NationStates Jolt Archive

I know the British have a dry sense of humor, so maybe this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/od_nm/britain_spelling_odd_dc;_ylt=AruwBpw.CCsgXUA8P.Re1kouQE4F) is a joke.

Fed up with his students' complete inability to spell common English correctly, a British academic has suggested it may be time to accept "variant spellings" as legitimate.

Rather than grammarians getting in a huff about "argument" being spelled "arguement" or "opportunity" as "opertunity," why not accept anything that's phonetically (fonetickly anyone?) correct as long as it can be understood?

"Instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've got a better idea," Ken Smith, a criminology lecturer at Bucks New University, wrote in the Times Higher Education Supplement.

"University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell."

To kickstart his proposal, Smith suggested 10 common misspellings that should immediately be accepted into the pantheon of variants, including "ignor," "occured," "thier," "truely," "speach" and "twelth" (it should be "twelfth").

Or maybe he's serious? I sure hope not. We'll be reviving the plans for ebonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics)if this is the way language is headed.

If he's willing to accept variant spellings, then I'd say he isn't fed up with them. Now, if on the contrary he was suggesting shooting people that use internet spelling on university exams, then I might concede he was fed up.

He was on the news, he's serious.

*shakes head* tsk tsk.

O dear lord, i bloody hope this is a joke...

O dear lord, i bloody hope this is a joke...

Irony.

He was on the news, he's serious.

Too bad he's a lecturer. That means less than nothing, at least here. :tongue: And criminolgists, of course, don't make the rules.

But I liked this:

"wot r u doin 2nite?"

"Txt" in a British accent. Gave me a funny visual.

It's silly to completely write his ideas off. He actually makes a good point about other variations on spelling that have become accepted. Language is a fluid, organic thing; it changes, develops, and evolves.

It's silly to completely write his ideas off. He actually makes a good point about other variations on spelling that have become accepted. Language is a fluid, organic thing; it changes, develops, and evolves.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1318/ifyowmsaftenuffxo6.jpg

Irony.

So I can't use grammar, leave me be:(

There is a push in the elementary school I subbed at over summer school to accept misspellings from children as long as it is "somewhat logical" meaning freinds is okay, as is frends, and frinds, but not fronds.....because it's obviously a different word. :confused: I went over this with a child "a friend is a friend til the end" so he would remember how to spell it, but was told by the other teacher in the room "not to bother" because it's "not technically wrong" any way he decides to spell it.

I inquired further if the wrong answers on math problems would be accepted, I mean if one was to use an improper order of operations and come up with an answer that fits their logic but not the actual math rules.....she looked a little annoyed and told me if I wanted excellence to home-school my kids. (I already do btw, and the rule is, if you can't spell it, look it up)

Bucks New University, eh? that's a fine institution.

I know the British have a dry sense of humor, so maybe this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/od_nm/britain_spelling_odd_dc;_ylt=AruwBpw.CCsgXUA8P.Re1kouQE4F) is a joke.

Or maybe he's serious? I sure hope not. We'll be reviving the plans for ebonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics)if this is the way language is headed.

Oh boy.

First of all, let me give you a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics

This is at the core of what the guy is proposing. It's not something he dreamt up after eleven margaritas.

Languages change, Myrmi. You may not see them changing easily or quickly, but they do. There's no use trying to make people speak or write in a given way. What linguists should be (and mostly ARE) doing is accompanying those changes and describing ho the language in question works, not how they think it should. If "ebonics", for example, becomes diverse enough to become a language on its on right, just accept it. Academics and even other people can do nothing but accept it anyways, as trying to stop a language from changing is like trying to stop gravity from pulling down a structure that's not firm enough. No, I realize that the fact that languages change causes some discomfort on lay men in the area, but the simple fact is they do. Otherwise we'd all be speaking Indo-European. Languages change. Deal.

I inquired further if the wrong answers on math problems would be accepted, I mean if one was to use an improper order of operations and come up with an answer that fits their logic but not the actual math rules.....she looked a little annoyed and told me if I wanted excellence to home-school my kids. (I already do btw, and the rule is, if you can't spell it, look it up)

here, we do get points in maths (or did when i was at school) for 'error carried forwards' - i.e. you make a mistake and calculate something wrongly, but then follow the logic of the rest of the question through, you can still get points despite getting the wrong answer.

here, we do get points in maths (or did when i was at school) for 'error carried forwards' - i.e. you make a mistake and calculate something wrongly, but then follow the logic of the rest of the question through, you can still get points despite getting the wrong answer.

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

it was the only way i scraped the failing 14% on my first year economics degree :tongue:

but you can't get full points. only, say, a maximum of three for a 10 point question, or something.

Too bad he's a lecturer. That means less than nothing, at least here. :tongue: And criminolgists, of course, don't make the rules.


Lecturer in the UK is the level of Assistant Professor in the US (Senior Lecturer I think equivalent Associate). You only get called a Professor if you're a full Professor, a lecturer is still faculty. A lecturer as meant in the US (non-faculty, only teaches?) would be a teaching fellow generally.

On the other hand, he is at Bucks New University, which says a lot more about him. I'd never even heard of the place till now, and I suspect it's a ex-polytechnic. Ah... founded as a University in 2007. That says it all.

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

Well it's essentially so that if you make one mistake at the start of a calculation that throws off the rest of your calculation you still get points if the rest of it is worked out properly, albeit with an inaccurate number somewhere along the way. Makes sense if everything else is correctly worked out.

It's spelled color, not colour. Damn you brit-fags, get it right!

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

Way to teach kids that a small error that leads to catastrophic failure is okay as long as it failed consistantly.

Math always taught me to respect the little variables that cause major changes in the outcomes.

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

Way to teach kids that a small error that leads to catastrophic failure is okay as long as it failed consistantly.


Well no, it's teaching kids that the method and the working they used on the question is also important, not just the final solution. Although the marks you get will be drastically reduced from what you could get. Please note, this only applies if the error is a calculation error, if you made an error in the method, then you won't get any marks.

When I was at school they did the opposite too, if you got the right answer but the method used was incorrect or not effectively shown, you'd loose marks.

Way to teach kids that a small error that leads to catastrophic failure is okay as long as it failed consistantly.

Math always taught me to respect the little variables that cause major changes in the outcomes.

Exactly. You know a small error can render a program completely unusable. Even if all of the rest of it is written properly?

Real life means getting it consistently right, not consistently fucking up and passing.

:tongue:

Please note, this only applies if the error is a calculation error, if you made an error in the method, then you won't get any marks.
oh yeah, maybe i didn't make that clear enough

When I was at school they did the opposite too, if you got the right answer but the method used was incorrect or not effectively shown, you'd loose marks.

for me they just gave you nothing if you didn't show your workings. no negative scoring thankfully... i would have SO ended up with sub-zero scores in maths tests if they had done that :p

Well no, it's teaching kids that the method and the working they used on the question is also important, not just the final solution. Although the marks you get will be drastically reduced from what you could get. Please note, this only applies if the error is a calculation error, if you made an error in the method, then you won't get any marks.

When I was at school they did the opposite too, if you got the right answer but the method used was incorrect or not effectively shown, you'd loose marks.

That always burned my ass. "Show your work", what work I did it in my fucking head. If you can't keep up don't teach.

That always burned my ass. "Show your work", what work I did it in my fucking head. If you can't keep up don't teach.

The trouble is, teacher's aren't mindreaders, how do they know you're doing it right in your head, or if you're just using a trial and error method which may work with simpler calculations but fall apart when you get further on :P

I'm pretty sure once you get to further advanced maths and physics showing the working becomes even more important because of the complexitiy of the procedure going on and the need for people to be able to tell exactly HOW you get your particular answer. So, it's good practice.

The trouble is, teacher's aren't mindreaders, how do they know you're doing it right in your head, or if you're just using a trial and error method which may work with simpler calculations but fall apart when you get further on :P

I'm pretty sure once you get to further advanced maths and physics showing the working becomes even more important because of the complexitiy of the procedure going on and the need for people to be able to tell exactly HOW you get your particular answer. So, it's good practice.
:eek: You broke me!



[3rd grade flashback]If I get 100% it's not trial and error. I know it. My hand cramps and I don't want to do my work. You want to talk to my mom about it? Fine, ask the bitch why she slammed my hand in the car door and rammed a peice of metal all the way through and then refused to take me to the hospital. I'm not showing my work, either buy me a new hand or get the fuck over it! [/3rd grade flashback]

:eek: You broke me!



[3rd grade flashback]If I get 100% it's not trial and error. I know it. My hand cramps and I don't want to do my work. You want to talk to my mom about it? Fine, ask the bitch why she slammed my hand in the car door and rammed a peice of metal all the way through and then refused to take me to the hospital. I'm not showing my work, either buy me a new hand or get the fuck over it! [/3rd grade flashback]

Eep! I'm just lazy, nothing that dramatic. To me "Show your work" always meant "Do extra work by writing down all the shit you did in your head."

48*48=(48*50)-96

That's how I do it in my head, on paper they'd want it done the stupid way.

I think you need to accept spellings of some words, especially those with "ie" or "ei" in them as correct, but some of those ones that are listed in the first post are obvious errors.

As for the maths things, I once proved a point to my maths teacher by getting the highest mark in my class without answering a single question correctly. If you do the working out with the right numbers, but then get the final answer wrong, you can get full marks minus one for each question. I ended up still getting about 80% on the test.

To be perfectly honest, its very silly to do that, especially at basic levels of maths. Later on when its more important to show how you reached the answer rather than just the answer itself, then I can see why it would be done, but not at lower levels.

Eep! I'm just lazy, nothing that dramatic. To me "Show your work" always meant "Do extra work by writing down all the shit you did in your head."

48*48=(48*50)-96

That's how I do it in my head, on paper they'd want it done the stupid way.

I'm a chick, drama is my gig.

I know the British have a dry sense of humor, so maybe this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/od_nm/britain_spelling_odd_dc;_ylt=AruwBpw.CCsgXUA8P.Re1kouQE4F) is a joke.

Or maybe he's serious? I sure hope not. We'll be reviving the plans for ebonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics)if this is the way language is headed.

I think that's he's probably just frustated. After all,

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary

perhaps this is the fallout from lowering standards in schools?

There may be an argument for systematically going through the English language and rendering it phonetic in the same way that the Spanish did some years ago, but the key point is that for a language to be understood by other speakers spelling must be consistent rather than a matter of individual taste.

Imagine the confusion that would be caused if all homophones were spelt phonetically: how much harder is it to decipher the meaning of "a bare bare baring bars" than "a bare bear bearing bars"? University students should be capable of writing accurate English and people like Ken Smith aren't doing them any favours by encouraging their errors.

Ah well, it's not the stupidest idea to come from a professor of Criminology: one a while ago observed a strong positive correlation between crime rates and the prison population, and concluded that the best way to release crime would be to set more prisoners free.

perhaps this is the fallout from lowering standards in schools?

If standards are declining I suspect it's due to a growing dependence on Spell Checkers; that said, during my gap year in industry I encountered any number of older people, most graduates and some with PhDs, whose standards of written English were appalling. I doubt it's a new phenomenon.

quite frankly, there is no possible excuse for tough, though, thought, and through

quite frankly, there is no possible excuse for tough, though, and through

Thank you please drive thru.

Imagine the confusion that would be caused if all homophones were spelt phonetically: how much harder is it to decipher the meaning of "a bare bare baring bars" than "a bare bear bearing bars"?

on the other hand, we manage to do it with spoken language - though usually by avoiding inherently confusing ways of expressing something.


our spelling was standardized (poorly) during the middle of a major shift in pronunciation, and we've gone and shifted more since. time to fix it again, says i.

here, we do get points in maths (or did when i was at school) for 'error carried forwards' - i.e. you make a mistake and calculate something wrongly, but then follow the logic of the rest of the question through, you can still get points despite getting the wrong answer.We get partial credit too.


Imagine the confusion that would be caused if all homophones were spelt phonetically: how much harder is it to decipher the meaning of "a bare bare baring bars" than "a bare bear bearing bars"? University students should be capable of writing accurate English and people like Ken Smith aren't doing them any favours by encouraging their errors.
No different than "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo"

on the other hand, we manage to do it with spoken language - though usually by avoiding inherently confusing ways of expressing something.This. Context provides worlds of meaning. Same as you can tell what I mean when I type "Lets go over their" or "Who's coat is that?"


our spelling was standardized (poorly) during the middle of a major shift in pronunciation, and we've gone and shifted more since. time to fix it again, says i.This as well. English standardized during a major vowel shift. Standard American English worked to make English phonetic once again (ironicly by going back to older spellings), but stopped short of ever finishing the changes. It may be time to reevaluate the language.

on the other hand, we manage to do it with spoken language - though usually by avoiding inherently confusing ways of expressing something.

Fair point, although it's worth noting that when speaking to someone it's possible to ask for clarification on ambiguous or unclear speech, something which isn't possible in a written format. I just don't see the point in potentially creating more confusion and ambiguity for no very good reason.

No different than "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo"

Erm... I'm sorry? :confused:

Erm... I'm sorry? :confused:

haha...language nerd thing. There are three meanings of the word "buffalo"...the noun (animal), the proper noun (city), and the verb (to bully)

swap out the animal for bison and the very for bully.

Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison

or, translated:

Bison from the city of Buffalo that are harassed by other bison from the city of Buffalo also harass bison from the city of buffalo.

Wiki modifies it further to
Alley cats Junkyard dogs intimidate intimidate Sewer rats.

Another example would be "Don't trouble trouble untill trouble troubles you."

and then we've got people wearing bows making bows...

and then we've got people wearing bows making bows...

Of course. Not to mention that time flies like and arrow, while fruit flies like a banana.

This is a good idea. However, I oppose it for no valid reason anyway.

This is a good idea. However, I oppose it for no valid reason anyway.

I dislike the idea of accepting multiple different random spellings...some just don't work. In that way, it isn't a good idea, and is a good reason to oppose it.

One standard new spelling is a good idea.

Bucks New University, eh? that's a fine institution.

Hey, that's my 'local' university! It must be just prejudice that all the schools in the area actively discourage people going there...

O.O Really? That's fucked up. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong.

Its pretty normal in both math and statistics to do so (at least at higher levels)

I mean for the love of god you would not have anyone passing

Example:
Stats (Graduate Level) Final is on 2 way ANOVA's ... there are only 2 problems on the entire final. Literally hundreds of calculations done by only a hand calculator.

One incorrectly typed number can through the whole thing off even when logic is exactly right and does not reflect actual comprehension of the subject

I dislike the idea of accepting multiple different random spellings...some just don't work. In that way, it isn't a good idea, and is a good reason to oppose it.

One standard new spelling is a good idea.

yeah, the 'anything goes' multiple spelling thing is really just taking whats wrong with the language and multiplying it. one of the reasons that people are having trouble spelling but coming up with something that is at least plausible is because there are too many ways to spell a given phoneme.

I dislike the idea of accepting multiple different random spellings...some just don't work.

I didn't mean the specifics of his proposal so much as the basic idea of bringing spelling more in accordance with pronunciation and common, reasonable errors.

yeah, the 'anything goes' multiple spelling thing is really just taking whats wrong with the language and multiplying it. one of the reasons that people are having trouble spelling but coming up with something that is at least plausible is because there are too many ways to spell a given phoneme.

exactly. A great illustration of this concept is "draft" vs. "draught". Same phonemes, but vastly different spelling.

I was taught to spell under the "whole language" method, which essentially says "spell how it sounds. Eventually, you'll figure it out." Well, I did eventually learn, but only because I hated looking like an idiot. This method is still used nation-wide, rather than a phonics-based system.

What will "fix" English is a) a return to phonics-based literacy education and b) a modification and re-standardization of English spelling.

Now, there is an issue with restandardization, given accents and dialects (the difference between "car" and "cah"), but if we could figure out how to standardize through words like "fox" vs. "vox", I'm sure something could be figured out. It is much less significant than words like "their" and "there", "draft" and "draught", etc.

we pronounce finnish,as it is written.for example,''aye''.when you pronounce it like you pronounce finnish it sounds like ''aw''.in addittion to that,we have more letters,we have ö,ä and å.that last one is called the swedish o,it's a remnant from the swedish rule.anyway,finnish is one of the hardest languages in the world,if not the hardest.here's the wiki article on the finnish language:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_language

FTA: "Bucks New University"

I'm British and I've never even heard of that university. Not only that, but he isn't even teaching a language-related subject.