Originally Posted By: zmjezhd
That [i.e., "Wooster"] would be a better spelling than Worcester, but the English language has long been associated with a silly and stupid spelling "system".

Agreed, but in this particular case, I think it's the formalization of lazy speech patterns that has produced the disconnect. It's the sound that's errant in this case, not the spelling.

Which makes me think, In a sober and intelligent spelling system, would the spelling of words change as the pronunciations shift? There's nothing more tedious than a Spanish spelling bee, since words are soberly and intelligently spelled the way they sound. So should "hola" now be spelled "ola," since the aitch has evolved to silence, or is it worthwhile to retain these oddities as indicators of the history of the language? I have no opinion, one way or the other, but I'm curious to hear what others think.

"I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy. And, frankly, I don't care." - Anonymous