Spelling is ruining the English language

[DanaC]

Brilliant! I'm gonna remember that one.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
James Nicoll, 1990

Thanks, Kingswood -- looks like what I'd seen, unattributed, was one of those "improved" versions that epigrammatic quotes are so vulnerable to. [ending a sentence a preposition with] Let me see if I can find an old favorite from history: "All is lost, save honor."

[DanaC]

Don't know really UG. Different parts of the country say it differently. Mostly I think the last syllable is shortened and pronounced with the schwa. What vowel sounds lives inside that shwa is very different town to town. *smiles* For me it's more of an uh sound Fav-uh (which is how it's said in Bolton) but if I was a full on Manc, I might say it as more of an short 'o' sound. Fav-o'. The 'r' is not pronounced. In Liverpool, it ends with more of an 'eh' sound (quite slight). Fav'eh. Again, the 'r' isn't pronounced.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Re "Favour:"

Originally Posted by DanaC

. . .Mostly I think the last syllable is shortened and pronounced with the schwa. What vowel sounds lives inside that shwa is very different town to town. *smiles* For me it's more of an uh sound Fav-uh (which is how it's said in Bolton) but if I was a full on Manc, I might say it as more of an short 'o' sound. Fav-o'. The 'r' is not pronounced. In Liverpool, it ends with more of an 'eh' sound (quite slight). Fav'eh. Again, the 'r' isn't pronounced.

The American pronunciation, prevalent everywhere but New England which goes like "fav-ah," would sure stick out enough to attract curious looks all down the bar: "Fav-rrr." The vowel gets almost entirely subsumed into the voiced consonant, a reflection of the R-effect.

[DanaC]

And answer this: If you think context is not a problem, can you state the context rules for disambiguating the 500 or so heterophonic homographs in English in such a way that one can use these rules to program a computer to read text out loud flawlessly? If you think this isn't important, ask any blind person about the inadequacies of screen reader software. Good screen readers do get it right most of the time, but some words always cause problems.

That is the first point you've made which has given me pause on this issue. There has been technological development which has provided a context and potential need for a less problematic spelling system.

I still don't advocate top-down spelling reform; however, I can well see that technological shift driving a bottom-up change.

My guess is that the tech shift will lead to a 'computer english' being developed. A reformed spelling system into which standard texts are translated prior to being accessed through synthesised speech. That may or may not then feed into the language proper.

Right now, though, for all the people you'd help by simplifying spelling, there are a bunch of people who'd be disadvantaged by that change. The ideosyncracies of English spelling helped me to learn how to read. I don't know if I'd have loved it so much without them.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Right now, though, for all the people you'd help by simplifying spelling, there are a bunch of people who'd be disadvantaged by that change.

Please expand on this point. You claim that people would be disadvantaged by changes to spelling. Who would be disadvantaged and how?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Please expand on this point. You claim that people would be disadvantaged by changes to spelling. Who would be disadvantaged and how?

I expanded on it in my post, but here it is again: People like me who found the ideosyncracies of spelling rules intriguing and helpful when it came to remembering how a word was spelt. Greater uniformity in spelling makes for less variety, for me that would have made it harder to learn, not easier. I remembered how to spell 'see' precisely because it was different to 'sea'. As a kid I would read voraciously and often come across words for the first time. Sometimes I'd read it wrong, and have an incorrect pronuniation in my head for that word. Months or years might go by without me hearing that word, but nonetheless encountering it in print. Or I would hear someone say the word, but because they pronounced it differently I would think them two different words *chuckles* 'recipe' was one. For a long time when I was a kid I thought that was pronounced re-cype. I'd see it and that's how it would sound in my head. Then I'd get that moment of discovery when I'd find out how it should sound. I used to love that. It was like I'd found something really cool.

Still happens. oh so rarely these days, but nice when it does. When I was little there were a lot of words like that. Usually they were words that I wouldnt really need to use, but would find in books that were a little too old for me. Guarantee those are the words I will never forget how to spell.

I like the shape of the words. On the page. It's more than just symbols, they have a shape and a visual flow and rhythm. I would miss that.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I expanded on it in my post, but here it is again: People like me who found the ideosyncracies of spelling rules intriguing and helpful when it came to remembering how a word was spelt. Greater uniformity in spelling makes for less variety, for me that would have made it harder to learn, not easier. I remembered how to spell 'see' precisely because it was different to 'sea'. As a kid I would read voraciously and often come across words for the first time. Sometimes I'd read it wrong, and have an incorrect pronuniation in my head for that word. Months or years might go by without me hearing that word, but nonetheless encountering it in print. Or I would hear someone say the word, but because they pronounced it differently I would think them two different words *chuckles* 'recipe' was one. For a long time when I was a kid I thought that was pronounced re-cype. I'd see it and that's how it would sound in my head. Then I'd get that moment of discovery when I'd find out how it should sound. I used to love that. It was like I'd found something really cool.

Still happens. oh so rarely these days, but nice when it does. When I was little there were a lot of words like that. Usually they were words that I wouldnt really need to use, but would find in books that were a little too old for me. Guarantee those are the words I will never forget how to spell.

I like the shape of the words. On the page. It's more than just symbols, they have a shape and a visual flow and rhythm. I would miss that.

It is really odd how you find it acceptable to go for years before getting a simple word with an irregular spelling right. What's worse is how you think that's more acceptable than any effort to remove the deadwood from English spelling so as to reduce the learning time for others.

You fear the making of any change because you feel that would make it harder to read for those who have mastered the traditional spellings. There are different approaches to reforming English orthography, and not all of them make large changes.

Consider SR1 (Staged Reform 1). This was a simple rule for reform: wherever a vowel was pronounced the same as the "e" in "bet", it was always spelt with "e". No other rules. This would have the effect of altering the spelling of relatively few words in running text, but every now and again one would read words like "fether" where a surplus letter had been quietly cut. While traditionalist pedants would recoil in horror at that spelling ("You can't do that! It's spelt wrong!"), there is no reason why the "feather" spelling is considered the correct one, other than force of tradition.

But in reality, it is unlikely that anyone would have difficulty recognising the word "feather" with its surplus silent letter cut. At least, not more than once.

Here's a test for you. How well can you read Hamlet's soliloquy, from the First Folio? I won't put in the long esses but this is otherwise much as it was published in 1623.

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? 'Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish'd. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there's the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shuffel'd off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would beare the Whips and Scornes of time,
The Oppressors wrong, the poore mans Contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd Loue, the Lawes delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurnes
That patient merit of the vnworthy takes,
When he himselfe might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardles beare
To grunt and sweat vnder a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes, Puzels the will,
And makes vs rather beare those illes we haue,
Then flye to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of vs all,
And thus the Natiue hew of Resolution
Is sicklied o're, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprizes of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turne away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The faire Ophelia? Nimph, in thy Orizons
Be all my sinnes remembred.

How much trouble do you have reading that? Some, I'm sure: the usage of the letters u and v is not the same as we use them now. However, you should be able to read the odd spellings. Probably not with the same speed, but you won't have too much trouble recognising the words that are still in use.

If you can read that, you should have little trouble reading texts in modest reforms that only make small changes.

[Cloud]

how do you feel about the spelling of "one-trick pony"?

[Shawnee123]

It seems K's point is that correct spelling is prohibitive to communication.

Have you tried reading K's posts? I can't understand a freaking word.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

It seems K's point is that correct spelling is prohibitive to communication.

Not true for the most part. We can muddle along most of the time. However, in some cases it is easy to demonstrate that the current standard spellings are not optimum and we would be better off with some revision to standard spellings.

I remember a story a little while ago about a Canadian newsreader working for a US television network who pronounced "lieutenant" the British way (as if it was spelt "leftenant"). However, his employers wanted him to pronounce it according to the American pronunciation (he was working for a US network). To do that, they had to eschew the correct spelling on the autocues and instead use the spelling "lootenant".

This need to depart from correct spelling in this way wouldn't be necessary if the two pronunciations had two spellings to go with them. There are precedents for this in English orthography, see: aluminium/aluminum.

For some words, it is possible for them to be spoken but not transcribed without loss of meaning. Example: If one mentioned "axes" in face to face conversation, the listener would know immediately whether "axes" was the plural of "ax" or "axis", but the reader won't know unless context was supplied. Maybe 30 words cannot be disambiguated readily because both meanings are nouns or both verbs.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Have you tried reading K's posts? I can't understand a freaking word.

That's not my problem.

[Cloud]

We're not worthy, obviously.

But at least I can spell!

[toranokaze]

English is a an amalgamation of words from all around the world. I would love a standardize spelling but I doubt it will happen.
So for now English is a lot like traditional Chinese writing you just have to know.

[Shawnee123]

For some words, it is possible for them to be spoken but not transcribed without loss of meaning. Example: If one mentioned "axes" in face to face conversation, the listener would know immediately whether "axes" was the plural of "ax" or "axis", but the reader won't know unless context was supplied. Maybe 30 words cannot be disambiguated readily because both meanings are nouns or both verbs.

If you're reading a single word, with no context whatsoever, it's irrelevant whether it's the plural of, using your example, ax or axis. Unless you're at Home Depot and can't remember if the word on the paper is to remind you to pick up a couple axes, in which case there is context.

That's not my problem.

It's not really mine either. (Oh wait, did I mean mine as in "belongs to me" or "someplace to get coal and stuff"?)

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

If you're reading a single word, with no context whatsoever, it's irrelevant whether it's the plural of, using your example, ax or axis. Unless you're at Home Depot and can't remember if the word on the paper is to remind you to pick up a couple axes, in which case there is context.

How would you know that it is always irrelevant? How do you know that context is always available?