John Cowan wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
>
> > Even English _could_ be encoded with a syllabary, but you'd need an
> > awful lot of symbols.
>
> By the time you got to learning the syllabograms for "strength" and
> "strengths", you'd have probably forgotten everything else. English would
> be better off using yingzi (http://www.zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm ).
>
> But no, the true way forward for English writing reform is Axel Wijk's
> Regularized Inglish.

As if there ought to be such a thing.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...