If it weren't for the spelling (and a whiff of peevishness...), I'd think des might have had a hand in writing that.

You must be sleep-deprived, PF (no bisquit, obviously!): there would've been "Engleeshes" [not only but]"Silly Engleeshes", patent pending.

Hwaet?

Þæt.

I don't know whether to be amused or afraid.

Me þinceð þæt þis göd ymbeþanc beþ.

Presumably this (scroll down to the bottom of the page) will be the theme song of the cause?

I love the anthem,
I wonder how old it is.
I seem to remember it from my late 1960's university days.

- quaint how "ab-DO-men" gets its old-fashioned pronuciation, with the stress on "do".

Yep, I just checked.
"Woad Ode" was in the Adelaide Uni Song Book of 1966.

This is a very silly proposal, such as which I would by no means make, and in no way resembling my very sensible suggestion that all Germanic languages should preferably be written using a common orthography based on proto-Germanic for convenience of intercommunication.

One note: I am a technical writer and (erstwhile) editor, and I am not a prescriptivist. None of my colleagues are, either. Granted, there are a number of "prescriptions" for technical writing, but those serve other functions than grammar. Tech writing should be relatively "voiceless" (large technical documents and libraries are often written by teams), it should clear and unambiguous, and it should present as few problems for translators as possible. Those concerns tend to make technical writing rather artificial, but they have bugger-all to do with latinate Victoriana.

I could go for Anglo-Saxon as a technical language. In fact, I suspect that a language with strongly marked cases would clear up a lot of the ambiguity about agency that still crops up in technical documents, even with the relentless use of active and imperative verbs.

I'd like to take a compromise position and suggest that Icelandic be the new English (and world language), since it is already fully developed and even calls Istanbul by the Old Norse name (Mikligarthur= "big city"). It's close enough to Anglo-Saxon for me, even though as a Scandinavian language it fronts the dental occlusives or some shit like that.

This supercedes my earlier endorsement of Finnish as the international language. (Finnish is equally difficult for everyone, and the Finns are quite nice -- and the least likely people in the world to dominate the conversation with a lot of useless blather.)

Here's a site listing Icelandicized international placenemes based on translating the native meaning, if any, into Icelandic. This was an XIX-c nationalist project, or maybe joke. Some real names are included.

a href="http://www.geocities.com/nyyrdasmidja/Plaatsnamen.html">Icelandicized Names

http://www.geocities.com/nyyrdasmidja/Plaatsnamen.html

So you see, we wouldn't have to start from scratch like with A-S.

Perfect English????? To stay put, one perfect version [mine of course]is totally unrealistic: for example when every thing is the same like genetic spuds. One day, yer will wake deaf and mute. All wine and liquor to have the same alcholic taste? PEW. The delight of variations makes life interesting. Why not ask for the same accent, all mimic, perfect spelling[whose] same tone.
Good and bad is mostly subjective [of course i'm perfect???] is to give jobs to those that are bestilled in concrete.
Good is only for the party receiving the communicating and completely comprehends.
Bad is for those that say "wot ye say "

I have a fellow telling me that english had no "J's" until 350 years ago,ie the original King James Bible,,Would like info on this,,Thank you;;;Paul