OT: what's with the 'i'?

[Robert Moskowitz]

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.