i think it’s important to investigate why native speakers of standard Englishes (and i include myself in this category) get so emotionally invested in spelling: why are we angry about people who use chatspeak, haughty when an error appears in a professional publication
A reaction to lack of constancy in lives and society all poured at poor little language who just wants to flex? An in-group, out-group pecking order thing? A desire for one Queen’s English, except whatever is local winning? Some desire to throw pixie dust and fix time and let language never change again, yet never stagnate?
Towards the other direction Rob Mackon Perloff on Khlebnikov,
Even words which had no objective etymological connection were connected by Khlebnikov if they shared syllabic sounds. Words had content not on the basis of meaning but on how they looked and, above all, how they sounded. He made up words and related them to other real words on the basis of sound, and also made nouns verbs, adjectives adverbs etc. What a word represented in the real world didn’t matter, simply its place in the “language field” i.e. Khlebnikov’s system of connections.
And Marjorie Greyson’s take on Sage Hill.
Much to think about in poetry, always.