▲ 490 ▼ Anon hates C++ (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 week ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works 84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (9 children) "Reform the spelling" how would you go about that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (6 children) "Refom de speling" hou wud ju go abaut dat? (Croatian way - write what you hear) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 children) Starting to look like dutch permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dreamcatcher@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) How about the Finnish version: "Reform te spelling" hau vuud juu gou abaut tät? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel? permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you think American English is bad, you should see British English. And before any Brits get their panties in a twist: no, all the unnecessary additions of "u" aren't original. You all did that after the American Revolution. You collectively had such a temper tantrum over losing a colony that you butchered your own language. Congratulations. permalink fedilink source parent [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Which means you're putting non-rhotic accents first and you'd erase the "th" sound completely? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago I am not sure but probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago So you wanna introduce ß into English? Spaß bei Scherz, this reform changed one rule in German orthography so that it is slightly more phonetic (it's still considered non-phonetic) and it still caused a constitutional challenge. I like the change, but even today, 30 years later, you can find people who have not changed their spelling habits. If we reform English at this pace, sound changes will outrace us. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (6 children) "Refom de speling" hou wud ju go abaut dat? (Croatian way - write what you hear) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 children) Starting to look like dutch permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dreamcatcher@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) How about the Finnish version: "Reform te spelling" hau vuud juu gou abaut tät? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel? permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you think American English is bad, you should see British English. And before any Brits get their panties in a twist: no, all the unnecessary additions of "u" aren't original. You all did that after the American Revolution. You collectively had such a temper tantrum over losing a colony that you butchered your own language. Congratulations. permalink fedilink source parent [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Which means you're putting non-rhotic accents first and you'd erase the "th" sound completely? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago I am not sure but probably. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 children) Starting to look like dutch permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dreamcatcher@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) How about the Finnish version: "Reform te spelling" hau vuud juu gou abaut tät? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dreamcatcher@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) How about the Finnish version: "Reform te spelling" hau vuud juu gou abaut tät? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you think American English is bad, you should see British English. And before any Brits get their panties in a twist: no, all the unnecessary additions of "u" aren't original. You all did that after the American Revolution. You collectively had such a temper tantrum over losing a colony that you butchered your own language. Congratulations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Which means you're putting non-rhotic accents first and you'd erase the "th" sound completely? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago I am not sure but probably. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zzffyfajzkzhnsweqm@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago I am not sure but probably. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago So you wanna introduce ß into English? Spaß bei Scherz, this reform changed one rule in German orthography so that it is slightly more phonetic (it's still considered non-phonetic) and it still caused a constitutional challenge. I like the change, but even today, 30 years later, you can find people who have not changed their spelling habits. If we reform English at this pace, sound changes will outrace us. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago So you wanna introduce ß into English? Spaß bei Scherz, this reform changed one rule in German orthography so that it is slightly more phonetic (it's still considered non-phonetic) and it still caused a constitutional challenge. I like the change, but even today, 30 years later, you can find people who have not changed their spelling habits. If we reform English at this pace, sound changes will outrace us. permalink fedilink source parent