NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I read an argument about whether or not spelling of certain words should change to make them simpler to learn and make the spelling sound more like the pronounced word.:
Through-Thru
Enough-Enuf
They even go so far as to dress themselves up as bees and protest during spelling bees.
I think that this is another attempt by people to find a quick and easy solution to a much more deep rooted problem. Would't better education work too. I actually read that someone's excuse for bad grammar was that they were ONLY 13! How dumb do you have to be.
What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/07/05/bc.simple.words.ap/index.html

Recently, I read an argument about whether or not spelling of certain words should change to make them simpler to learn and make the spelling sound more like the pronounced word.:
Through-Thru
Enough-Enuf
They even go so far as to dress themselves up as bees and protest during spelling bees.
I think that this is another attempt by people to find a quick and easy solution to a much more deep rooted problem. Would't better education work too. I actually read that someone's excuse for bad grammar was that they were ONLY 13! How dumb do you have to be.
What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/07/05/bc.simple.words.ap/index.html

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

it's just laziness - can you spell 'dumbass'

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

it's just laziness - can you spell 'dumbass'

It's "ridiculous." :p

/Spelling Nazi

It's "ridiculous." :p

/Spelling Nazi

lol

ah well... :D

lol

ah well... :D

I agreed completely with the sentiment, though. ;)

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

That's don periodicaly, eniwei. Elizabethan Inglish is diferent from modern Inglish. And it gets wors bifor then.

Bisaids, Inglish is not the onli languash that has ever bin spoken.

That's don periodicaly, eniwei. Elizabethan Inglish is diferent from modern Inglish. And it gets wors bifor then.

Bisaids, Inglish is not the onli languash that has ever bin spoken.

re-writing it in another language is different - although you raise a good point.

I still think it's lazy

That's so stupid, it makes me want to cry my heart out. What happened to the days where correct spelling signified high status and honor?

This just reminds me of 1984 and Newspeak. Can't get tha t book out of my head. Damn A-level English Literature

lets use newspeak, that would be much easier

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

Consider yourself lucky, if GBS had got his way NSGeneral would look something like this:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/linguistics/russell/138/sec1/shaw2b.gif

That's so stupid, it makes me want to cry my heart out. What happened to the days where correct spelling signified high status and honor?

Or, for that matter, 'honour', depending upon which side of the pond your high status was located.

lets use newspeak, that would be much easier
Too confusing seeing as I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Or, for that matter, 'honour', depending upon which side of the pond your high status was located.
Sorry, usually I write hono(u)r.

Enough-Enuf

Wouldn't Eenuf be even more sensible?

Wouldn't Eenuf be even more sensible?
Eenuf would probably be too difficult for the bumble bee people.

if there was a way to make people write in full proper words during IM and other internet activities then im sure we would see a rise in correct spelling.

the hip hop gangster society crap also doesnt help much. perhaps if they were to say the words right they would be able to spell them right

Wouldn't Eenuf be even more sensible?

Shh!

So if these are the people directly opposed to spelling Nazis, does that make them spelling communists?

Eenuf would probably be too difficult for the bumble bee people.

lets just change it to "nuf"

The problem is that the English spelling system came about from a series of unhappy accidents, mostly the imposition of the French system over a Germanic language, which was done by monks who wouldn't agree with each other.

Compared to most other languages, English is a bitch to spell, so there may be a point in that. Unfortunately developing a new, more rational, spelling system is unrealistic at this point in time.

Eenuf would probably be too difficult for the bumble bee people.

On reflection, the difference between enuf and eenuf is primarily one of regional accent. There's the problem right there, in order to reform spelling in this manner you either need a received pronounciation, or you allow that the same word will have a myriad different spellings spread across different regions.

...so do we go for 'idiot or eejit, Nu Jersee or Nu Joysee?

if there was a way to make people write in full proper words during IM and other internet activities then im sure we would see a rise in correct spelling.

the hip hop gangster society crap also doesnt help much. perhaps if they were to say the words right they would be able to spell them right
Have you seen the Hip Hop Bible? That's sad.

I still think it's lazy

language always incorporates new amounts of lazy though. think contractions and acronyms and slang. hell, we've invented new letters before because we were too lazy to leave the little bit of space between two other letters (double-u, anyone?).

Ugh, seems very 1984 to me.
DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD

That's so stupid, it makes me want to cry my heart out. What happened to the days where correct spelling signified high status and honor?
Txt Msg!!!11!!!

This is Not Done, to quote The Once and Future King.

Txt Msg!!!11!!!
No phone. Or AIM. Or my own e-mail. I share with my parents.

On reflection, the difference between enuf and eenuf is primarily one of regional accent. There's the problem right there, in order to reform spelling in this manner you either need a received pronounciation, or you allow that the same word will have a myriad different spellings spread across different regions.

even worse, where i'm from we often have multiple acceptable pronounciations of the same word - we'll take ehnuf, eenuf, and even aynuf.

Ugh, seems very 1984 to me.

how?

how?
newspeak...bleh

I've got a simpler solution: we stop bagging people for pronouncing words THE WAY THEY ARE SPELT (or spelled, if you prefer.) So a small, fast sailing boat is a yatchet ... does that conflict with some other word? No. Nor kenikety for a dude in armor waving a swoard.

Speech is the root of language. Spelling can just follow, until it's obsolete.
Ten years from now, if you're atavistic enough to still use text, your pooter will translate other people's dumb spelling into your own. Like private languages between autistic twins.

Then, no-one will call me a dumbass. I'll be told over and over again that I'm a savant.

language always incorporates new amounts of lazy though. think contractions and acronyms and slang. hell, we've invented new letters before because we were too lazy to leave the little bit of space between two other letters (double-u, anyone?).

understandable - n i'll b the first to admit 2 shortening stuff cuz it's quicker to type etc

but as far as learning the english language - i still think it's lazy

:D

but as far as learning the english language - i still think it's lazy

:D
Of course it's lazy; that's the way things progress: from hard to easy.

understandable - n i'll b the first to admit 2 shortening stuff cuz it's quicker to type etc

Harder to read though. It just means you expect other people to invest the effort into your posts that you are unwilling to.

That's so stupid, it makes me want to cry my heart out. What happened to the days where correct spelling signified high status and honor?

It indicated education. Grammar school. Was that a virtue, or just something your parents bought for you?
(My parents were teachers. My grammar and spelling are very good. I claim neither high status, nor honor)
You were joking? (My parents ...)

EDIT: of course, correct spelling and grammar could just indicate that you employed someone to write for you. A scribe. MOM! Gimme another beer!

Recently, I read an argument about whether or not spelling of certain words should change to make them simpler to learn and make the spelling sound more like the pronounced word.:
Through-Thru
Enough-Enuf
They even go so far as to dress themselves up as bees and protest during spelling bees.
I think that this is another attempt by people to find a quick and easy solution to a much more deep rooted problem. Would't better education work too. I actually read that someone's excuse for bad grammar was that they were ONLY 13! How dumb do you have to be.
What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/07/05/bc.simple.words.ap/index.html
Do you mean something along the lines of this:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
-M. J. Shields (from The Economist)

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 now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "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.

It indicated education. Grammar school. Was that a virtue, or just something your parents bought for you?
(My parents were teachers. My grammar and spelling are very good. I claim neither high status, nor honor)
You were joking? (My parents ...)
Earlier, my friend, earlier...when being a successful scholar placed you in the highest of society.

newspeak...bleh

how does this reduce the number of words or create an artificially simplified grammar? how would spelling 'tough', 'though', and 'thought' differently reduce the range of possible thoughts?

Harder to read though. It just means you expect other people to invest the effort into your posts that you are unwilling to.

please note that i was making a point

how does this reduce the number of words or create an artificially simplified grammar? how would spelling 'tough', 'though', and 'thought' differently reduce the range of possible thoughts?
It would be entirely phonetic...which would make things easier. However I suppose it wouldn't limit thoughts...they would in theory grow because there is less space in the brain accomodating complex spelling. Intriguing...

how does this reduce the number of words or create an artificially simplified grammar? how would spelling 'tough', 'though', and 'thought' differently reduce the range of possible thoughts?

grok

please note that i was making a point

Capitals and punctuation wouldn't go amiss either, love.

me, i'd rather see an alphabet that had some closer relation between phonemes and symbols. we've got a bunch of letters that can all make the same sounds, a bunch of letters that each have multiple sounds, and a bunch of sounds for which we don't have any letters at all and we just start piling letters together and hoping for the best. it's stupid.

but changing the alphabet at this point seems rather difficult, to say the least.

Capitals and punctuation wouldn't go amiss either, love.
Aye, where would written word woo without women? The women are the fair ladies grammar and spelling, and are courted by denotation and connotation, respectively.

This is going to sound way off-topic, but what's with the "spelling bee?"
I've heard of a "working bee" which is where a bunch of people turn up and work for the sake of it, like worker bees. That makes a little bit of sense. But a "spelling bee?"

Be by beeing. Buzz like crazy, headbutt your sisters, spell because you CAN! Whoohoo!

i had a really hard time leaning to spell when i was younger and iam still really bad at it but athis system would have have made it so much harder for me to learnd what helped me was beeing able to reamember how the roots and prefixes and sufexis were spelled then adding them together made it easy...eather that or breaking big words in to lots of samll words ie together--> to-get-her....this "nue" system makes no sence becaues you would have to lean the "correct" way to spell the word according to how someone thought that it should be said, how the words sounded in their own minds..."saem" does not work becaues the "e" at the end is waht gives the "a" between the "s" and "m" its long sound; putting the "e" next to the "a" changes the way that its pronunced. if you pronunced "saem"properly it would sound like "sam" with a soft a. the "ae" combination should be "æ" from old english...so in useing this "nue" system they are actualy making things more complicated

The only excuse for using spelling like that on purpose is a case of clinical dumbassery.

The only excuse for using spelling like that on purpose is a case of clinical dumbassery.

Unfortunately, clinical dumbassery is only recognized by doctors of the Duh What? school.

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

it's just laziness - can you spell 'dumbass'

Ya. As Hume tells us, the connexion between knowledge and reality is nothing more than prior experience. Changef in fpelling will only make for more confufion down the road.

me, i'd rather see an alphabet that had some closer relation between phonemes and symbols. we've got a bunch of letters that can all make the same sounds, a bunch of letters that each have multiple sounds, and a bunch of sounds for which we don't have any letters at all and we just start piling letters together and hoping for the best. it's stupid.

i mean honestly, have you ever seen the charts of the various phonemes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English) that definitely exist in english?

Unfortunately, clinical dumbassery is only recognized by doctors of the Duh What? school.

I there's a focus in that at (I think) Fordham University. At least when I asked my mother's doctor where "a quack like you get's a medical degree," he said "FU."

Change is inevitable. Just at the moment it doesn't make sense.

"saem" does not work becaues the "e" at the end is waht gives the "a" between the "s" and "m" its long sound; putting the "e" next to the "a" changes the way that its pronunced. if you pronunced "saem"properly it would sound like "sam" with a soft a. the "ae" combination should be "æ" from old english...so in useing this "nue" system they are actualy making things more complicated
"seim", "niu". The "e" wud olweis bi an "e": elefant; eleveitor. The "i" an "i": bir, limb. And diftongs teik ker of the rest. Most of the diferences in pronuncieshon ar regional, wich wud remein the seim.

Unfortunately, clinical dumbassery is only recognized by doctors of the Duh What? school.
I would hate to be there! :p

what a stupid idea. What about different accents?

what a stupid idea. What about different accents?
You'd have to set a standard pronunciation.

I had a great teacher in years 11 & 12, who made us (and I mean forced us) to read "The Canterbury Tales." He made us read it out loud, by turns, about two pages at a time.

"If you don't know a word, just say it the way it's written" he instructed.

There were smartasses who called out the modern english footnotes. But before long, we all realized it was more fun to recognize words like "fuck" without using the footnotes. And you didn't just get the dirty words, you got them in context.

No, I haven't read the Canterbury Tales since. But I'd give one of my big toes to hear Kelly M read two pages of "The Miller's Tale" again ...

English is an ugly language. Changing it in the way these morons propose would make it both ugly and stupid. There is a reason for having extra and repeated sounds - it's called linguistic redundancy. It ensures that data that the eye might have accidently missed can be caught quickly. For example, it's easier to misread "enuf" because there isn't enough data present in that word to determine how the "u" should be pronounced. Should it be an "u" like in "ugly"? Should it be an "u" like in "uzi"? "Enough", on the other hand, gives us redundancy in the form of a diphthong. The "u" in "enough" can only be pronounced one way due to it's location next to an "o".

Besides, "f" isn't the same sound as "gh". It's obvious that whomever came up with their spelling rules has no linguistic training.

You'd have to set a standard pronunciation.

what about people with lisps?

... redundancy ...

Si. English is longwinded, but read the instructions for your VCR, and it's obviously not out of the ballpark. Misspelling (hate that word) should be motivated by making it easy to learn, not by saving a few keystrokes.

EDIT: Of course I'm an alien. And the best word for "yes" is "da." Saying "yes" should be easy.

this is redicullous - everything ever written in history would have to be re-written so that future generations could understand it?

it's just laziness - can you spell 'dumbass'


*sigh* Just not true, language changes and like it or not if you disapear for say 100 years and then come back not only will people sound differant but the words you use now will be spelt differantly.

English has no phonetic standard. That is, words are pronounced the way they are currently pronounced for their spelling. No syllable has a specific sound to it, because they change from word to word, let alone letters themselves.

To change the words' spelling to what someone thinks they should be spelled because of their prononciation is going to bring chaos. In the end, you will still have disagreements over what the words should be pronounced or spelled, because as I said at the beginning, English has no phonetic standard.

Another reason not to change the spelling is that there are countless variations of how to spell a word. "Enough" can be spelled "enough", "enuf", "eenuf", "eenuff", "iinuf", etc. There are also countless variations of how to pronounce a word. "Enuf" can be pronounced "enough", "ee-nuuf", "ay-nuuf", etc.

Bringing about a new spelling system would be a waste of time and a lost cause. A better idea is to create a new language that is perfectly logical.

Language changing quickly is a good thing. As long as we're all interested enough to learn new words (including "dumbass" and "CU"), we're expanding the scope of our understanding. Some weener doesn't get your point when you use a word like "rebarbative?" That's their problem. As it ever was.

"Rebarbative?" One of my faves. I have a beard!

This actually was a big issue back in the turn of the century. Check out this short account:
THE SIMPUL SPELLING MOOVMENT

In 1906, millionaire industrialist Andrew Carnegie was approached by Melvin Dewey, the head of the New York libraries, and Brander Matthews, a Columbia University professor, with a revolutionary plan to simplify spelling. Carnegie was enthusiastic. He believed that easier spelling could lead to world peace. Together, the threesome formed the Simplified Spelling Board; their expressed goal was to convince authorities to begin changing the spelling of 300 words.

Among the words targeted were though (tho), confessed (confest), dropped (dropt), through (thru), kissed (kist), fixed (fixt), enough (enuf), prologue (prolog), thoroughfare (thorofare), and depressed (deprest).

President Theodore Roosevelt was an instant convert to the plan. On August 29th, 1906, he ordered the U.S. Printer to use the new spelling on all executive branch publications. For a moment, it looked as if simplified spelling would be instituted nationwide.

Roosevelt's plan made front-page news, both here and abroad. Unfortunately for him, most of the publicity was unfavorable. U.S. newspapers mocked the idea, and the London Times ridiculed him with a headline reading "Roosevelt Spelling Makes Britons Laugh."

Congress was outraged by Roosevelt's decree, too. In late 1906, they started to debate the idea on the floor of the House. Sensing an embarrassing political defeat, Roosevelt quickly withdrew his support for the plan.

Carnegie was deeply disappointed. A practical man, he dropped his financial support for the Simplified Spelling Board, writing, "I think I have been patient long enuf... I have a much better use of $25,000 a year."
Amazing how quickly such events are forgotten.

Why is any one spelling easier to learn than any other spelling?

These people's problem is they're assuming English to be a phonetic language, but that they're then complaining about spelling is evidence that it's not.

Each word has one spelling. Learn it. What that spelling is doesn't make it any easier or harder - just different.

This actually was a big issue back in the turn of the century. Check out this short account:

Amazing how quickly such events are forgotten.

Yep, illustrates pretty clearly where the power lies. Carnegie, Dewey, Roosevelt vs the press. The press would have to re-issue all of their catalogue, plus re-train their writers, then do it again for the next crew of newspeakers. "Talk all you like, but the words are ours."

Time to post ze klasik:

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English
will be the officiallanguage of the European Union rather than German,
which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that
English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a
5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this
will make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should
klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year
when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make
words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan
be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes
are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in
the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in
ze forst plas. If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.

Time to post ze klasik:

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English
will be the officiallanguage of the European Union rather than German,
which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that
English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a
5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this
will make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should
klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year
when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make
words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan
be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes
are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in
the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in
ze forst plas. If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.
It hurts so much! My eyes; they burn!

It hurts so much! My eyes; they burn!
That's exactly the way I feel when I see spelling mistakes.

One just has to learn how words are spelled [spelt :D] - if one's too lazy for that effort, it already diminishes the point one's trying to make.

That's exactly the way I feel when I see spelling mistakes.

One just has to learn how words are spelled [spelt :D] - if one's too lazy for that effort, it already diminishes the point one's trying to make.
My brother is seven. He can spell all the words he knows correctly and can spell the ones he doesn't know within reasonable accuracy. I yell at all of the people my age about their spelling, and they learn. We should do this everywhere; it would work.

What a silly idea.

If one was going to respell the English language phonetically, the only remotely logical way to do so would be to use the IPA in place of our existing alphabet, since otherwise there is no way to unambiguously notate several specific sounds. So, immediately, everyone would have to learn a new alphabet, and all computer keyboards would have to be redesigned.

Then, of course, there'd be the endless debates as to which spelling was "right." Are "Mary" and "merry" pronounced the same way? Depends whom you ask. Is "route" pronounced as ROWT or ROOT? Depends where you are. The number of words in the English language with multiple acceptable pronunciations is huge. "Simplifying" our spelling would require deciding on only one acceptable pronunciation for each of these thousands of words, and then somehow not only communicating to the masses that, henceforth, "route" will be pronounced only as ROOT, but convincing all the people who've said ROWT all their lives that there is some good reason why they should conform to your arbitrary standard.

So, basically, we can go the "complex" route, and just leave everything as is, or we can make things more "simple" by creating and learning what would effectively be a new language, complete with new alphabet, redesigning all of our technology, running a massive PR campaign, and still probably failing to convince 95% of the English-speaking population to change their present ways - but almost certainly making the language much more confusing for all. Hmm, tough choice!

Quite unnecessarily:

English is the presumptive global language. It has a huge head start (English-speaking domination of the internet, not to mention global corporations, software development and scientific literature.) In the next ten years, more people will learn English than people have ever learnt any language before. (That's unsourced. It's just bloody obvious.) They will use it the way they've learnt it, which will be mostly from television and the internet.

They'll pronounce words the way they've heard them, and spell them the way they've read them. There will still be a lot of disparity between pronunciation and spelling, but words that don't move between the two realms will be at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, English vocabulary will be copiously replenished with useful new words.

Words that aren't spelled phonetically won't be fascistically respelled. They simply won't be used.

And if boring old farts who use words like "presumptive" can't get their point across, ten years from now, that's just their problem.

EDIT: Did I mention the Internet? Letting the kids use the printing press is going to change our language faster than any invasion or Esperanto campaign. If your language is changing, your mind is changing. Go with it!

what about people with lisps?
Who programs in lisp any more?

Here's a whacky and far out idea - LEARN HOW TO SPELL!

If people can't spell, send them back to grammar school. Why should those of us who know how to spell and how to use a dictionary suffer for the ineptitude of those who are unable to deal with their mediocrity? It's just unjust that those of us who have mastered the concept of spelling and grammar must suffer an agonising injustice because of a culture of political correctness.

I propose that we send all people who can't spell or make proper use of grammar back to grade one and have them work their way back up.

Oh and, people bitch about the English language and its maddening spelling versus pronunciation issues, forgetting that there are far more intolerant languages, such as Chinese.

I once read a great quote on NSG, I forget who said it, but, I loved it. The person had said something along the lines of, "it's like writing a word like 'disestablishmentarianism' and pronouncing it as 'bob'." That language is very unforgiving in that way.

lets use newspeak, that would be much easier

The entire point of newspeak was to reduce vocabulary to the point where the population was too stupid to express any criticism of its goverment or society, and would in fact be powerless to resist oppression.

Doubleplusungood.

It's "ridiculous." :p

/Spelling Nazi

Those bastards and their newfangled EZ spelling are trying to put spelling Nazis out of work!

Not only that they are trying to give the Great Britain a grand mal or a coniption fit! Christ on a crutch those people foam at the mouth if anybody who isnt cockney and rhyming tries slang or removes an "o" from humour! Imagine the international incidents and unholy smarminess along with the viscious use of irony, sarkiness, Sun and Guardian if anyone had the cajones to change the English language in this fashion. Id personally rather face the entire French army than a united Brit media.

Here's a whacky and far out idea - LEARN HOW TO SPELL!

If people can't spell, send them back to grammar school. Why should those of us who know how to spell and how to use a dictionary suffer for the ineptitude of those who are unable to deal with their mediocrity? It's just unjust that those of us who have mastered the concept of spelling and grammar must suffer an agonising injustice because of a culture of political correctness.

I propose that we send all people who can't spell or make proper use of grammar back to grade one and have them work their way back up.

.

This is also why I dont like the metric system.

I have a whacky far out idea. LEARN HOW TO MEASURE!

If people cant measure send them back to grammar school. Why should those of us who know how to measure and how to use feet inches quarts and pounds suffer for the ineptitude of those who are unable to deal with their mediocrity? It is just unjust (hehehehehe geddit? just unjust hehehehehe) for those who have mastered the concept, nay, the very techniques of using gallons and yards and cubic inches must suffer an agonising injustice because of a culture of political correctness.

I propose we send all people who cant use pints and ounces (in ALL their forms) properly to grade 1 and let them start over

Capitals and punctuation wouldn't go amiss either, love.

*Bows to thee on one's soapbox*

I can never remember if a full stop is required after an asterisk is used, love.

Recently, I read an argument about whether or not spelling of certain words should change to make them simpler to learn and make the spelling sound more like the pronounced word.:
Through-Thru
Enough-Enuf
They even go so far as to dress themselves up as bees and protest during spelling bees.
I think that this is another attempt by people to find a quick and easy solution to a much more deep rooted problem. Would't better education work too. I actually read that someone's excuse for bad grammar was that they were ONLY 13! How dumb do you have to be.
What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/07/05/bc.simple.words.ap/index.html

This falls flat on its face due to dialectal variances. What an Aberdonian would write, with heavy doric influences, would be unintelligible to a Cornish reader. This idea is muppetry at its worst.

Here's a whacky and far out idea - LEARN HOW TO SPELL!

If people can't spell, send them back to grammar school. Why should those of us who know how to spell and how to use a dictionary suffer for the ineptitude of those who are unable to deal with their mediocrity? It's just unjust that those of us who have mastered the concept of spelling and grammar must suffer an agonising injustice because of a culture of political correctness.

dood, don't b h8n u'll b sry whn teh next chawser cums along and u haf 2 spel his way coz hez street and ur not. :D

btw, why is business spelt bus ee ness, but it p'nounced 'bidnez'?

This is also why I dont like the metric system.

I have a whacky far out idea. LEARN HOW TO MEASURE!

If people cant measure send them back to grammar school. Why should those of us who know how to measure and how to use feet inches quarts and pounds suffer for the ineptitude of those who are unable to deal with their mediocrity? It is just unjust (hehehehehe geddit? just unjust hehehehehe) for those who have mastered the concept, nay, the very techniques of using gallons and yards and cubic inches must suffer an agonising injustice because of a culture of political correctness.

I propose we send all people who cant use pints and ounces (in ALL their forms) properly to grade 1 and let them start over
I couldn't agree more. I'm Romanian and I never had to learn how to spell a Romanian word. I only had to learn how to write it. All the people on this thread are so upset simply because it's a new concept and they haven't learnt in school how to use it. The reality is that it's much simpler this way. Give me just a few more letters (or groups of letters signifying sounds, such as "ch" and "gh") and I could write down accuratelly any English word I heard. And the same could do any Romanian first grader who had learnt his alphabet.

Recently, I read an argument about whether or not spelling of certain words should change to make them simpler to learn and make the spelling sound more like the pronounced word.:
Through-Thru
Enough-Enuf
They even go so far as to dress themselves up as bees and protest during spelling bees.
I think that this is another attempt by people to find a quick and easy solution to a much more deep rooted problem. Would't better education work too. I actually read that someone's excuse for bad grammar was that they were ONLY 13! How dumb do you have to be.
What do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/07....ap/index.html

Reading writing like that takes me too long, English is fine how it is. But the lazy, stupid people have to ruin everything. If we set all our standards based on the lazy dumb noobs-at-life of the world, noone would have to work or read or learn anything for that matter and we'd all end up like Hutts. :headbang:

Reading writing like that takes me too long, English is fine how it is. But the lazy, stupid people have to ruin everything. If we set all our standards based on the lazy dumb noobs-at-life of the world, noone would have to work or read or learn anything for that matter and we'd all end up like Hutts. :headbang:
Isn't what you say a bit.. elitistic? I mean, what's wrong with making something simpler and easier to use?

I may also add that "reading writing like that" takes you too long simply because you're not used with the concept of writing a word as you pronounce it. However, that's much easier than learning a different spelling for each and every word.

Reading writing like that takes me too long, English is fine how it is. But the lazy, stupid people have to ruin everything. If we set all our standards based on the lazy dumb noobs-at-life of the world, noone would have to work or read or learn anything for that matter and we'd all end up like Hutts. :headbang:
I agree! Bring back the Roman numerals!! Stupid lazy people want using their Arabic numbers. It's an al-Qaeda plot to make us all dumb, I tell you.

I agree! Bring back the Roman numerals!! Stupid lazy people want using their Arabic numbers. It's an al-Qaeda plot to make us all dumb, I tell you.

We could always write in hieroglyphics, very easy to read once you learn how :p

Isn't what you say a bit.. elitistic? I mean, what's wrong with making something simpler and easier to use?

Once you simplify it every text written in English has to be changed too, that's very hard to do. Besides I'm sure this version of English has it's own flaws, one of which being it's still reliant on current English for structure, acronyms & some of English's building rules are made more complicated. For words like Hypocrisy and Hypocrite for example their spelling alot more able to convey the relation between the words than their pronounciation. Besides word origins (one of my favourite things to read about) are made much more complicated and harder to see.

I agree! Bring back the Roman numerals!! Stupid lazy people want using their Arabic numbers. It's an al-Qaeda plot to make us all dumb, I tell you.

roman numerals? you slacker - it's the sumerian system or nothing, i say.