt would make thynjs, but soon they dyskovered that yt just wouldn?t work, phor whatever reason. Whyle yt lymynated a lot oph extra letters yn the world, revysynj dyktyonarys, and passynj theyr newphound knowledje on to others wouldn?t b worth yt.
The first change was to replace the ?kuh? sound with just a k. That would mean all ?K?s? would be replaked with k. It took a while for the kommittee to get used to it, but after a while, they did. The next step was to khange the ?phuh? sound with just ?ph?. So now we?re down to 24 letters, and many more to go still. The letter ?c? has also brought mukh konphusion to the world. Replaking it with a replaked letter, ?k?, they thought, would simpliphy things even phurther.
Another way to shorten words up was to replake ?x? with ?x?. So then went on and on, proposing a khange phor ?g? to be ?j?, ?el? to bekome just ?l?, ?be? to be ?b?, ?d? to ?d?, ?s? to ?s?, and phynally ?y? to ?y?.
And so they would tst thys new lanjuaje phor a phew weex to see how mukh sympler yt would make thynjs, but soon they dyskovered that yt just wouldn?t work, phor whatever reason. Whyle yt lymynated a lot oph extra letters yn the world, revysynj dyktyonarys, and passynj theyr newphound knowledje on to others wouldn?t b worth yt.
Facebook
Twitter