| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
unknown9398
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Location: Yeongcheon, S. Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
butlerian
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Location: Korea
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: Re: Should We Simplify Spelling? |
 |
|
| unknown9398 wrote: |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6250184.stm
An interesting story about the English language. |
Interesting, but not realistically worthwhile. What is standard spelling/pronunciation? Since there is none, it wouldn't really solve anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkhorse_NZ
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's a good idea to standardise spelling, especially of those tricky ones like '-ough'. sure pronunciation would differ, but it could be based on the Phonetic Alphabet.
most English speaking countries have near perfect literacy anyway, but if this made it easier to get ABCs out of the way quicker in childhood and then move on to other stuff, that'd be cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HighTreason
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Should We Simplify Spelling? |
|
|
| butlerian wrote: |
| What is standard spelling/pronunciation? Since there is none... |
Thier moast surtenlie iz! iph they're wer noe cuch theng az standurd speling, hou doo yue noe wot aye'm tieping nou iz nott write??!
Of course, there are standards... Now, the question is who would have the authority to change those standards? German spelling has been officially significantly changed by the German government twice in the last hundred years! Both times were met with great contention and there are still rebels from the last change even now. Many German publishers have refused to use the new system. Of course, that kind of rebellion is what you're asking for when you try to dictate that everyone suddenly change their language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There have been quite a few attempts at simplifying English spelling. The problem with it is that there are a few prestige dialects: RP, Standard American English, etc.). These dialects differ from each quite a lot in pronunciation. If one were to try to simplify the spelling in one region, then one would need to use a different simplification system for another region. I think it's obvious such a system will not work. It would be a step backward from English's current global status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I recall, spelling became standardized when dictionaries and hot metal type came into use. A standard spelling made typesetting much easier.
Barring getting all the dictionaries and all the school systems to sign on to this change, there is simply no way. Some words do get simplified. Though is becoming "tho". Through is becoming "thru". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikowee
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| \/\/3 5hUd 4|| u53 h4x0r 5p34|< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tchruck and Tchrick would have to be over simplified.
How about Portchugal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
holy crap I wish we could simplify spelling. The phonetic symbols are great....we should use those old norse/viking symbols for the two "th" sounds too. maybe the hangul "ch" as well.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why not get rid of silent letters, or the letter c entirely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swetepete
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think one of the most compelling arguments in favour of preserving the established standard English spellings is that they enable us to fluently read anything written down since the Elizabethan era, regardless of what part of the English speaking world you're from. If we change to suit contemporary pronunciations, we run the risk of rendering our writings totally incomprehensible to our descendants.
As several have noted, the regional differences complicate things too; how do you spell 'car?' Should a brit or a bostonian spell it 'ka' or 'kaw,' while west coasters have it as 'kar?'
How do people from Brizzie spell 'mate?' Is it 'mite,' 'moiyt,' or 'maaayt?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The phrase "communications revolution" has earned itself clich� status in the last year or so, rocketed into prominence by the frenzied growth of the World Wide Web. And most of us use the term in a cliched fashion, tossing it around with little thought to its meaning. But, the truth is, this is no clich�. What we are witnessing is a true revolution, on the scale of the industrial revolution or the birth of printing.
The communications revolution is not about computer technology. It's about people and the way we live our lives. And it's going to affect many more aspects of our lives than most people are prepared for � or prepared to accept.
Take, for instance, spelling. Let's face it: speling has had its day. I know what sum of you are thinking. The deth of spelling? That will shorely be the end of civilization as we no it.
Rubbish! Spelling has it uses, of course. As a writer, I'm the first to acknowledge that.
But the trouble is, we've become rigid about spelling. And the book, the printed word, is to blame for this rigidity. The ability to spell 'correctly' is today used to measure our level of literacy � even our social standing � and any perceived decrease in the spelling ability of people in general is regarded as a sign of social decay.
And yet, before the printing press, people could spell perfectly well: they simply spelt each word the way it sounded. This made for a spelling that reflected local nuances and changes in pronunciation over time. According to Dale Spender (in her book, Nattering on the Net) Shakespeare himself spelt his name 16 different ways. And yet, you'd hardly deem him illiterate, now would you?
Centuries of print have chained us to inflexible spelling and, similarly, a fixed grammar. This has happened so gradually we fail to see it was merely a process set in train by a new type of communications technology, the printing press.
And now, here we are with yet another new communications technology: computers and online communications. This new technology is, at the very least, going to have as dramatic an impact as the printing press. Combine spelling checkers that are getting smarter; online conversation where the written word is the coin of conversation but so fluid it's almost molten; the coming of voice recognition; and the lessening of the pre-eminent position of the book in the world of writing (just look at the amount of written material that the Web represents � and none of it is in book form). Combine all these things, and our rigid adherence to spelling and grammar standards starts to look shaky. Certainly, it makes no sense to judge someone's social standing or value on such a thing as the ability to learn some rote rules.
If you spend any time chatting online, you'll quickly see that the crucial thing is communication, not standards. When someone writes onscreen "It's great getting to no you Rose" I know exactly what they mean. And why should I bother about that "no" instead of "know"? There are myriad reasons why it doesn't matter: the writer could be 9 years old, they could be aged and arthritic, they could be disabled, they could be in a hurry, they could be focussing on the mechanics of typing, English might not be their first language, they could be being playful or inventive with their spelling, they could be a poor speller! Who cares, when I know precisely what they mean, and they're equally forgiving when I type back "And it's great getting to know you to"?
This communications revolution is going to change many many things about life as we know it. And if we lose a little in the standards arena but gain in the range of people we can communicate with, is that such a bad thing?
Spelling standards? Let's berry them! |
http://www.geekgirls.com/rant_speldeth.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Should we simplify spelling? I don't understand the question, therefore I take it as a direct personal attack on me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
