Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 2nd Aug 2008 14:28 UTC
Humor "Once upon a time there was a printer who lived in the woods. He was a lonely printer, because nobody knew how to configure him. He hoped and hoped for someone to play with." That is an excerpt from the Readme file for gnome-cups-manager. There are more snippets from different programs that might pique your interest.
Thread beginning with comment 325377
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by moleskine
by null_pointer_us on Sat 2nd Aug 2008 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moleskine"
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

Yes, I'm aware of that quotation's age.

I wasn't poking fun at Middle English; I was poking fun at modern people who do not care about proper spelling with all the references we have.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by moleskine
by sbergman27 on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 03:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by moleskine"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I was poking fun at modern people who do not care about proper spelling with all the references we have.

I'm a big believer in a shift towards phonetic spelling. While I am still pedantic enough to type the word "losing", "loosing" actually makes more sense as a correct spelling. As English becomes even more international, I suspect that we are going to see some normalization and sensibility slapped into it, as people from disparate backgrounds make perfectly reasonable assumptions about how to say or spell this or that. The intuitive way should (normally) be the correct way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by moleskine
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 05:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by moleskine"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Follow that through and spell the opposite of "win" as "loos". Or "looz" perhaps since "loos" would end with an s sound. Or maybe I am biased about that last point since I am aware of the existence of the word "loose" (opposite of tight).

Anyway, if we let the internet guide spelling reform, we can expect rapid introduction of "turrent" (turret), "retarted", "genious", "hampster" and so forth. Somehow that seems a more terrifying possibility than that presented in "Meihem in ce Klasrum"* or it's more recent relative "Ze drem vil finali kum tru"** ;)

* http://members.aol.com/VoxVideus/meihem.html
** http://ashvital.freeservers.com/ze_dream.htm

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by moleskine
by tyrione on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 06:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by moleskine"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I'd go with lewzing if we're going strictly on sound.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by moleskine
by righard on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 11:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by moleskine"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

But yoo can't make a fonettic spelling with inglish beecås evreebadee pronaunces wirds differntlee.

Bat yoo cän't maka a fonettic spelling wit inglish bcoss evreebodee prenaunses whirds diffrntlee.

Edited 2008-08-03 11:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by moleskine
by sorpigal on Mon 4th Aug 2008 12:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by moleskine"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

It's tempting to say that loose will become more correct over time, as it is more intuitive, but the flaws in English are too extensive for simple corrections like that. A better alternative would be loos, to avoid hitting an existing word, or, better, luz, as this eliminates the double-letter problem (namely, sometimes--bot not always--we pronounce letters differently when they are next to other letters).

The major flaw in English is simple to describe and hard to fix: too many sounds and not enough letters!

At the moment to pronounce a word in English you must know (at a minimum) the general rules of pronunciation, the variations on those rules and the language of origin for the word or word root. Additionally you need to simply memorize several insane letter formations which are exceptions to any rule or rule variations. It's enough to drive even a native speaker mad.

Resolving this problem deliberately breaks the language and makes it virtually unrecognizable without retraining. Fixing it evolutionarily by slow mutations like lose->loose (as in your example) will never completely solve the problem and will mostly just serve to increase overall confusion, especially when speakers of the new English try to read old documents.

The problem really cannot be solved without giving up something somewhere. It's just a question of what we loos and where we luz it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by moleskine
by Soulbender on Mon 4th Aug 2008 15:13 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by moleskine"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

U r sux!

Reply Parent Score: 2