Spelling is ruining the English language

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Love English, hate grammar.

BUT - love history of English language.

HATE linguistics and all those fricatives and voiceless stops and all that rot.

Actually I like linguistics. I have studied the spelling systems of other languages as well as that of English. Other languages also have rich histories that will reward the interested student who chooses to study them.

Modern Greek is interesting because it has behind it the rich literary legacy of Ancient Greek, yet its rules for pronouncing words from the spellings can fit onto a single page of a dictionary.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If you're going to suggest we should 'dumb down' english classes in school just because some kids find it difficult and boring, then should we do the same for all the other subjects because other kids find them boring or difficult. Let's look at math as an example. What rules should we start ignoring just because they're difficult or boring? How is that going to help our future engineers produce a structure that isn't going to crumble?

A rather big helping of hyperbole and emotive language, but nobody's going to buy it. Why do you think that the world is going to go to hell just because someone suggests that we choose to fix something that's demonstrably in need of repair? In France they recently chose to cut the surplus I from oignon (onion) in a spelling reform (among other changes), and these changes didn't cause the Eiffel Tower to crash to the ground nor cause buildings in Paris to crumble.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Different kids have different skills, and they have to work harder at some subjects than others. It's just the way it is.

Some kids only struggle with spelling because people believe that spellings are immutable and must be learnt no matter how haphazard they are. Yet that is not so for other languages. There is hardly a major language in the world that does not systematically revise its spellings from time to time.

Would you want to end up with a language like Tibetan, where the written language has not been revised for 2000 years and about one-third of the letters in every word are silent or phonologically incorrect?

As for kids having difficulties with reading and spelling, did you know that they need special tests with brain scanners to identify dyslexics among Italian speakers? Italian orthography is regular, and dyslexia is not a disability when the orthography is regular.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Why bastardise a language that's already been put through the wringer several times already?

More emotive language, and this "wringer" argument would be the better for some elaboration.

Incidentally, Americans spell "bastardise" differently, with a -ize suffix. That came about because Noah Webster, founder of the Webster dictionary, was a spelling reformer who sought to establish American language standards after the American Revolution. Much of the difference between British and American spellings came about due to spelling reforms in America that were not adopted in Britain.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Language evolves. Languages evolve. It is the natural course of events, but it's important for kids to learn the rules before they start breaking them otherwise there's nothing but anarchy.

Your assertion that languages evolve is inconsistent with your view that spellings should not be changed. Spellings evolve, too.

As for anarchy, English already has that.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

A rather big helping of hyperbole and emotive language, but nobody's going to buy it. Why do you think that the world is going to go to hell just because someone suggests that we choose to fix something that's demonstrably in need of repair? In France they recently chose to cut the surplus I from oignon (onion) in a spelling reform (among other changes), and these changes didn't cause the Eiffel Tower to crash to the ground nor cause buildings in Paris to crumble.

I don't think the world will go to hell if people decide to change the english language to suit themselves. Obviously either it's already gone to hell, or changing it to suit ourselves doesn't have that effect.

France chooses to blow things up left, right and centre. Should the rest of the world do that too?

Some kids only struggle with spelling because people believe that spellings are immutable and must be learnt no matter how haphazard they are. Yet that is not so for other languages. There is hardly a major language in the world that does not systematically revise its spellings from time to time.

I guess you should send the queen a note about doing a revision of the english language. My guess is she wont be favourable, but I guess you never know.

Would you want to end up with a language like Tibetan, where the written language has not been revised for 2000 years and about one-third of the letters in every word are silent or phonologically incorrect?

I guess we'll just have to wait another 1500 years or so and see what happens to the english language. My guess is there'll be no vowels left at all if the teenagers have anything to do with it.

As for kids having difficulties with reading and spelling, did you know that they need special tests with brain scanners to identify dyslexics among Italian speakers? Italian orthography is regular, and dyslexia is not a disability when the orthography is regular.

Aren't we talking about english?

More emotive language, and this "wringer" argument would be the better for some elaboration.

Incidentally, Americans spell "bastardise" differently, with a -ize suffix. That came about because Noah Webster, founder of the Webster dictionary, was a spelling reformer who sought to establish American language standards after the American Revolution. Much of the difference between British and American spellings came about due to spelling reforms in America that were not adopted in Britain.

Your assertion that languages evolve is inconsistent with your view that spellings should not be changed. Spellings evolve, too.

As for anarchy, English already has that.

My assertion that languages evolve is not related to my view that spellings should not be changed. One is a fact and the other is my opinion. Whether I like it or not, the english language has changed and will continue to change. I simply believe that the fact that some kids have trouble with the rules of language or find it boring is not a good enough reason to go and change things just to make it easier for them.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't think the world will go to hell if people decide to change the english language to suit themselves. Obviously either it's already gone to hell, or changing it to suit ourselves doesn't have that effect.

France chooses to blow things up left, right and centre. Should the rest of the world do that too?

This last paragraph is a non-sequitur. What does that have to do with spelling reform?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I guess you should send the queen a note about doing a revision of the english language. My guess is she wont be favourable, but I guess you never know.

I don't know about the Queen, but Prince Charles is a supporter of spelling reform.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Aren't we talking about english?

You completely missed the point. Dyslexia is a disability only if the orthography is irregular.

When you have similar-looking words like tough, though, through and thorough, with up to four ways of pronouncing the ending depending on one's accent, even though it is not the ending that is changing in these words, is it any wonder that English-speaking dyslexics struggle?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

My assertion that languages evolve is not related to my view that spellings should not be changed. One is a fact and the other is my opinion. Whether I like it or not, the english language has changed and will continue to change. I simply believe that the fact that some kids have trouble with the rules of language or find it boring is not a good enough reason to go and change things just to make it easier for them.

Isn't it a good enough reason to make some changes if by doing so we help people with disabilities? Since you are opposed to any revision to spelling, would you care to tell a dyslexic or the parents of a dyslexic child: "I would love to help you manage your disability, but I oppose the measures that would be needed."

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

This last paragraph is a non-sequitur. What does that have to do with spelling reform?

Again, my point was that we're talking about english not any other language.

You completely missed the point. Dyslexia is a disability only if the orthography is irregular.

When you have similar-looking words like tough, though, through and thorough, with up to four ways of pronouncing the ending depending on one's accent, even though it is not the ending that is changing in these words, is it any wonder that English-speaking dyslexics struggle?


Isn't it a good enough reason to make some changes if by doing so we help people with disabilities? Since you are opposed to any revision to spelling, would you care to tell a dyslexic or the parents of a dyslexic child: "I would love to help you manage your disability, but I oppose the measures that would be needed."

I think Dana and Tiki covered the reply I would have made to these comments.

In a nutshell, yes it's not fair that some people have reading disabilities for whatever reason, but that's not a reason to change the system for everyone else (who happen to be the vast majority). I was going to suggest that by your reasoning we should modify the way we make cars because then people with dwarfism could drive.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

I don't know about the Queen, but Prince Charles is a supporter of spelling reform.

Maybe that's why he's a prince instead of king.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Maybe that's why he's a prince instead of king.

Nah, that's all to do with his Mum still breathing...