this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
474 points (99.0% liked)
Greentext
8904 readers
823 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Reform the spelling" how would you go about that?
"Refom de speling" hou wud ju go abaut dat?
(Croatian way - write what you hear)
Starting to look like dutch
How about the Finnish version:
"Reform te spelling" hau vuud juu gou abaut tät?
Now you have (at least) two different pronunciations of the letter t, while "would" and "you" now suddenly contain a long vowel?
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.
Which means you're putting non-rhotic accents first and you'd erase the "th" sound completely?
I am not sure but probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996
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.