@MrHen we don't need the whole IPA though. Lots of things in IPA aren't needed or even possible in standard English spelling. You'd have to get everyone to agree on what vowel sounds go in what words, for example.
@MrHen Nah, I still think it's redundant. Just because in cases where you have zero context whatsoever you can pin down the meaning of lox vs locks doesn't really make the case. You still can't pin down the meaning of locks(the things you put keys into) vs locks(the things that raise/lower boats on rivers). One more/fewer meaning to pin to a particular spelling makes little difference.
@MrHen Well, I contend that it would, in that spelling being hard-to-learn makes it harder for people to write stuff. Whether it would be worth the cost NOW that reading/writing are so widespread and nobody can agree on any of it? I'd say no. But in principle, I think it would be beneficial if spelling were more predictable.
At one extreme example of spelling reform is China: the written language is so complicated that educated people often cannot spell common words. At the other extreme is Korea, which relatively recently switched to a phonetic alphabet.
All of the words you provide (limb, thumb, crumb) are listed in my local dictionary without a b sound. Things seem basically the same with suffixes (i.e. thumbed has no b sound).
Crumbled is is a completely different word and receives the pronunciation typical for "mble": thimble, tremble, fumbl...
@MrHen That is because English sometimes uses two letters when only one is needed, and sometimes uses two because two are needed. Or because of the lack of vowel letters, thus causing us to need to add spurious consonants to disambiguate which vowel sound is used.
@MrHen yes. The rule I'm referring to is the vowel sound rule: typically vowel-consonant-E uses a "long" vowel, that is, the vowel sound that sounds like the letter's name.
but words that use vowel-X-e don't obey that rule. However, if you replace the X with two consonants: KS, then you get a word that now DOES obey the rule.
I am not sure about some possible error:
link
"For his more moderate members, Mr. Boehner offered a simple appeal — his plan would have reopened the government through Dec. 15, and extended the nation’s borrowing authority through Feb. 7. "
The verb "to reopen" is "to open again". So...
that doesn't bother me so much. for some reason what I really want is to be able to digitise all my physical books for no extra cost. that seems fair. but copyright law forbids it
if there is no one to enforce it then you rely on people's honour, and most people don't understand why a creator wouldn't give something away for free
@Cerberus yes, but it can be improved, e.g. prevent copyright outliving the author. prevent a corporation claiming that it wrote something when it was actually people.
@MattЭллен But anyway, if this is supposed to represent violating copyright, it seems off on two counts: 1.) when you copy something, the owner still has the original. 2.) The copier would not typically claim that he is the author.
> 333 Put the cost of a $100 check out approximately $150 and consumers will change away. If you are it accurate that the effortless gladness of a [url=tlrandco.com/replica-louis-vuitton/]louis vuitton shoes replica[/url]
@JohanLarsson Every so often I'll do one of those touch typing online classes. They're so much fun like games and I can get OK at them. But as soon as the game is over and I have to type something real, I look at the keyboard.
@JohanLarsson You respond to ELU chat messages like a manager.
@KitFox No. No it doesn't. Or rather if by shedding clothing it is done out of extraordinary frustratino leading to psychosis where one tears ones hair out, cuts oneself, runs naked through the snow, bites the head off of chickens kind of frustration.
I did get in a fight with someone over the homodromy group of an eigensystem in a motivic cohomology. I won by pulling the Szilard-Boseman-Naranja maneuver. He walked away with a nose bleed, which was lucky for him.
> In August 2006, Perelman was awarded the Fields Medal[1] for "his contributions to geometry and his revolutionary insights into the analytical and geometric structure of the Ricci flow." Perelman declined to accept the award or to appear at the congress, stating: "I'm not interested in money or fame, I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."
@KitFox Pfft. The correct answer was 'both Szilard and Boseman-Naranja were physicists and, whether by name or by practice they were no mathematicians.'