[Beestie]

There are things about English that bother me but spelling isn't one of them.

Stupid spelling rules bother me. Like "i before e except after c." I think I have found more exceptions to this rule than applications of it.

It bothers me that there is no second-person plural pronoun. It bothers me that there is no gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. These are words we need but do not have.

It also bothers me that in English, unlike French for example, the modifier precedes the word instead of following it. We have gotten used to saying things this way but going from general to specific makes infinitely more sense. For example: "While touring the museum, I saw an old, heavy, dusty, broken, German, watch." In order to understand that sentence, I have to hold five adjectives in my head until I get to the end of the sentence to find out that the object is a watch then, one by one, apply the adjectives to form an image of the watch. If the word watch comes first followed by the modifiers, I apply them as they are presented and do not have to move backward through the sentence at the same time I'm moving forward. There are many instances in English where the language structure forces one to present information out of logical order. Why do I need to wait until the end of the sentence to know whether its declarative or inquisitive or exclamatory? Not all questions start with why or how. I run across this a lot reading to my kids. I'm halfway through a sentence before picking up the end punctuation only to realize I read it with the wrong inflection and have to start over.

English has a lot of limitations and using English properly involves, for me at least, making some sacrifices in the efficiency and the accuracy of the thoughts I am trying to convey. However, these are structural deficiencies.

Spelling idiosyncracies, however annoying, do not compromise the effectiveness of the language at all. Hence, I have to disagree with the initial premise of the thread.

And the idea of spelling reform will just make it worse. First of all, what rules do you propose to use to decide how to respell a word? I suspect you are taking for granted the idea that there will not be any controversy in deciding on a uniform and all-encompassing set of rules to apply and that the application of these rules will not create a new set of inefficiencies for the descendants of English to struggle with. And what do you propose we do with the body of written work that exists in what will become "the olde spelling?" A respelling effort will just create more separation between today's English and yesterday's English.

Ironic since it is exactly that separation which is at the root of the problem you are proposing to solve.