User blog comment:Eðkee/My shifts/@comment-209.18.49.25-20180105163328/@comment-34075916-20180105213735

I must disagree. Whilst 'y'all' is seen as slang or as a souþern American form, I point to Dutch, where þere is a separation between 'jij' and 'jullie.' 'Jullie' was at first a contraction of 'jij' and 'lui' much like y'all is a contraction of 'you' and 'all.' However, 'jullie' is seen as official due to its acknowledgement by a regulatory body. Þere is no true ground as to why 'y'all' can not also be. A few English words þat we today regard as not slang started out as regional variants. Words such as 'proven,' 'aluminum,' et cetera. Why can 'y'all' not be reach þe same place?

I þink, and I apologize if I come off as rude, I don't mean it, þat where you and I stand apart is here: my vision for Anglish is a tung based off of what English has become þrough years of natural development. Granted, þere are exceptions here and þere in þat vision, but in my view, an Anglish based so heavily off of archaical rules like I find yours to be will be too hard for folks to þrow þemseves behind. I understand þat, in þeory, a person's unwillingness or lack of skill in understanding þese concepts is his or her problem, but first impressions do mean a lot.

Þe Anglish I seek to form is easier for mean folks to swallow, much more familiar, easier to understand, and easier to learn. Unless one has widespread backing from þe folks whom þe shift will affect, making such great shifts as þose you put forþ will never succeed on a wide scale.