OT: what's with the 'i'?

[Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.]

On 01/31/2013 04:07 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> On 01/31/2013 03:38 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:55 +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> Way way OT:
>>>
>>> Just out of interest, why do some people use the non-existent word "i",
>>> not to mention other violations of capitalization rules when 1) their
>>> Shift key is clearly not broken, and 2) they aren't the poet e.e.
>>> cummings? I've seen a number of people do this (admittedly a tiny
>>> minority) and never understood it. Do they think it's cool? Are they
>>> expressing their inner rebel? Were they punished by their English
>>> teacher at school? Is hitting Shift too much effort? Enquiring minds
>>> want to know.
>>>
>>> Sorry, this has been bugging me for ages and I had just had to get this
>>> off my chest. Feel free to ignore.
>> ----
>> better get used to it and other language simplifications encouraged by
>> SMS/tweeting/etc. It's only going to increase. There's younger
>> generations that simply aren't likely to feel bound your rules.
>>
>> Grammar snobbery is just going to turn you into an unhappy PITA.
>
> My copy of this is back in the mid-90s:
>
>                            Vy  Knot?
>
>
> Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the
> European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways
> of improving efficiency in communications between Government
> departments.
>
> European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is
> unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough,
> through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme
> of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of
> course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by
> participating nations.
>
> In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's'
> instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities
> would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced
> by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this
> klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters
> kould be made with one less letter.
>
> There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was
> announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'.
> This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print.
>
> In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
> expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are
> possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double leters
> whish have always been a deterent to akurate speling. We would al
> agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful.
> Therefor we kould drop them and kontinu to read and writ as though
> nothing had hapend.
>
> By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would
> be reseptiv to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'.  Perhaps zen ze
> funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a
> 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o' kould be dropd from vords
> kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer
> kombinations of leters.  Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud
> eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no
> mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech
> ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.
>
>
>
>
>
OMG!...this is HILARIOUS!>....I LOVE it!...LoL!


EGO II