Print Page | Close Window

Should English spelling be simplified?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Linguistics
Forum Discription: Discuss linguistics: the study of languages
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13164
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 14:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Should English spelling be simplified?
Posted By: flyingzone
Subject: Should English spelling be simplified?
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:23
Apparently some do. If the following movements succeeds, it would make some of our AE forumers very happy Wink
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_re_us/simpl_wurdz - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_re_us/simpl_wurdz
 
Push for simpler spelling persists

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press WriterWed Jul 5, 5:23 PM ET

When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?

Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun.

It's been 100 years since Andrew Carnegie helped create the Simplified Spelling Board to promote a retooling of written English and President Theodore Roosevelt tried to force the government to use simplified spelling in its publications. But advocates aren't giving up.

They even picket the national spelling bee finals, held every year in Washington, costumed as bumble bees and hoisting signs that say "Enuf is enuf but enough is too much" or "I'm thru with through."

Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.

"It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," says Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways.

Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy — witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues.

Doughnut also is donut; colour, honour and labour long ago lost the British "u" and the similarly derived theatre and centre have been replaced by the easier-to-sound-out theater and center.

"The kinds of progress that we're seeing are that someone will spell night 'nite' and someone will spell through 'thru,'" Mole said. "We try to show where these spellings are used and to show dictionary makers that they are used so they will include them as alternate spellings."

"Great changes have been made in the past. Systems can change," a hopeful Mole said.

Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed.

In languages with phonetically spelled words, like German or Spanish, children learn to spell in weeks instead of months or years as is sometimes the case with English, Mole said.

But education professor Donald Bear said to simplify spelling would probably make it more difficult because words get meaning from their prefixes, suffixes and roots.

"Students come to understand how meaning is preserved in the way words are spelled," said Bear, director of the E.L. Cord Foundation Center for Learning and Literacy at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Th c**try's larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects.

Michael Marks, a member of the National Education Association's executive committee, said learning would be disrupted if children had to switch to a different spelling system. "It may be more trouble than it's worth," said Marks, a debate and theater teacher at Hattiesburg High School in Mississippi.

E-mail and text messages are exerting a similar tug on the language, sharing some elements with the simplified spelling movement while differing in other ways. Electronic communications stress shortcuts like "u" more than phonetics. Simplified spelling is not always shorter than regular spelling — sistem instead of system, hoep instead of hope.

Carnegie tried to moov thingz along in 1906 when he helpt establish and fund th speling bord. He aulso uezd simplified speling in his correspondens, and askt enywun hoo reported to him to do the saem.

A filanthropist, he becaem pashunet about th ishoo after speeking with Melvil Dewey, a speling reform activist and Dewey Desimal sistem inventor hoo simplified his furst naem bi droping "le" frum Melville.

Roosevelt tried to get the government to adopt simpler spellings for 300 words but Congress blocked him. He used simple spellings in all White House memos, pressing forward his effort to "make our spelling a little less foolish and fantastic."

The Chicago Tribune aulso got into th act, uezing simpler spelingz in th nuezpaeper for about 40 years, ending in 1975. Plae-riet George Bernard Shaw, hoo roet moest of his mateerial in shorthand, left muny in his wil for th development of a nue English alfabet.

Carnegie, Dewey, Roosevelt and Shaw's work followed attempts by Benjamin Franklin, Daniel Webster and Mark Twain to advance simpler spelling. Twain lobbied The Associated Press at its 1906 annual meeting to "adopt and use our simplified forms and spread them to the ends of the earth." AP declined.

But for aul th hi-proefiel and skolarly eforts, the iedeea of funy-luuking but simpler spelingz didn't captivaet the masez then — or now.

"I think that the average person simply did not see this as a needed change or a necessary change or something that was ... going to change their lives for the better," said Marilyn Cocchiola Holt, manager of the Pennsylvania department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.

Carnegie, hoo embraest teknolojy, died in 1919, wel befor sel foenz. Had he livd, he probably wuud hav bin pleezd to no that milyonz of peepl send text and instant mesejez evry dae uezing thair oen formz of simplified speling: "Hav a gr8 day!"




Replies:
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:28

Actually the spelling in its current form is largely redundant and contains very little information. Certainly it can be simplified, and the efficiency of writing can be increased.

You can tset the hpyohtseis of rudednant splleing by mxnig teh odrernig of lteters in wrods and cechk that it stlil mkaes snes and can be esaliy raed.



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:46
Problem is, if we switch to a phoenetic system we will be consigning a hell of alot of literature written as it is today to being incomprehensible. I agree that English is very annoying in that it is not phoenetic like Spanish, it would be ideal if the lingua franca is phoenetic, but in doing so we sever links to earlier English and create massive disruption.

-------------


Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:50
Originally posted by bg_turk

You can tset the hpyohtseis of rudednant splleing by mxnig teh odrernig of lteters in wrods and cechk that it stlil mkaes snes and can be esaliy raed.

 
Your example demonstrates that English spelling is actually as much about symbol recognition (i.e. similar mechanism behind "recognizing" Chinese characters) as phonetic logic.


-------------


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:54
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Problem is, if we switch to a phoenetic system we will be consigning a hell of alot of literature written as it is today to being incomprehensible.
 
I wouldn't say so. With the advent of computers it is a simpe matter running a program to switch texts from their current from to the simplified form. Most of the books will have to be reprinted but the average lifetime of a book is say 50 years so beyond our generation I do not think this switch would be much felt.
 
I think English should certainly be simplified and its grammar made more logical. Now its spelling patterns are unnecessarily complicated and it is just a waste of time and brain capacity for all those millions of people that have to learn it around the world.
 
As it is now I would say Spanish is much better suited to be a global language because of its spelling, but then some of its grammar is unnecessarily complicated too. I think the best global language would be one with the spelling of Spanish and the grammar of English.  
 
Simplifying English would make it accessible to many more people and would aid the process of turning it into the global language of communication. It would also free some of our much needed brain capacity.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 22:38
Originally posted by bg_turk

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Problem is, if we switch to a phoenetic system we will be consigning a hell of alot of literature written as it is today to being incomprehensible.
 
I wouldn't say so. With the advent of computers it is a simpe matter running a program to switch texts from their current from to the simplified form. Most of the books will have to be reprinted but the average lifetime of a book is say 50 years so beyond our generation I do not think this switch would be much felt.
 
I think English should certainly be simplified and its grammar made more logical. Now its spelling patterns are unnecessarily complicated and it is just a waste of time and brain capacity for all those millions of people that have to learn it around the world.
 
As it is now I would say Spanish is much better suited to be a global language because of its spelling, but then some of its grammar is unnecessarily complicated too. I think the best global language would be one with the spelling of Spanish and the grammar of English.  
 
Simplifying English would make it accessible to many more people and would aid the process of turning it into the global language of communication. It would also free some of our much needed brain capacity.
 
 
I hope you're not suggesting that transcribing literature as it exists now, to an abbreviated, sterilized language would not have an impact.  I just hope your not really thinking about changing any works of Great literature.  Somehow Shakespeare just wouldn't have the same slide.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 22:47
Originally posted by red clay

I just hope your not really thinking about changing any works of Great literature.  Somehow Shakespeare just wouldn't have the same slide.
 
Shakspear was intended to be written in Victorian English so it should remain in that English.
But imagine the advantages if English was abbreviated, simplified, and streamlined to be truely the global medium of communication. Why is it at all necessary for people to bother with this cumbersome spelling that we have at the moment, it serve absolutely no purpose - it is archaic. Most world languages have already evolved beyond that point.  I am surprised English hasn't and yet it is one of the most widely spoken languages after Chinese.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 23:04
Well, I could say that those of us who are good at handling this cumbersome spelling, don't see anything wrong. Big smile  But that would be arrogant and rude.  Or, I could say, Download a spell-check Bub!  But that would be sarcastic. So, I'll just say, leave the language alone, thank you.Smile
 
 
On further thought- Our language[use as well as spelling] is under constant change anyway, for better or for worse.  Trying to direct that change to meet a specific pattern, just isn't going to happen.  There are to many influences that can't be controlled or predicted.  As our language ages some of the more unwieldy spellings will drop out of use on there own, probably just do to irrelevance.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 23:24

I partially agree with your further thoughts. The best thing maybe to leave things to evolve naturally. Naturally sooner or later English, in order to fufil its role as a global language, will have to become more user friendly, more logical in grammar, and more phonetically compliant in spelling 

But still evolution is a tortuous trial and error process. Why wait when we can have revolution in English now? After all we know that this is where evolutoin is going to lead the language to.
 
You might be used to this spelling, but remember your school years, and think about what your children will have to go through to learn this weird spelling. Things can be made so much easier by simplifying it. So much will be gained, and so little lost. I really do not understand your hesitance. I can only attribute it to fear of change.
 


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 04:19
Considering the trouble I have with writing English, I would like a simplification. Cutting out a huge amount of 'silent' h-es would be a good start.
But I think there is a mayor problem. In the Netherlands, spellingreformations have been made several times. Bu the last time, about a year ago now, we had something of a revolt. Famous writers, newspapers and magazines grouped together in an organisation against the latest spellingreform. They state that it is illogical and destructive to the language.
Now imagine, Dutch has only about 22 million speakers. How many people in the world have English as their first language? It would become a major fight...Writers pulling each others hair, editors rolling and wrestling in the gutters, publishers plotting guerrilla attacks... it would never work.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 04:52
Should English spelling be simplified?
 
Certainly not!
 
It would make English more accessable to the hords of foreign barbarians.


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 05:04
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Considering the trouble I have with writing English, I would like a simplification. Cutting out a huge amount of 'silent' h-es would be a good start.
But I think there is a mayor problem. In the Netherlands, spellingreformations have been made several times. Bu the last time, about a year ago now, we had something of a revolt. Famous writers, newspapers and magazines grouped together in an organisation against the latest spellingreform. They state that it is illogical and destructive to the language.
Now imagine, Dutch has only about 22 million speakers. How many people in the world have English as their first language? It would become a major fight...Writers pulling each others hair, editors rolling and wrestling in the gutters, publishers plotting guerrilla attacks... it would never work.


Lets not also neglect the fact that Netherlands is just one country. Getting every English speaking nation to agree to the changes would be enormously hard, some would stick to the old way and some the new. The attempt would probably fragment the English language into two sub tongues and leave it harder to comprehend than before.


-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 05:12
Technically, Dutch is also spoken in parts of Belgium, Surinam, Indonesia, the Dutch Antillies, Aruba, South-Africa and in immigrant communities in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Together they count up to 6 million, 27% of all.
But I agree with you. It would not be a sucess.

-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 05:15
Will you Americans quit complaining, you've already made it difficult in the fact that Indians now have to learn both English's don't make us learn a third.

Have you ever considered the Indians in all of this? No. We have feelings tooLOL


Posted By: boomajoom
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 01:34
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Problem is, if we switch to a phoenetic system we will be consigning a hell of alot of literature written as it is today to being incomprehensible. I agree that English is very annoying in that it is not phoenetic like Spanish, it would be ideal if the lingua franca is phoenetic, but in doing so we sever links to earlier English and create massive disruption.


Spanish isn't as phonetic as you think. "G" can be a G sound or an H sound; "C" is pronounced differently depending which vowels it preceeds; "H" isn't pronounced at all; "J" and why it's writted as such is a mystery to me. True it isn't as bad as English, and it goes without saying that a lingua franca ought to be phonetic to make it simpler to learn.

However to change English spelling would pose incredible problems to current speakers. Hau kan yu posibli lurn dha nu speling if yu ar so ust tu dha odhur wun? If shud yu dha gramur chanj dhen problemz meni mor wud yu hav az wel. Not menchun shud I dhat diskrepensiz ekzist also with dha wai speld dha wurdz shud bi.
    

-------------
http://www.languapedia.com - Languages & Linguistics


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 11:36
It would mean that there would be a different written language for different regions where things are pronounced differently.

I'm not saying it couldn't work.  Canadian French is written according to the way it would be pronounced in France, no one bats an eyelash.
But who gets to be the "standard" English?  And what are the odds that the mass of english speakers in the world would come to accept it?



Posted By: koabr3gn
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 17:50
And if it was simplified to be phonetic...
what dialect would be used for the spelling?

The phonetics of American English are so very different from British English or other types. You would end up having different spelling systems for each English speaking country.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 15:42
Nonsense, English is already one of the simplest languages I know when it comes to spelling. You needn't go further than France and you'll see just how many useless letters it is possible to stuff in one word. Not that I think French should be simplified either.

Because, a written language is not just about being effective and concise, it's also supposed to have certain aesthetic qualities, and in addition mastering these more subtle elements of English or any other language gives a sense of achievement I wouldn't want to be without.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 16:20
Originally posted by bg_turk

Originally posted by red clay

I just hope your not really thinking about changing any works of Great literature.  Somehow Shakespeare just wouldn't have the same slide.
 
Shakspear was intended to be written in Victorian English so it should remain in that English.
 
And that is not problem at all. As an example, in Spanish we read the classicals written in Middle Age's Spain, like "Mio Cid", in the original writing, with the translation to modern language in the opposite page.
 
If English can be improved by making it phonetic, I believe it would be great for everyone. After all, English is not constrained to the English speaking world but is the international language of choice.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 13:00
   Seems mobile phone text messaging has already taken the English language to this simplified level you speak of. 
             My kids have no difficulty understanding what takes me an age to decipher. LOL
       How long do you reckon it'll take before this younger generation use mobile phone text command to communicate in written form with regards to everyday stuff like writing letters etc.
        I'm also convinced younger folk have an english language of their own. They seem to fast talk and I'm finding it hard to understand what they say unless I get them to repeat themselves. More often than not I never get the gist of the conversation.  Is it just me or do others have similar difficulty understanding teen gibberish.


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Tangriberdi
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 14:40
 
Let' see what happens in case of such a simplification. In order to show that I will quote the text written before my message.
And then try to simplify it as much as I can.
 
Originally posted by Scorpian

   Seems mobile phone text messaging has already taken the English language to this simplified level you speak of. 
             My kids have no difficulty understanding what takes me an age to decipher. LOL
       How long do you reckon it'll take before this younger generation use mobile phone text command to communicate in written form with regards to everyday stuff like writing letters etc.
        I'm also convinced younger folk have an english language of their own. They seem to fast talk and I'm finding it hard to understand what they say unless I get them to repeat themselves. More often than not I never get the gist of the conversation.  Is it just me or do others have similar difficulty understanding teen gibberish.
Siems mobajl  fone text messadjing  hæs olredy  tæjken tha English længwidj ta this simplifajd level u spiek of. Maj kids hæv no diffikoltij onderstænding  what tæjks me æn æjdj ta decifer.
How long do u reckon  it'll tæjk befor this yonger dgeneræjshun  juz mobajl fone text commænd ta communikæjt in ritten form with regards to evrijdæj stoff like rajting letters etc...
 
Aj'm olso konvinsd yonger folk hæv æn english længwidj of their own. They siem to fæst talk ænd Aj'm fajnding it hard ta onderstænd what they sæj onless Aj get them repiet  themselfs. More often thæn not Aj never get tha djist of tha konverzæjshun. Is it djost mie or do others hæv similar diffikoltij  onderstænding tien djibrish 
  


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 15:14

LOL  

     Yep! that's what I was talking about.
             
      


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 16:24
No way! Changing spelling that drastically would ruin the language!


Posted By: Qutuz
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 23:52
definitely it should be simplified. Stop wasting peoples time with useless things to learn that aren't useful.

-------------
http://www.zanjabil.net/images/unity.gif - http://www.zanjabil.net/images/unity.gif


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 01:42
Contrary to popular belief english spelling makes sense, it conveys the historical evolution of the word, as a native english speaker, you instinctively know the rules of spelling, except in the few exceptions, God help me trying to spell anything than has an s and c next to each other.

I don't think a spelling reform is necessary, I believe that there should be little to no emphasis on spelling. Like in the classroom as long as the teacher understands me when I write the rock went thru the window, there should be no problems.

A standardized spelling I believe is dangerous to a language, as it attempts to direct the natural evolution of words to conform to some unreachable ideal.

Oh and I did go to the state's spelling bee as a child, unfortunately I lost that knowledge in the binge drinking of my colledge years. Wink


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 02:41
Originally posted by Qutuz

definitely it should be simplified. Stop wasting peoples time with useless things to learn that aren't useful.
 
 
  We were only expressing a point of view with regards to this topic of conversation Confused
      
      
           
 
      
 
 
 


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Qutuz
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 13:37
Scorpian, I was merely jesting, please don't take things so personal.


-------------
http://www.zanjabil.net/images/unity.gif - http://www.zanjabil.net/images/unity.gif


Posted By: Scorpian
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:12
 OOPs!
     okay Embarrassed
      I misunderstood the context of your message               
     I'm sorry too for what I said and I'm gonna delete the last part of my previous message.
    


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: Tigerlily
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:15

    I don't think that English spelling should be simplified just because children are having hard time learning it.  Spelling is a simple challenge for an average student and challenge is good for the brain, not bad. 

    If the spelling changes in the way it is suggested, then most of the sense of English will be lost.  Suffixes and prefixes wouldn't be of use in trying to understand the meaning of a word.  I learn English as a second language and I must say that the current spelling system of English has helped me a lot in my studies because it has certain, logical rules.  I have also been able to relate the roots of the words to French, which increased the speed of the learning process.  To change it's spelling would be to ruin the language.
     However, I must admit that language is like a living organism.  If it needs to be changed, it changes itself, just like nature.  That is inevitable as seen in the case with text-messaging.  I say, change in the spelling should be left alone and let it happen naturally.


Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:18
Originally posted by Tigerlily

I don't think that English spelling should be simplified just because children are having hard time learning it.  Spelling is a simple challenge for an average student and challenge is good for the brain, not bad.
 
Efficiency is better, and allows you to move on to other, more important 'challenges' in life.
 


Posted By: Tigerlily
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:27
There are lot more better ways to spare time for important challenges in life.  Watch less T.V., get yourself a challenge, for example.  To change the rules of a whole language for this? 
OK.. That's a challenge too.. Stern Smile


Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:33
A student can spend less time learning the language & more time using it.
When I say using it, I don't mean the thing(s) you mentioned.
 


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 12:44
Some children might be having a problem learning spelling because certain methods might not work for them. To change the spellings of English words would force English to lose its personality.


Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 15:23
I don't know about losing its personality.  No one accuses standard American English of lacking personality but it came out of Webster's attempt to simplify and reform confusing English spellings.  Double 'l's were made single, unpronounced vowels were removed and clipped vowels and other idiosyncratic pronunciations were dropped and the stress was evened out over all the syllables in a word.  Like another poster said already, it doesn't really matter in the end because internet slang is doing the work of spelling reform already. 


-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 15:48
I don't know about those reforms there are still a considerable amount of words in English that have double l's as well as unpronounced vowels. Internet slang is not reforming anything other than using letters or numbers from words i.e. R u goin 2 the store? (Are you going to the store?) However when we leave the realm of the internet the former way of spelling in not acceptable and has made no head way in reforming actual written English outside the realm of im, text messaging, and internet. There actually is a book that deals with the idosyncracies of English, its spelling and pronounciation. The book was written by Bill Bryson and is titled "Mother Tongue." It is actually very interesting and chronicles the development of the language. Specifically it discusses how spelling could confuse a non native speaker since it looks nothing like it is pronounced.


Posted By: Etherman
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 00:37
Originally posted by King John

Some children might be having a problem learning spelling because certain methods might not work for them. To change the spellings of English words would force English to lose its personality.


It needs a personality transplant. Unfortunately any useful reform will also be radical which means it will be resisted like the metric system was.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 01:01
Why does it need a personality transplant?


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 01:07
You said it King John! I second his question: Why does English need a personaility translant?

Also: To hell with the metric system! I use feet and inches and I'm damn proud of it! I use pounds and gallons and cups and miles! Ahahaha! The metric system is the spawn Satan!! Wink


-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:10
All of this reminds me of George Bernard Shaw's plea for spelling reform.
 
If you take:
GH as in "rough"
O as in "women"
TI as in "nation"
then

GHOTI = "fish"


Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:47
Originally posted by King John

I don't know about those reforms there are still a considerable amount of words in English that have double l's as well as unpronounced vowels. Internet slang is not reforming anything other than using letters or numbers from words i.e. R u goin 2 the store? (Are you going to the store?) However when we leave the realm of the internet the former way of spelling in not acceptable and has made no head way in reforming actual written English outside the realm of im, text messaging, and internet. There actually is a book that deals with the idosyncracies of English, its spelling and pronounciation. The book was written by Bill Bryson and is titled "Mother Tongue." It is actually very interesting and chronicles the development of the language. Specifically it discusses how spelling could confuse a non native speaker since it looks nothing like it is pronounced.


The double 'l' thing was more to do with  making forming the past tense of a word easier by just adding 'ed'  (like in focused or traveled) instead of doubling the last consonant.  I'm sure double consonants abound in other forms elsewhere.  The point is that making a language more efficient doesn't necessarily mean taking away its personality.  That book you mentioned sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.  You're right about internet speak, it is really just restricted to vernacular...my mistake.


-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 07:45
I say leave it alone. There's nothing better than spotting and mastering the idiosyncrasies of the language, and I absolutely believe that these idiosyncrasies are what give the language a large portion of its personality and reflect the mixed heritage of the language itself, taking words from Latin, Norse, French, Turkish and many many others. I have read Bill Bryson's book and while he does point out that a non-native speaker could get confused by words like chough (pronounced 'chuff' ) and by words with alternative and quite unlinked meanings such as 'back' or 'axe', he in fact champions these 'inefficiencies' and points to the fact that English, as a great borrower of words from other languages, would hardly exist without them.

-------------


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:03
The simplification of English would be a global favourThumbs%20Up

-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com