Apparently Mr. Clemens has been updated for the EEC and the Internet; the
item
 below showed up on ECOMP-L ([log in to unmask]
for teachers of English composition).  I've already posted a reply, which
 I reprinted after the original post.

Carolyn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I received the following from a friend on the internet, and thought it
pertinent to some of the discussions which have been occurring on this
listserv.

Read and enjoy!


> >***IMPROVING ENGLISH***
> >
> > 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 kould
> > be announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'.
> > This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty per sent 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  letters
> > which 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 thes 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 reseptive 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 words 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 fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer.
> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's a great item--but those Europeans are following a fine
American tradition:



         A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
                          by Mark Twain

        For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet.  The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.  Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
        Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
        Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.