Spelling is ruining the English language

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

These questions make no sense. OK, I'll play. Show me an example, one word on a piece of paper, with no context whatsover, where you would be completely confused as to the meaning of that word and that knowing the meaning of that word is essential for any purpose. I contend that if no context exists (and this is your argument, I think there is always context) then the meaning of the word is irrelevant. It is, then, only an arrangement of letters.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat a smilie.

I encountered an article on Wikipedia on the weekend about the upcoming Magic:the Gathering expansion Zendikar. It reads in part: "Zendikar (codenamed Live) is a Magic: The Gathering expansion set, set to be released on October 2, 2009." Can you tell from that context alone whether the codeword "live" is the adjective or the verb? You can't.

Fortunately for you, I don't have to force-feed you a smilie right now, as context is provided in an infobox elsewhere in the article. The code names for this block of three expansions are given there, as live, long and prosper. However, the context that is needed to disambiguate this also requires knowledge of Star Trek and the thematic naming conventions employed in MtG expansions.

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

I encountered an article on Wikipedia on the weekend about the upcoming Magic:the Gathering expansion Zendikar. It reads in part: "Zendikar (codenamed Live) is a Magic: The Gathering expansion set, set to be released on October 2, 2009." Can you tell from that context alone whether the codeword "live" is the adjective or the verb? You can't.

Fortunately for you, I don't have to force-feed you a smilie right now, as context is provided in an infobox elsewhere in the article. The code names for this block of three expansions are given there, as live, long and prosper. However, the context that is needed to disambiguate this also requires knowledge of Star Trek and the thematic naming conventions employed in MtG expansions.

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

Oh well hell, certainly a game and a stupid show and movie have shown me the errors of my ways.

No, it has context. You pointed out the context yourself. If you are buying the game, you know the reference. No one is going to think it means Lie-ve long and prosper. Even if you don't know Star Trek you won't think it's lie-ve, because that doesn't make sense.

No, I won't be eating a smilie today. You have not proven anything. Again, show me an example, one word on a piece of paper with no context, where not knowing the meaning of that word makes any difference whatsoever.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

I have to ask...

Aside from your wanting it to be so, what's to stop 'liv' from being pronounced with a drawn 'i', similar to the word 'leave'? The standard issue vowel 'i' has the potential for three sounds. This allows for your commuted 'live' to have three forms: 'liv' as in 'I live in the US.', 'leeve' as in "We leave in 10 minutes." and 'live' as in "Saturday Night Live". Does your rule bank on the fact that we currently use the 'ea' to create the 'ee' sound in 'leave' to remove that sound from the list of possibilities? Do you have a rule in your New Spelling Order transform 'leave' into 'leev' to fix that problem?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

I have to ask...

Aside from your wanting it to be so

Don't misrepresent what I say.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

, what's to stop 'liv' from being pronounced with a drawn 'i', similar to the word 'leave'?

It would be spelt on a similar pattern to words like sit, him, dish? Do you have trouble with these words?

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

The standard issue vowel 'i' has the potential for three sounds. This allows for your commuted 'live' to have three forms: 'liv' as in 'I live in the US.', 'leeve' as in "We leave in 10 minutes." and 'live' as in "Saturday Night Live".

Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Does your rule bank on the fact that we currently use the 'ea' to create the 'ee' sound in 'leave' to remove that sound from the list of possibilities? Do you have a rule in your New Spelling Order transform 'leave' into 'leev' to fix that problem?

The redundant silent e in "leave" is only there so that you know it's not a u.

As for the ea digraph, I count it as a regular spelling. I have already said that.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Don't misrepresent what I say.

It would seem, just from reading through this thread, that you'd like to see a change in how English is presented for those who would read, write and speak it. I gather this from how vigorously you defend, explain and elaborate on your position on the subject. This is what you present to the forum, even if this isn't what you intended. Given this, how am I misrepresenting you when I say 'your wanting it to be so'? Isn't a change what you want? Or is all this just a mental exercise for you? It might help to clarify.

Now, back on topic...

Originally Posted by Kingswood

It would be spelt on a similar pattern to words like sit, him, dish? Do you have trouble with these words?

I don't. But I can see where people could have problems with that. That rule wouldn't clear anything up. It would just shift the problem to a different set of people.

Originally Posted by Kingswood

The redundant silent e in "leave" is only there so that you know it's not a u.

Where exactly does this 'u' come in here? The word and pronunciations involved here don't have a 'u' or any sounds associated with the vowel. Or do you mean 'u' in the sense that it's how we know it's not any other letter?