[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. MineralMan: It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language.

Mr. Stolyarov: Have you even read my article? If you did, you would be aware that the Greeks had an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALFABET which did not employ cumbersome dual combinations for single sounds. If we are to go by the Greek roots of "filosofy", we might as well designate the root to be "filos," since this does not alter its spelling in the original Greek. I see no need to blindly copy the blunders made by Roman scholars that did not esteem themselves highly enough to invent a Latin letter "f" when incorporating Greek roots into their language.

I see nothing wrong with studying the past; I do, however take issue with mimicking it at the cost of the autonomy of one's own thought. We can discuss the origins of words all we wish, but we need not live in the past; languages exist for OUR utility and their rationality should be not temporal, but rather present in the here and now for us to wield as unified structures.

[MineralMan]

"? If you did, you would be aware that the Greeks had an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALFABET which did not employ cumbersome dual combinations for single sounds."

Of course I know that. English, however, does not. Russian, another language with which I am familiar, also has an extended alphabet.

In English, we use two different spellings to indicate the language origin of words which contain the 'f' sound. When PH is used, one can rationally assume that the origin of the word is one of the classic languages. Using F generally indications that the origin is not from those languages.

You, sir, are not a linguist, nor an orthographer. You are covering ground which has been covered many times, and by folks with a stronger linguistic background.

While linguistics does treat of the political effects of language, you seem not to understand that at all. Instead, you make a specious argument based on the words of Ayn Rand.

Objectivism has nothing to do with orthography, and your sophomoric attempts to link the two are laughable.

I suggest you go back to composing derivative minuets.

[r9etb]

I see nothing wrong with studying the past; I do, however take issue with mimicking it at the cost of the autonomy of one's own thought.

All properly spelled, I see. I guess that means you surrendered the autonomy of your own thought to do it, right?

My suggestion to you: find a different hobby horse.

[MineralMan]

"It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language. "

Hmmm...yet you spell all of this in a non-rational orthography. Try it this way:

It harmz us not at al tu no thet thu origin ov thu rut for thu wurd filosofy haz that histuree. indeed, it ekspandz our awarnus ov langwaj.

There's a rational orthography for you. You choose not to use it, preferring normal English orthography, except for the singly phoneme you wish to alter.

Dilletantism is not the same as objectivism. Ayn Rand would be disappointed.