And to add to Pole's comments (though certainly not to top them). Most English spellings have direct connections to their Greek or Latin cognates. To change spelling in most of our words would seriously piss off linguists in years to come (and Classicists, since we can use our knowledge of Latin and Greek to find the meaning of long/obscure words).
[Inglish speli? riform]
by dorayakii 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ballistic
Does this topic remind anyone of the planet people in Quatermass the series by Nigel Kneale?
-
sonnyboy
Tuve tres anos de Espanol en la esquela secundaria. (and that's three years, not anuses...couldn't get a tilde above the n).
I never implied that we're not better because of immigrants; we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them. All I'm saying is that you don't move to someone else's country and expect them to change their language for your sake...at least I don't think you should. There was a man at my former job who'd been in the U.S. for 15 YEARS and still couldn't speak English. We always had to have a translator handy to tell him anything. Although I can speak a few primitive phrases in Spanish, I can't understand a word they say.
It was a royal pain in the ass. There's no excuse to be in a country for that many years and not make an effort to speak the language.
-
sonnyboy
All I'm saying is that you don't move to someone else's country and expect them to change their language for your sake
Well, we did it with the Native Americans, but that was more of a conquest thing. Maybe when the Mexicans take our scalps, steal our land, and rape our women we'll be forced to speak Spanish.
Wait a minute...we did that to the Mexicans too.
Never mind.
-
greendawn
The idea of changing the spelling to a phonetic one is very good in my opinion as it will make it much easier for foreigners to learn English however it will be very upseting from the aesthetic point of view to have a new spelling, let alone that the new generation will not be able to read anything in the old spelling.
Also you will need a lot more than 26 letters because there are more sounds than that in English and Americans often use different vowels.
Danny, the French spelling is just as chaotic if not worse. -
iggy_the_fish
Danny, the French spelling is just as chaotic if not worse.
but the pronunciation is at least consistent, if confusing (to my ear anyhoo).
On a very minor point (I can't top what Pole said), I'd like to see the apostrophe taken out into the back garden and put out of its misery. The poor little thing has to be one of the most abused items in the english language, and even reasonably bright people get its useage wrong sometimes, especially in "its" when used as a posessive pronoun. Let's get rid of it and save the confusion.
ig.
-
dorayakii
Its been interesting to hear different views.
Heretic! And you call yourself British.
Just think of all the works you would have to change: lieutenant to lef-tenant.
Anyway, why elimante the "gh"? It connects us to the Anglo-Saxon background of English and if we shorten our words, we'd just become lazy Americans. No offense American neighbours, but I like to spell it "photo" not foto. Through, not thru. etc. etc.
Classicist, you misunderstand me, i was merely opening up the topic for debate. As a historical linguist, i am in full favour of keeping certain "outdated" spellings such as "photo" and "lieutenant". First of all because they are recognised, and secondly because they have helped us piece together both linguistic AND non-linguistic history.* I do agree that "It connects us to the Anglo-Saxon background of English" as you said, but i cannot agree with your statement about "lazy Americans"... Americans in general are less concerned about pre-Mayflower history than the British, so it is merely their cultural perspective which is different. It teems with a spirit of breaking away from the old way of doing things back on that "small island that used to oppress us", and Americans have shown great innovative tendancies in certain areas. It is merely modern American pop culture and rogue world-superpower tendancies which has led to a demise in their reputation.
In addition, any version of our language is just as valid and sophisticated as the next, whether it be International English or West Indian English (which is as linguistically sophisticated as Standard English, believe it or not)... 8th century Anglo-Saxon England actually had 4 types of English (Northumbrian, Kentish, West Saxon and Mercian). Each dialect was associated with an independant kingdom until they were integrated into "the Kingdom of England" and the Wessex dialect of West Sussex began to dominate. Even back then certain members of dialectal groups would think others slovenly and lazy because of certain features of pronunciation.
And to add to Pole's comments (though certainly not to top them). Most English spellings have direct connections to their Greek or Latin cognates. To change spelling in most of our words would seriously piss off linguists in years to come (and Classicists, since we can use our knowledge of Latin and Greek to find the meaning of long/obscure words).
Exactly, a knowledge of etymology helps us to realise where words come from and what they actually mean. For example the word "diarrhea" comes from Greek "dia"- through and "rhein"- to flow...... so why dont we just call it "through-flow" like the typical plain-speak German word "Durch-fall"? Why do we need these "long/obscure words"?
Is it an artificial attempt to elevate English to the status of an "educated" language? Or is it to hide the original meanings of words?...... The Watchtower is adept at trying to confuse its sheep in this manner, trusting that no one will even dare to do the volumes of research necessary to verify that the word "parousia" can just as well mean "coming" as "presence".
So, in a nutshell, we're deep in sh**t and any attempts to change the situation globally and radically would only sink us deeper in it.
I agree with you Pole, that it may be too late to change things, it should have been done if at all before English became an international language. The Germans can get away with a "Rechtschreibreform" because there is one body that governs spelling in Germany. French though is in a similar position as English as a world language yet they have their "Académie Française" which regulates global spelling of French. No single English speaking country though is in control of the language, that is what makes reform so difficult.
but the pronunciation [of french] is at least consistent
yes you're right Ig, there are logical rules to French. Even though they don't pronounce certain letters, these letters are often pronounced in liaison with vowels at the beginning of the next word. There is no single logical system in English. English is a mix of logical systems, which lose their logic when hauled unnaturally together... I agree with the apostophe thing, its almost completely useless and other Germanic languages which use the possesive-"s" don't use apostrophes. Finally, "text speak" could be described as a more valid form of spelling, because it (often) more accurately represents our pronunciation, in the same way as our present orthography once accurately represented pronunciation back in Johnson's day (he's the first dictionnary guy). But although i do use "text speak" on both mobile and internet, i believe it is good to have a knowledge of the traditionnal deviant spellings in order to be less ignorant of our history and in order to be conscious of the process of language change.
a few more questions:
- Would spelling reform really benefit dyslexia sufferers?
- Would it be too much of a social
changeupheaval to be sucessful? - Would it render books and documents produced in this period un-readable to future English speakers in the same way as Old English is illegible to us?
(* n.b. the "ph" in photo was properly pronounced as a bi-labial fricative (using two lips like a "p") and NOT a labio-dental "f" (using top teeth and bottom lip).
-
the_classicist
Classicist, you misunderstand me, i was merely opening up the topic for debate. As a historical linguist, i am in full favour of keeping certain "outdated" spellings such as "photo". First of all because they are recognised, and secondly because they have helped us piece together both linguistic AND non-linguistic history (the "ph" in photo was properly pronounced as a bi-labial fricative (using two lips like a "p") and NOT a labio-dental "f" (using top teeth and bottom lip). I do agree that "It connects us to the Anglo-Saxon background of English" as you said, but i cannot agree with your statement about "lazy Americans". Americans in general are less concerned about pre-Mayflower history than the British, so it is merely their cultural perspective which is diferent. It teems with a spirit of breaking away from the old way of doing things back on that "small island that used to oppress us", and Americans have shown great innovative tendancies in certain areas. It is merely modern American pop culture and rogue world-superpower tendancies which has led to a demise in their reputation.
Just joking about the heretic thing, of course. I just call "ph" an "aspirated 'p' sound" instead of a bi-labial fricative, although I believe that this aspiration got stronger into the Hellenistic period of the Greek language making an almost "f" sound (at least, the aspiration in theta got stronger; just extrapolating).
-
dorayakii
You are right classicist, the most ancient form is said to have been an aspirated "p"... but i believe that a strongly aspirated "p" must go through a stage of bilabial friction in order to be mistaken for an "f".
Anymore thoughts on Spelling Reform?......... anyone?...... *wind blows*...... *bramble bush rolls idly by*
-
dorayakii
What do you think of this progressive 20 Year "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling" by Mark Twain? It gets a bit bizarre and inconsistent by the end but bear with him... I think it was meant more as a joke than a serious proposal, but could it be implemented in a practical form?...
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.
Jenerally, 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 rimeining 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 nau jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu ripleis 'ch', 'sh', and 'th' rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.