In vaireus plasez throout this website, yoo'l see whut's known az Heritaje English spelingz, az in az for as, whut for what, uv for of, etc., az an intruducshun to tranzliteraeshun consistensy that dictates thu speling reflect thu cultyuraly comun proenunseashun. Note that thair are many duzenz uv "duble-standard" itemz comun in Canadien, Tuconan, (U.S.A.)* and uther cultyur'z form uv prescriptiv English, such being that in many casez, it's corect to proenounse in sight-reader dialect speling, but NOT to "SPEL" it thus, and THAT's whair thu "DUBLE STANDARD" prezents such uh plethoric problem for even thu yooniversity profesorz. *The United Conditionz Of North Amairicu iz becuming more popyoolarly known thus az Tucona, to with all due  respect, diferensheate it frum The United States Uv Europe. Tucona being thu FIRST such to be recognized thus internashunaly, thairby iz obligated to retain that internashunal respect, by adopting an equaly distinctiv reprezentativ identity THAN that which The European Yoonyun haz chozen to "cozy-up-to them" with, becuz in every such instanse uv intenshunaly NOT doing so, it rezults in no les than the apearanse uv atempting to garner via relaeshunal atrishun, the internashunal renoun uv the uther. In this case, becuz a "STATE", ALSO iz similarly defined az a CONDISHUN, it behoovz its countrymen thus AND thoze uv its naighboring naeshunz, to now substitoot a distinctiv recognishun identity that can NOT eazily be stolen by any UTHER nashun. Posibly The European Yoonyun would now consider anounsing having ohfishaly DROPED thair unfavorable name, so that with all due respect, Tucona can continyoo to be internashunaly identified by BOTH its orijinal AND its NEW dezignate uv internashunal distincshun.

   My reazons for yoozing "Heritage English" spelingz, are two-fold; firstly, I waz shamefuly LATE and very surprized to discuver that nearly fifty persent, that being nearly HALF uv all Canadienz are uv a maximum, primary school, "grade-two" level uv literasee, and secundly, , after learning that respect for thu "sight-reederz", also would asist to dis-corage and prevent cumpyooter software translaeshunz that seldum are thorohly reliable, I reckoned it well worth thu time and efort to research thu potenshal rezult, and learned that thu scholarly would consider it litle more than amyoozing, becuz uv an edyoocated understanding uv whut'z intended, regardless uv how spelled, and then conclooded thu matter, with confirmaeshun that "sight-reederz" most often view wordz frum a factyooaly "tranzliteraeshun perspectiv", and that being to spell wordz az they're proenounsed, insted uv having and maintaining a DUBLE standard that demandz WUN speling for writing, and anuther for speaking/proenounsing.

     Translaeshun reveelz thu definishun, and tranzliteraeshun revealz how whutever word iz proenounsed, in acordanse with prezent-day, comun yoosaej, consonant and vowel soundz. I hope this explanaeshun proovz helpful, and that thu "sight-reederz" will forgiv my lack uv knowledj on their behalf, after having spent most uv my profeshunal life, with the educaeshunal standing uv an English profesor. This'll be a bit uv a challenj for me but, habitually, I re-reed every paje, to corect whutever airorz uv previus timez; so, now I can perform all editing in thu new dialect that ought to help all reederz, they that read in acordanse with thu hundredz uv diferent litle memory "tricks" roolz uv prescriptiv gramr, AND they that read via vizyool apearanse, in acordanse with thu fonetic rool rezult uv thu speling, wherein thu first uv any two vowelz, iz the ownly wun such to be proenounsed in that part uv whutever word.

      For thu "sight-reederz", thu significanse iz plain and simple, in that such az insted uv a wun "s" donkey, it iz exactly az it ought to be speled, insted uv constantly performing thu litle mental trick uv changing the "s" uv "as", to a "z", and then proenounsing it - "az", insted uv alwayz speling it az it's proenounsed. Also, note that thu word "pronounce", althoh SPELED with a "c" sound az in "cook" or "can't", ought NOT be speled thus, becuz in fact it iz NOT proenounsed that way, but insted, with an "s" in plase uv thu "c", and that requirez the adishunal litle mental "trick" uv remembering to alwayz "change" thu "c" sound to an "s", when in fact thu sight-readerz simply spel it az it's comunly proenounsed and thus, speling "proenounse" withOUT a "c", and an "s" in that plase, insted uv so stoopidly having and maintaining a DUBLE standard that demands WUN speling for writing, and anuther for speaking/proenounsing. Also, note thu word "of" that requirez thu litle mental trick uv alwayz remembering to replase the "o" with a "u", and the "f" with a "v", so that insted uv it sounding its OWN consonants that in fact are az when taking "of" or "off" yor hat, that regardles uv how many adishunal consonant "f"s are inserted, it yet retainz thu SAME manner uv proenounsement, and that being az "off" or "offf", even with ownly wun "f", az in "of", unles again, we remind ourselvez to perform thu litle mental "trick" uv substitooting BOTH symbolz, BOTH the "o" AND the "f", with a "u" and a "v", so that in fact, it then can be corectly proenounsed az "uv" and thus, OUGHT to be WRITEN that way.

    In breef, becuz theze are ownly thu major points but more than sufishent to introdoos anywun to seareusly sucseed at the art, basicly, that's whut sight-readerz do; they ignore thu many hundredz uv litle memoriezaeshun "tricks" and insted, write thu wordz exactly az they're proenounsed, and THAT way, all thair iz for thu sight-reader to remember, iz the orijinaly asigned SOUND uv each alfabet symbol, nun uv which are leterz but insted, "symbolz" that are yoozed to form wordz that then are yoozed to write leterz. Also, note that in many casez, the END uv a word whair English Gramar sez must hav an "s", insted, sight-readerz put in a "z", and for thu simple reazon that it's comunly proenounsed that way, whether ourselvez, requirez, sez insted uv says, or whutever UTHER word that endz with a comunly proenounsed z sound, becuz sight-readerz ignore the English Gramr "DUBLE STANDARD" that renderz reading and writing a burdensum task, insted uv an enjoyable freedum.

       So, basicaly, that iz whut sight-reading and writing iz all about, that uv speling wordz that in English, comunly are proenounsed thus, and THAT way eliminates thu need to alwayz remember thu hundredz uv litle mental "tricks" that in fact, negativly constroo our langwaje, by reqiring an alwayz dificult to remember, wun amungst hundredz uv uther litle mental memory-work "tricks" that negatively train thu brain to wrongly re-configyur with an entirely new and dificult to remember, diferent identity, that which orijinaly, iz extreemly simple. In uther wordz, az taught in gramr schoolz, thair iz a DUBLE standard that requirez a diferent speling for WRITING, than for SPEAKING, , while thu sight-readerz hav ownly WUN standard that's thu same , , , alwayz, whether for writing OR speaking.

Althoh at the outset, sight-reading and writing may seem monyoomental, after ownly an hour or so, it becumz extreemly eazy, when yor subconshus mind beginz to take over thu task uv prompting yoo to simply WRITE thu wordz az yoo're acustumed to proenounsing them, and THAT way, even if at timez we spel wordz a litle diferently, most uv thu time thairafter, thair'l seldum ever be a time when yoo can NOT read whut yoo want to, and without ANY major dificulty, becuz insted uv thu need to remember thu hundredz uv litle mental tricks and whut to substitoot or chanje entirely, yoo simply proenounse thu word in acordanse with its alfabet ingredeents, and in most casez, becuz two SAME consunants, whether an "L", an "S", or a "t", seldum reqire BOTH to be proenounsed, whether in such az "little", "loss", or "spelling", seldum EVER iz it nesesary to WRITE more than wun such, and that rezulting in thair being NO need whut-so-ever, for yoo to remember thu quantity reqired, when insted, whether litle, los, or speling, yoo simply write thu word az it's proenounsed, , BUT, , if yoo want thu reseever uv yor leter, to note yor individyooal expreshun when talking about how SMALL sumthing iz, then yoo would write it az, "thu lit-tle baby waz so very smal . . .", or ad even more t's, but, becuz wordz such az "sumer" and "leter" are NEVER proenounsed az "sum-mer" or "let-ter", dubling that consunant iz NOT nesesary, similarly az it izn't reqired in "nes-es-ary", even thoh thu comun school teaching iz that yoo should remember thu litle mental trick uv chanjing thu "c" to an "s" and dubling thu secund "s" ocurense, so that it sounds az, "nesesary", even thoh they insist it be writen az, "necessary", , and they NEVER hav a practical explanaeshun az to WHY thu "NECK" part uv yor body, should be proenounsed az a "NES".

Note that the English alfabet consists uv a total uv 26 symbolz, all uv which if NOT prezented by a regyoolar gramr school English teacher, are extreemly eezy to memorize, six uv which are vowelz and thu remaining 20 are consunants. Thu vowelz are, a, e, i, o, u, and sumtimez y, , and thu consunants consist uv all thu remainder that are NOT vowelz, and thu major "key" in corect proenounseashun, iz revealed by thu litle ryhm, "When two vowelz go walking, thu first wun duz thu talking.", meaning that in all instansez uv two vowelz being wun after the uther, ownly thu first iz to be proenounsed, such az for instanse, in "seat", where thu secund vowel "a" remainz silent, and this simple proenounseashun rool making it very eazy to know, by merely LOOKING at a word, HOW it's supozed to be proenounsed, whereaz in "seat", ownly thu first, secund, and last symbolz are proenounsed, and that then rezulting in it being proenounsed az whut yoo sit IN when driving a car or truck, and sit ON when riding a bicycle, and by chanjing thu first consunant symbol to an "m", it then most obveusly iz corectly proenounsed az that which clean birdz or animalz provide, when butchered and cooked; it's this two vowelz incloozyun in the English langwaje, that so eezily enablez corect proenounseashun, becuz in each such instanse, thu first revealz thu required SOUND uv that spesific sylable, for corect speaking, IF alwayz, it's writen that way ALso, in total absense uv any duble standard.  

ADENDUM - Becuz yesterday, 11d11m2011, I waz contacted in qesjun uv thu Heritaje English spelling that insanely, iz Canadien government maligned, and to the extent uv now defining comun yoosaje wordz az having direct gender, sexyoal, orgazmic, copyoolativ, or spesific body-parts conutaeshun and thus meaning, such az in thu spelling uv "cumfortable", refering to eejacyoolaeshun ohcurense, on the insanely NEW definishun groundz that whutever small-brained ideot haz "coined" CUM az meaning and or refering to the ejaculate substanse containing sperm.

In direct REPLY to that inquiry, I asked how much MORE insane government malignment uv the English Langwaje, could be tolerated, prior to it being nuthing more than Canadu's New Cultural donaeshun to all thoze at Balmoral whom are NOT thu LEAST dezerving uv such swinish extent uv totally UN-earned SMITING uv thair heritaje that without which, thair would NOT prezently, even BE such naeshun az Canadu.

Duz thu Canadien government's anounsement thus, now re-define all uther comun yoosaje wordz az having direct copyoolativ meaning, , such az for instanse, thu word HOLE, that a farmer digz to plant a post in, or a gardener a tree thairin?  Directly thairto, I ASK thu Canadien government authoriteez responsible for thu "CUM" malignment to our langwaje, whether yoose uv thu word HOLE, iz now direct referense to that which malez hav ownly wun uv below thu waist, and LIPS now direct referense to that which males have nun uv below thu waist? Having a few yearz preeveus, re-defined "EXPLISIT" az having nun uther than copyoolativ meaning, when in fact, its orijinal definishun relates to definitivly presise terminolojical descripshun and or expreshun, , posibly thu Canadien government folk responsible for thu prezent RE-defining uv much needed retenshun uv that which The Historicaly Prominent Folks at Balmoral so Graeshusly passed on to us, would care to explain to thoze remaining few uv us elderly Canadienz, by whut Royal Authority they've uhgen smited thoze whom we inherited our langwaje frum.

Being obligated becuz uv Canadu'z near absoeloot remooooval uv all pertinent edyoocaeshun standardz, to now adopt thu Heritaje English spelling and writing standard, to permit thu rezultant half uv Canadienz more ready acses to government publicaeshunz, advertisments, books and magazeenz, , iz NOT just nor even thu least related cauze to publicly smite they whom we are so profoundly indebted to for our historical and langwaje culture. Granted, Canadu'z governmental intent to render thu naeshun uv multi-cultyural orijinz, now obligates many Aboriginal and British Canadienz, to submit to resently arrived African, Asian, or Iranian or uther foreign government authoriteez, to obtain such personaly important document az a birth sertificate, BUT, , must we now bow even further to the obveus intent uv total eliminaeshun uv our justly proud, Aborijinal or European, Canadien heritaje, becuz uv thu prezent Canadien government's re-defining uv prominently important to retain wordz in our langwaje? Can it NOT without direct governmental malignment thairuv, continyoo to be comunly acsepted, that thu comunly understood definishun uv MANY wordz, iz directly dependant upon thair contextyooaly obveus intended yoosaje, , whether with such wordz az cumfortable, lips, or hole, etc., to menshun ownly a few?

Must the expreshun, "IN THU HOLE", be insanely interpreted az having vaginal or rectal conutaeshun, , and if NOT,  WHY can NOT such az WEBSTER, be lejislativly PREVENTED frum publishing and distribyooting in Canadu, when so ignorantly and insanely re-dezignating comun wordz definishunz to the extent uv rendering our proud langwaje heritaje on a constant downward spiral into permanent guteral obliveon? Why haz thu Canadien government permited WEBSTER to ohfishaly asign such new definishun to "CUMFORTABLE", az to now inform Canadienz that it haz direct referense to orgazmic prosedyur? Can it not REMAIN for thu HALF uv Canadienz whom are sight-readerz, that "CUMING INTO THE HOUSE", haz nuthing whutsoever to do with lack uv control when entering a rezidense, , and that "CUMPLAINING" haz nuthing whutsoever to do with an orgazm? Can not "THU FLOWER CHILDREN" uv thu fifteez, sizteez, and seventeez, , be permited to remain thus, and in total absense uv governmental aprooval uv their cultural freedumz being insanely jeopardized and dismantled by unfeeling government rep's void uv such criticaly important reality az loss uv a langwaje, being thu deth nel uv loss uv a heritaje, a culture, AND a people?

Thu counter-culture movement uv thu '60s and '70s, iz thu world'z graetest revolooshun without bloodshed, and introdoosed world-wide emphasis on hyooman rights and freedoms, in simultaneusly  global denounsement uv predjudis. Can we thus, NOT be granted on-going permishun to retain sufishent personal respect, az to HAV and cuntinyoo with Canadien government suport acordingly, to understand thu simplisity uv thu gramatical THEORY  UV  RELATIVITY that permits us to cloze a writen or printed statement, without thair being thu least semblanse uv insane thot defining that clozyur az direct referense to menstruaeshun, az prezently iz thu plainly adopted direcshun uv comun standard promoted by Webster?
 

        Also, sinse its insepshun, olympic endevor haz encorajed and promoted thu persistense that enablez even thu disabled, to stand strong and tall toward a lifetime uv proudly poignant impresivnes that constantly stimyoolates advansing progreshun, but without a government cognizant uv such simple realiteez az thu two major axiomz that can never be sanely defined utherwize, , very soon Canadu'z foundaeshunz shall be historicaly deemed az worthy uv litle more than breef menshun in thu history books . . .

         To note whairuv I speak at such seareusly involved length herein, it waz dyuring an on-line intervyoo for CBC Newz, 09d11m2005y, 13:13:58 EST, that thu then Canadien Government edyoocaeshun statistics Ohfishal Francois Nault, stated the statistical fact that nearly HALF uv all Canadienz are defishent in reading skillz, hiz reserch revealing that 48 persent uv Canadienz aje 16 and over, are at a Primary School Grade-1 Level uv basic educaeshun skillz, and that even twelve persent uv Canadien Yooniversity “gradyooats” would yoo beleive, are at a "Primary School Grade-1 Level" uv reading and writing profishensee, and worse than that, sinse then, thu Canadien educaeshun standardz hav been relaxed even more, with profishensy in anything, not being a requirement for promoeshun to thu next grade or employment standard. Thus, even moreso now, Canadu'z educaeshun standard iz NO standard. Stated diferently, becuz it's been more than thirty yearz sinse fonics, sentense structure and parsing thairuv, waz the orijinal reading foundaeshun in Canadien primary schoolz, it's now deemed acseptably NORMAL for total ignoranse thairuv, to be thu basis for Canadienz uv any aje and thus, NOT thu least knowlejable or even cognizant in disernment uv corect proenounseashun, else Canadienz would be aware that thair government haz permited thu "gigi", az in gigi-byte, thu Greek Symbol for wun bilyun, "g", to be thu normal substitoot for the orijinal English Alfabet "g", even thoh az similarly with "cum", the oposit uv "go", thair iz NO NEED uv any substitoot or replasement. Clearly, it's evident that Canadien government employeez havn't herd the exclamaeshun, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!  "g"="gigi"= 1-billion = gigi-byte 

         So, , iz it even probable that yung Canadienz shall prosper az thair parents did, , when cultured in a governmentaly promoted atmosfere that despizez the ability to intelijently read, write, and speak? Iz thu Canadien government now PROUD uv thu fact that thu literasy rate uv black Africa, iz forty persent HIGHER than that uv Canadu? With Canadien literasy at ownly HALF, for all thoze ubuv aje sixteen, whut iz it for all thoze below aje sixteen, thoze soon to take over thu guverning uv Canada? Shal they require speshaly edyoocated asistants to read, write, and speak FOR them? Haz it NOT becum OBVEUS, that thu Canadien government now deemz basic cumyoonicaeshun skilz redundant?

        Whut persentaje uv sentral and western Canadienz, are aware that becuz many Newfoundlanderz hav such a very limited vohcabyoolary, they can NOT cumyoonicate, in absens uv repeatedly interjecting thu comunly frum todler aje yoozed "F" word that the orijinal definishun uv, iz RAPE? Iz not RAPE acyurately defined az forsed sexyooal penetraeshun? Iz it sane, let alone hyoomane, to governmentaly tolerate and by neglect, promote such mental and moral degradaeshun az inculcates thu comun rape expreshun az being a major part uv a todler'z and teenajer'z voecabyoolary?  Iz it now thu Canadien government's goal to promote Newfoundland'z culture az thu nashunal standard? Duz it NOT seem blatantly OBveus thus, when amidst Canadien government acseptans uv copyoolaeshun replasement definishunz now being recognized az comun yoosaje substitoots and thus, welcumed into Canadu'z ohfishaly published dicshunary?

           Iz thair any nashun in thu world'z history books, that'z survived more than two or three generaeshunz uv such total absense uv sane moral standard? In EVERY case I've re-searched, a naeshun'z absense uv comendable MORAL standard, imeedeately preseeded its permanent decline and disapearanse, , and WHY, iz becuz He Whom Roolz In The Afairz Uv Men, Duz NOT long tolerate preferense for insanity. Further thairto, if Canadu'z moral standard iz NOT on a hell-bent tobogan slide, how can such az Jer.8:3 and Dan.9:7 be fulfiled? This iz NOT to infer it hazn't any choise, but that it refyoozez to obey.

           Iresponsibly via ohfishaly profeshunal neglect, obligating a globaly renouned publisher uv popyoolarly dezired knowledj, to revert to "Heritaje English" spelingz, so that the iliterate "HALF" uv hiz naeshun'z people, can more eezily read and understand it, , iz MORE than sufishent JUST cauz to post a detailed explanaeshun for such, IN that publisher'z work, , but however sadly obveus it iz also, regardles uv any leader'z highly comendable moral standardz, althoh it earnz him much respect in the eyez uv thoze he roolz over, he can NOT cumpel them to adopt hiz preferensez. That's why it's too often noted that a suden chanje uv leader, rezults in a suden dis-apearanse uv internashunal respect, becuz thu respected leader thairuv, on steping down, can no longer atract on hiz naeshun'z behalf, thu respect preveusly garnered frum uther naeshun'z leaderz.

         Thairto, thu readerz hearuv are informed that all referense hearin to Canadien government, iz NOT intended to be directly focused on leadership, when like az Canadu'z farmerz, they can lead thair constityooents to clean and clear waterz uv thu most inhairently aplicable and poignant choisez for astoundingly profitable sucses, BUT, they can NOT cumpel them to DRINK thu beter waterz uv prospairitee becuz, we all must chooz, and no wun else can do that FOR us.

         Az pertainz to Canadu'z absens uv cumendable edyoocaeshun standards, thu public iz merely geting whut thu majority thairuv WANTS, , and when thu minimaly remaining salt thairuv haz LOST its savor, it shall be thrown out. Althoh not thu least politicaly minded, this iz a prime oportoonity to expres my Scotish caliber uv gratitood to Canadu'z opozishun governments, for so dilijently and comprehensivly exhibiting thair inferiority uv potenshal leadership, az to render it more obveusly clear to the UN-politicaly-minded like az myself, az to which sector haz thu most inhairently profound leadership expertees, , 'cuz if leadership ability iz NOT inhairent, it can NOT be aplied, and althoh astoot aplicaeshun can graetly increase the aejing factor and seemingly hiden loss uv hair, like az the internashunaly renouned "Gentleman Uv Myoozic" award can't be given twise in any wun sentyuree, thu personal CO$T uv renown in thu prezent Canadien instanse, containz such quantity uv singyoolarly prezent notoriety atribyoots, az renderz it an historical FIRST, and even if by nuthing more than payshently persistent, althoh hezitant wilingnes, az it apearz iz an inherent atribyoot uv conservatism historicaly.

       NUN uv this clozing statement iz personaly intended to cumyoonicate my least respect for ANY national government that lejislativly promotes profanity, and very probably the united conditionz uv North Amairica, being thu most prominently habitual at that, by printing on its paper curensy, the obveus, Ex.20:1-17 and John 15:10 confirmed lie that nashunaly, , they trust in God, while having MORE heathen based structures than any uther naeshun on erth, and iz the ownly wun such that so obveusly fits the AuKJV Bible definishun uv MODERN BABYLON. Granted, even a very breef drive throo whutever chanse selecshun uv its myriad uv ingredeent smaller naeshunz, in most cases reveals its personal respect and internashunally earned pride to be mountain height abuv and beyond that uv all utherz, and so much so az to provide the impreshun that most uv its turf haz been oefishally dezignated az federally owned and maintained park lands, but orijinally being the direct descendants uv Manasseh, renderz that naeshun subject to dire judgement for leading all uther nationz down thu devil'z path uv intenshunal ignoranse for the AuKJV Bible confirmed fact that Heb.10:20, "Throo Thu Vail" iz the ownly AuKJV Bible permited manner uv Godly worship that sinse The Asenshun, renderz all preveus need for pastorz, preists and rabbi, permanently terminated, , and THAT yoo can read thu sobering reality uv for yorself, in Heb.4:14, 7:26 and 8:1, that thairby confirmz assembly before an UN-rezurected person, profanez Messiah'z Sacrifise, thus earning all such worshiperz, hell fire damnaeshun.  If that link duzn't work for you, copy this into your address bar and pres enter: http://www.olivecandlevoice.com/209.html