Medical technology

Quadibloc wrote:
> deowll wrote:
>
>>"Kiwaiti" <spam.TakeThisOut@kiwaiti.de> wrote in message news:eor4b1$321$1@online.de...
>>
>>>pyotr filipivich schrieb:
>
>
>>>>There is also an element of translating 41st Century terms, paradigms
>>>>and expressions into the 20th century idiom. For all we know, there
>>>>could
>>>>have been a Great Vowel Shift or two in the next five hundred years, and
>>>>"English" no longer sounds like what we'd expect. Who knows, they might
>>>>even have regularized the spelling.
>>
>>>Now you're pushing it - that's no more than 2 millennia you're talking
>>>about - who's gonna regularize english spelling in that short a time? ;o)
>>
>>Any government that wanted to. It isn't any harder than changing to metric
>>and every nation on earth execpt the U.S. has done it.
>
>
> Why *hasn't* English spelling been regularized a long time ago?
>
> Noah Webster managed to remove a few of the worst excesses of English
> spelling from American spelling - and he was just a private
> individual.
>
> But metrication required a degree of coercive action from government,
> and it was somewhat unpopular. In Australia and Britain, at least, it
> could be argued that trade - with Europe for Britain, with Pacific Rim
> nations for Australia - made metrication imperative.
>
> For *Canada*, metrication was more controversial, since it was seen to
> be linked with a political agenda aimed at causing Canada to look less
> towards the United States and more towards Europe. Our trade is
> overwhelmingly with the U.S., so why do we need to go metric? We could
> have waited until the *U.S.* went metric to follow along (with less
> kicking and screaming).
>
> The government might have an excuse to push people around on English
> spelling if the difficulty of spelling English was leading to vast
> numbers of illiterates. Unfortunately (well, for this particular
> project), all the English-speaking countries of the world are just
> about as wealthy as Japan. And if Japan hasn't seriously considered
> dumping the use of Chinese characters, what chance do we have?
>
> What good is a baroque spelling system?
>
> Well, words would be slightly longer when spelled phonetically on
> average.
>
> They would look less "dignified".
>
> *And* it would be harder to spot phonies claiming to have had more
> formal education than they actually did through their bad spelling.
> That's probably the main reason China and Japan haven't given up their
> much *more* painful writing systems *as well*. (And if you keep the
> intelligent people busy grinding away getting an education, they have
> less time to plot revolutions!)
>
> Now that we're giving up teaching spelling, punctuation, and grammar
> in the schools, though, maybe the time for simplified spelling for
> English has at last come!
>
> John Savard
>

And if you're going to spell phonetically, whose pronunciation do you
use? You write tuhmayto and I write toomahto.

Phil the Badger
--
Never do for yourself what you can con an expert into doing for you.
Naismith: "On War"

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "Quadibloc" <jsavard RemoveThis @ecn.ab.ca>
wrote on 30 Jan 2007 18:44:06 -0800 in alt.books.david-weber :
>deowll wrote:
>> "Kiwaiti" <spam RemoveThis @kiwaiti.de> wrote in message news:eor4b1$321$1@online.de...
>> > pyotr filipivich schrieb:
>
>> >> There is also an element of translating 41st Century terms, paradigms
>> >> and expressions into the 20th century idiom. For all we know, there
>> >> could
>> >> have been a Great Vowel Shift or two in the next five hundred years, and
>> >> "English" no longer sounds like what we'd expect. Who knows, they might
>> >> even have regularized the spelling.
>>
>> > Now you're pushing it - that's no more than 2 millennia you're talking
>> > about - who's gonna regularize english spelling in that short a time? ;o)
>>
>> Any government that wanted to. It isn't any harder than changing to metric
>> and every nation on earth execpt the U.S. has done it.
>
>Why *hasn't* English spelling been regularized a long time ago?

It was, when Webster brought out his Dictionary of the American
Language. And there was an attempt to do so, in if I recall, the 13th
century, before the great vowel shift.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been an "English Academy" similar to the
French Academy (and other various other countries/languages) to serve as a
"language police" and define The Way it Is Done.
>
>Noah Webster managed to remove a few of the worst excesses of English
>spelling from American spelling - and he was just a private
>individual.

He wrote and sold a very popular book _the Dictionary. Not much plot
though.
>
>But metrication required a degree of coercive action from government,
>and it was somewhat unpopular. In Australia and Britain, at least, it
>could be argued that trade - with Europe for Britain, with Pacific Rim
>nations for Australia - made metrication imperative.
>
[snip]
>
>Now that we're giving up teaching spelling, punctuation, and grammar
>in the schools, though, maybe the time for simplified spelling for
>English has at last come!

Simplified speling for English has alredy cum. If peeple dont noe the
rite speling, then they nacherallee simplifi the speling.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.