> People spoke in a particular way, say 60 years ago, that left very little room for interpretation of what they meant. The same cannot be said today.
replySurely you don’t mean everyone in the 1960s spoke directly, free of metaphor or euphemism or nuance or doublespeak or dog whistle or any other kind or ambiguity? Then why are there people who dedicate their entire life to interpreting religious texts and the Constitution?
Compared with today, on average, they did.
replyThere's a generation of people that 'typ lyk dis'.
So yes.
Your point is less persuasive than you intended. You complain about linguistic ambiguity, but then you show an example of sensible spelling reform.
replythat example is regarding syntax, and is actually no worse than any other
reply