Spelling out value of simplicity in language

Have your say

From: Malcolm Beaumont, Wordsworth Way, Bamford, Rochdale.

THE point by Hugh Rogers (The Yorkshire Post, July 2) on replacing ‘could’ in the English language with “cud” must not distract from the many benefits of simplified English spelling. Vowels are very difficult to change without problems. However “coud” would simplify things as an alternative to “could”. The elimination of silent consonants such as the “gh” in words like “thought” and “eight” would massively simplify spelling.

We must realise that about 90 per cent of English language learners are foreigners (‘foriners’) who love our language but hate our spelling.

From: Dick Appleyard, Saxilby, Near Lincoln.

I AM “Yorkshire-born”, “Yorkshire raised up” and “Yorkshire bred” but I live in Lincolnshire and I have no intention of learning to speak “Lincolnshire yellerbelly” because I still prefer to class myself as a Yorkshireman.

In Peter Hyde’s letter (The Yorkshire Post, July 2), he wants Yorkshire to have road signs in two languages. I wouldn’t like signs to be in “Lincolnshire yellerbelly language” where I live – with all due respect to Lincolnshire!