A country is a fence around a piece of land. Odd in a way that people should feel anything about it.

My only criticism would be that all commas are not created equal, so that pauses, say in lists, sometimes suggest meaning which was not intended.

What is steak? It is flesh cut from the body of a dead cow.

When I eat black pudding it's because it is delicious and something I have grown up with. Fixating on where animal products come from is nonsense.

The idea of eating pudding made out of blood sounds gross to me, but I love dipping chips in the juices that pour out of a cooked steak.

The juices in steak are not blood; they're primarily made up of water and myoglobin. The statement from folks that they like their steak 'bloody' is a misnomer.

How is "nowe" a better spelling for "now" since the trailing 'e' typically softens the preceding vowel?

And "proove", what does the 'e' add?

Not all rules from English 1.0 carry over to 2.0.

In particular, the terminal E has lost it's role as Magic E.

1. 'nowe': English 2.0 distinguishes 'ow' (digraph, same Long O sound as in 'know') from 'owe' (trigaph, same the OW diphthong sound as in 'now'). The 4 letter combination 'owne' is also the 'OW' dipthong sound, but is used at end of words like towne, downe, browne, etc.

Technically, the 'E' in '-owe-' and '-owne' is not a guard or silent E, as it is part of the trigraph/tetragraph and serves to give a different phonetic sound to the '-ow-' digraph. (eg. In the same way that the 'sh' digraph is a different sound to the letter 's' not in such a digraph).

This is what the Specification says about the owe/owne trigraph/tetragraph:

  'ow[n]e  Internal & terminal OW diphthong (howe, towne, scowel, flower).'

2. 'proove': English 2.0 retains the 'guard' e after -ce/je/se/ve, -iyze & u-glide words - this is mainly to retain overall word shape, so that someone who knows nothing about English 2.0 can still read most words immediately & without effort.

In this case, E does not have any softening role, as all c's not associated with a 'k' are already soft, and likewise all s (when not the pluralisation or possessive 's') is always hissed & not buzzed like 'z'.

Also, all g's are always hard (any soft g's are converted to j). English 2.0 has phonetic plurity in that g's always sound like 'go', whereas English 1.0 allows two different sounds for the same letter.

Is it a good idea to do that? Feels like loaded guns for children.

If AI was doing its job there would be no overload.

He was in Greggs at the time.

It was Pizza Express.

Just getting a round and round sometime never on my phone.

I think the whole "we think on language" is either wishful thinking from LLM developers, or the product of some people for whom it is true. I suspect those people are writers. When I am trying to write something (like this) of course I think in words to form what I am going to say. The rest of the time, no I don't.

Booming in the UK.