Hoo wunts speling too chaenj?

Hoo wunts speling too chaenj? Doo ue thingk that we shood chaenj Ingglish speling? Ie thingk it wuud leed too guud benufits. If we got rid uv ol uv thu moest ridikuelus spelingz liek uezing u hoel bunch uv sielunt ''gh's''. Rathur than rieting ''thought'', ''bought'', ''through'', ''light'' and ''weight'' hou ubout just rieting ''thot'', ''bot'', ''throo'', ''liet'' and ''waet''. Wee doent need u hoel bunch uv ridikuelus and misleeding spelingz such az ''cheetah'' and ''knight'' wich hav sielunt leturz in
them.

<Thot> and <bot> for “thought” and “bought” doesn’t work for us British English speakers. We’d have to write something like <thaut> and <baut>.

By the way, in my area many people distinguish between the words <wait> [wE:t] and <weight> [weIt].

Will people ever realize the futility of spelling reform projects?

They're only futile, if you say there futile.

They're only futile, if you let them be futile.

/me aebsulluutli krindjiz aet dha pruppoozd ingglisj oorthograffi biing juuzd abbuv.

I don't think that English spelling should be reformed. I don't think it's possible to pull off any major systematic change without alienating some number of speakers. (As Bill from Northern England points out, there are some people in the UK for whom word pairs are distinguished by the presence or absence of a historic "gh".)

But I could tolerate some superficial changes to make the orthographical system more consistent (especially if there's historical precedent for said modifications):

purr, burr < pur, bur (dictionary.com lists "pur" and "bur" as variant spelllings)

err, egg, odd < er, eg, od

people < peple (this was the Middle English spelling)

view < vew (the Middle English spelling was "vewe")

choir < quire (dictionary.com lists "quire" as a variant spelling)

friend < frend (this was the Middle English spelling)

Another change that I could tolerate would be the extension of the American "instil < instill", "fulfil < fulfill" modification to include words like "control (< controll)" and "compel (< compell)".

But as I said above, I'm not really adamant about spelling reform in the first place, so I'm fine just using the current system as is.

I have a feeling this latest spelling reform thread has sprung from the same disagreeable font as other such similarly-worded topics have on this site in the past.

Why is it that the vast majority of people who bring up the idea of orthographic reform have absolutely no clue about actual serious orthographic design and all the issues that come with such in the first place?

adoo, canoo, juce, and shues

If sistematic change is impossible, unsistematic one could be better. What we have to seek is a feasible reform idea. Individual changes such as "jail"/"gaol" and "pajama"/"pyjama" are good. Even if not sistematic at all.

"juce" wouldn't be an ideal spelling for me, as I say [dZjMs]. For me, "juce" would be pronounced [dZMs], which is of course not the same. Thus, something like "jyuce" or "jyoos" would be an "ideal" spelling for me. Of course, this just goes to show how spelling reforms always leave someone (often millions of speakers) out in their quest to "reform."

What matters here is whether the yod sound should be spelled out or not. In my thinking, "juce" can represent both pronunciations: with and without yod.

<<What matters here is whether the yod sound should be spelled out or not. In my thinking, "juce" can represent both pronunciations: with and without yod.>>

I suppose so, but "juce" instinctively looks like [dZMs] to me. If told to pronounce a word spelled "juce," that's how I'd say it, while the word I happen to spell "juice" I pronounce with /j/.

>> <Thot> and <bot> for “thought” and “bought” doesn’t work for us British English speakers. We’d have to write something like <thaut> and <baut>. <<

However, <drout> for "drought".

Hoo wunts speling too chaenj?

or raather

Hu wonts speling tu chainj?

Not I. I second Lazar's thauts.