Spelling is ruining the English language

[Clodfobble]

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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't ask me, I hated English... except in 7th grade when Mr Brown told us about fighting a fire on the roof of a London hospital during the blitz, while his wife was giving birth downstairs, and traveling on a convoy carrying war materials to Murmansk, though U-boat infested waters with ships getting torpedoed right and left, or about writing his book, Folke Wulf. Now that was a good class.

I wish I had a copy of that book.

**reviewed by** (not authored by) David Brown

Is this your guy?

Or...

**Foreword by E. M. "Winkle" Brown**

Him?

He has an extensive Wikipedia entry and has written several books, and many articles. Perhaps one referenced here is just the ticket.

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

Is this your guy?

Nope, Jim Brown. He wrote it right after the war, not a technical book really, more about the Folke Wulf company than a particular model. It was in my school library but probably out of print even then('56).

[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."

[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.

[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?

[binky]

I absolutely believe that spelling needs to be kept up, because with all the texting going on among our kids, they will grow up illiterate if we don't.

[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.