Spelling is ruining the English language

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What monotony? Not all students hate English classes. Some of us loved English. Some of us enjoyed learning to spell words and the fact that the rules seemed slightly arcane and esoterical at times made it all the more interesting.

What to add, what to add? Oh, nothing!

Also, from now on, I would like the number 5 to replace the number 3. I've never understood the social conventions that numbers are one thing only and should be used correctly. I have developed my own numbers system, some numbers are converted to letters if the previous numbers follow rules that I make up as I go along. There really is no rhyme nor reason to this system, but I expect you to understand what I am saying when I tell you that my new shoes cost 27T41B.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

snip~There really is no rhyme nor reason to this system, but I expect you to understand what I am saying when I tell you that my new shoes cost 27T41B.

Hey, it works for the expiration dates on groceries.

[Trilby]

Love English, hate grammar.

BUT - love history of English language.

HATE linguistics and all those fricatives and voiceless stops and all that rot. For speech therapists if you're asking me. Did that dangle?

[Cloud]

but even those "hypercorrectionists" are part of the history of the language.

I guess I just never had too much trouble with spelling, although I know people who do. I think it's a right/left brain kind of thing. I even loved grammar! Sentence diagrams . . . (waxes nostalgic)

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Cloud

but even those "hypercorrectionists" are part of the history of the language.

I guess I just never had too much trouble with spelling, although I know people who do. I think it's a right/left brain kind of thing. I even loved grammar! Sentence diagrams . . . (waxes nostalgic)

Three things I loved doing in school: diagramming sentences, geometry proofs, and Punnett squares.

Those things were all like doing puzzles to me. Mr G would give us a difficult extra credit proof in geometry and I couldn't wait to work on it!

[Clodfobble]

This issue seems to consume you a little more than most people, eh Kingswood?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

This issue seems to consume you a little more than most people, eh Kingswood?

Heh...I thought it seemed familiar.

[Cloud]

I guess that means he's one of those people that can't spell.

To be fair, we Dwellars are an unusually literate bunch, and we seem to get pretty passionate about these language topics.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I guess that means he's one of those people that can't spell.

You guessed incorrectly, sorry. It's more that I like linguistics and the more I look at the spelling systems for other languages, the more I feel that we, the custodians of English, could be doing better than we are.

We as English speakers would be better off even if all we did was to allow American spellings in all English-speaking countries. Is it really that wrong to be willing to accept American spellings like "flavor", "sulfur" and "plow" without living in North America?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

We as English speakers would be better off even if all we did was to allow American spellings in all English-speaking countries. Is it really that wrong to be willing to accept American spellings like "flavor", "sulfur" and "plow" without living in North America?

But that is happening. Naturally and slowly we are starting to go towards parity in spelling rules. Right now that adds to the confusion, as in most schools (in the UK) both English and American spelling is accepted in students' work; though the English spelling is taught first.

Quite naturally this happening. Look at the word 'gaol'. When I was growing up that was how it was spelt, at school, in newspaper reports, in novels. Gradually, across my childhood that word vanished, to be replaced by 'jail'. There wasn't a big spelling reform , it just happened. For a while both were in usage, then one ceased to be useful and therefore was dropped in all but the most rare cases.

[Sun_Sparkz]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Quite naturally this happening. Look at the word 'gaol'. When I was growing up that was how it was spelt, at school, in newspaper reports, in novels. Gradually, across my childhood that word vanished, to be replaced by 'jail'. There wasn't a big spelling reform , it just happened. For a while both were in usage, then one ceased to be useful and therefore was dropped in all but the most rare cases.

This too is occuring in Australia - words like gaol, socialise ect. are becoming incorrect (at least, questioned).

I had a conversation with some people recently in regard to textual analysis, and a few of the above issues were discussed. We even hypothesised on the possibility of one day a number system will replace all words of colours. Will the colour dark red be called 19191 internationally one day - and differentiate for all hues. Just how far can we go to simplify language and make it accessable to all people, of all cultures.

I refuse to ever be called "Mom" though. Urgh. Its "Mum's" the word over here!

[Cloud]

I re-read the old thread--some good stuff there.

So English has crappy spelling. I can't find too much outrage in my heart over it. On the contrary, in my town where everything is printed out in English and Spanish, I have come to admire English for its compactness, its brevity, its pithiness.

[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?

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

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

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.

[dar512]

If you really want to know more about why English has such inconsistent spelling, you should read: The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got That Way by Bill Bryson. Though it sounds dry reading, it's actually quite fun to read.

The short version is that "English is the result of Norman soldiers attempting to pick up Anglo-Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any of the other results."
— H. Beam Piper

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language:

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x"— bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez —tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivili.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev alojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Sure English, especially American English, is rife with idiosyncrasies and odd constructions which must be memorized rather than following set rules. This is an unavoidable result of the natural growth of language; words and phrases are added naturally and without design rather than being formally inserted into the lexicon.

If we wanted a language to be internally consistent then we would need to design one from the ground up. Not only would this new language be off to a poor start since nobody would be proficient in it, but if they finally did then it would be corrupted the first time a new idea or concept arose. A new word or phrase would become recognized among the population and it would not necessarily follow the rules of the language, but it would need to first become popular in order to warrant formal and proper entrance into the language. It is a Catch 22, in order to drive home the point with the point itself. The only way to prevent this issue would be to completely block the entrance of unplanned concepts or ideas, something which is both undesirable and wildly impractical.

I hate rote memorization just as much as the next person, but I have to admit that it is a huge part of what goes on in our daily lives. Luckily I had the opportunity to avoid learning grammar and sentence structure by paying attention in class... I simply read lots of books and "learned through experience."