So you're going to teach them more by...teaching them less? What? Kids could save time in math class by using a calculator the entire time, too, but it isn't going to offer much overall improvement.

Taking the time to learn the rules and exceptions to those rules is the least of the worries facing our education system, today.

I have no qualms about words with reasonable spellings. "Color" is a reasonable spelling because it has no unnecessary silent letters and the consonants are all correct. The vowels aren't to my taste but otherwise this word is not particularly difficult to spell. I just feel that it's the words with the most bizarre spellings that could do with some TLC. Every word I have quoted as being difficult to spell satisfies one or more of the following criteria (1) has one or more unnecessary silent letters, (2) is a common exception to a spelling rule, and (3) has a spelling that is a particularly poor match to pronunciation. Other people have listed words that mostly follow these rules as well.

I see nothing wrong with finding out what words people think could do with an overhaul.
Rules with exceptions grow weaker as rules the more exceptions there are. There are only four words that have an "-efy" ending instead of "-ify", so this rule is easy to learn - just teach the "-ify" rule and the four exceptions. On the other hand, "I before E except after C" only correctly predicts the spelling of about one third of words with "CEI" in them; the other two thirds of the words have "CIE" instead.

Kudos, by the way, to anyone who really knows the full "I before E except after C" rule. I don't know the proper way to phrase it, but it's something like "I before E except after C when the sound of the vowel rhymes with BEE". Many adults don't remember the bit about the vowel. When many adults cannot remember all the spelling rules, it's no surprise that many adults cannot spell.
English spelling is not about guesswork and approximations (otherwise plausible yet incorrect spellings would not be stigmatised); many people do not in fact learn to make "fine distinguishments" (otherwise there wouldn't be so many people confusing "lose" and "loose", "their" and "there" and so on); the patterns often have no meaning (otherwise "tomb", "bomb" and "comb" would rhyme); symmetry of letter shape is only useful when learning to write letters, not spelling with them; learning sounds is not very useful after two years because many words cannot be sounded out using the methods taught in the first year of education; and multitasking and redundancy are only further evidence that English spelling could be in better shape than it is.

Many students also get to experience the joys of not ever becoming competent spellers in English, of being more likely to be diagnosed with dyslexia than students in other countries with more regular spelling systems, and the unbridled joy of being permanently shut out of many higher-paying fields of employment because their spelling skills are substandard.
How many years of education does it take to become truly proficient in English spelling? Six to eight years is a rough estimate. How long does it take a child in Italy to learn to read Italian with the same proficiency? One year, maybe two. Does that mean Italian children are not challenged in the classroom? Of course not - it's just they are not challenged by the need to learn to spell in their native language. Some languages don't even have a word for "spelling".

Let's imagine that spelling was simplified. What would we lose? Good question.

The biggest risk with wholesale change would be an inability to read literature in Traditional Spelling. However, few people really read Shakespeare in the original these days. We don't study "The Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet" or need to puzzle over spellings like heauen and neuer. The spellings in reprinted literature are updated to more modern spellings. If orthographic change does occur, this will also happen to modern works when they are reprinted.

Suppose some words with redundant silent letters received alternative spellings with the redundancy removed. For some time, kids would still need to be able to recognise the older spellings so they can read older books that contained them. They may puzzle for a moment when they see "friend" instead of "frend" for the first time, but they would be able to cope. "Oh, that's just old-spell for 'frend'" they might say, then read on. Learning to recognise Traditional spellings does not take as much time as rote memorization of them.

And what would we gain? We would have higher rates of literacy, a greater percentage of people that can confidently read a newspaper after eight years of education, and less likelihood of being denied employment because someone misspelled a word in a job application.
The mathematics analogy is false. It's more like having to write the number "37" as "317", "874" as "6174" and "45" means either "45" or 54" depending on context, and having to spend an entire life doing this because great stigma is attached to the practice of writing numbers more sensibly.

With more streamlined spellings, one would be able to teach the kids less and yet they learn as much. No longer would they need to learn the sound signs for the letters, then separately learn the spelling of "friend"; instead "frend" would be recognisable from the sound-signs alone and one less word needs to be learnt by rote. Do this for other common words that cause particular trouble and kids would still know how to spell the same number of words - but spend less time learning them. It's pretty obvious, really.

Some people appear to have overreacted to the idea of even considering alternative spellings for words that are most badly in need of them. The world is not going to end tomorrow just because someone had the temerity to consider dropping a totally useless silent letter from a word that one might use a dozen times in a lifetime. The sky won't fall because the latest editions of some dictionaries list "thru" as an acceptable alternative spelling for "through". The moral standards of society will not be degraded for daring to point out that some words in English are in need of better spelling.

So lighten up please.

Feyen, Eye will liten up.

:neutral:

back atcha

Why so defensive? Why so unwilling to allow the topic to develop into a discussion? You almost seem bitter -do you feel that you have suffered because of the difficulties of learning English? I ask to gain perspective on your pov, not to attack.

I did not say spelling was about guesswork and approximations. I said learning to spell was. Etc. Rules with exceptions, redundancy and the like may not be desirable or efficient, but they are facts of life. Familiarity with those concepts is not a bad thing.

Education is about learning to learn, not just learning to read. Reading is a tool. With a good teacher, learning to spell can give a child so many more tools that just reading.

You also seem to draw the conclusion that learning to spell and learning to read are almost the same thing. There is a lot of evidence that word shape is of greater importance than letter order when you read. That's why lower case is easier to read than upper case and why is its so easy for perfectly competent spellers to make typos and not notice them. Beginning readers have many sight words that they cannot yet spell.

The complexity of the English language may have drawbacks, I was merely pointing out some of its benefits. Italian children may learn to read more quickly, but does that mean they have a better education? It's not a race to the finish line, it's about what you collect on the way.



You mentioned greater likelihood of dyslexia diagnosis. Are you implying that the complexity of English causes dyslexia? Or that it causes people to be incorrectly diagnosed? Or what? You clearly seem to think this is a bad thing. You also don't support your assertion, but I assume you have some evidence.

...and the biggest loss of all if English were to be simplified is the good old American Spelling Bee! :eek: Competitive Spelling would never be the same again, and you suggest this is a good thing? :lol:

You're right about my math analogy being incorrect, but I don't understand how your idea to improve literacy by dumbing down spelling is going to improve much. Why not improve teaching methods, instead? You're trying to alter something that has slowly evolved and changed over centuries overnight and you don't think there will be side damaging effects?

You still haven't addressed the issue of what dialect/accent we're going to standardize on, either. How is that going to be decided, or should we simply allow anyone to select whatever version of a word they desire?

No, but any "rezoomay" that ends up on my desk with spellings like you suggest is going right in the trash, as in any business related e-mail that begins with "let me ax you a question".

In a parallel universe exists the exact opposite of a forum spelling nazi. Instead of correcting errors in other people's posts, they attempt to correct the language, itself. We may be witnessing the opening of a gateway...

I, for one, have very little trouble spelling in English, and never have.

A better idea than all this revisionism would be teaching kids how to use a dictionary, and encouraging young people to read more so that their vocabulary and spelling proficiency increase naturally.

Can we simplify math instead?

Think of the labor savings we could accomplish by removing the alphabet's whiskey!

Amen, Cloud! Also, I would really like to see that pesky quantam physics simplified.
The way it is now is just too much! :p

Not an awful lot different from the change in the way kids are taught to read, write and spell. That also went from one extreme to the other and now I think it's settling down a little to find a happy medium. I hope. I found the "kidspell" thing weird at first, being another fortunate who has no problem with spelling, but having seen how it helps them have confidence in expressing themselves, it's grown on me a little. But not enough to want to "simplify" the language to a kidspell version. Learning to spell after they've learned to write their ideas down seems to encourage the children to use and then learn to spell words that they might have otherwise avoided, and learning to spell after they've learned to read is so much easier because they already 'know" the words. I'm speaking solely from my observations here. I have no paper to cite on this.

And while I'm offering anecdotal evidence, back to reading and spelling only being distantly related, my 5-year-old can read pretty fluently, (probably at what is officialy 2nd grade level) but spells entirely without vowels and only manages about two thirds of the consonant sounds. If people cannot confidently read a newspaper, it's not necessarily the complexities of the language at fault.

Huh? One third? You just said two thirds have CIE? I before E, except after C, or sounding like A, as in neighbor and weigh. That sounded like tw.
Of course they have to learn to spell in their native language. How in hell would they ever write without spelling? Reading is not the same as writing.
Trying to get a job with an eigth grade education, spelling is the least of your problems.

Screw that! I had to do it, along with tests without using a calculater and a lot of other things the little wimps don't do any more. If you make it too easy for them, the terrorists have won.
Chill out, we're all friends here. You appear to be the one that should lighten up. You can't denounce people that disagree and ever expect to make any headweigh. :lol:

I posted previously while suffering from a lung infection. This infection made me feel unwell, and also contributed to a lack of sleep along with a few days of humid summer weather with hot, muggy nights. No wonder I was grumpy. I am not yet over the infection.
Well, I did lose a high school spelling bee once when a stutter caused me to misspell a word that I could spell correctly (lieutenant). I don't have difficulty with English spelling. Yet that doesn't mean it's an easy skill for the population as a whole.
Such concepts can be learnt in a simpler way.
Exact letter order is indeed unimportant when reading. Cmabrigde Uinervtisy aellegdly did smoe rscheach itno tihs (Google for "Cmabrigde Uinervtisy").

With word shape being as important to word recognition as the letters in that word, it does suggest that spelling can be somewhat flexible without impacting on word recognition.

As for learning to read, I cannot remember how I learnt to read, having done so at the age of three or so. From what I remember from school, the early years focused on the sound of the letters. Later reading taught a different method.
Many Italian children also learn English at school, as do children in many other countries. So mastering English spelling is by no means confined to native English speakers.
The journal "Science" published a study in 2001. This study showed that dyslexia has the same rates for speakers of the languages studied (English, French, Italian), but dyslexia caused less reading difficulties in Italian which has a regular orthography.
Source: Study: English a Factor in Dyslexia (AP, 15 March 2001)
Wikipedia: Dyslexia

You can also google for "dyslexia" and "English" for additional links.
Even if English spelling was simplified, I'm sure the spelling bee would still exist. Many of those words are words that many people would never use in their lifetime. Not only is English hard to spell, it also has the largest vocabulary of any language. This contributes in part to the appeal of the spelling bee.

No teaching method can give a student the ability to spell an unfamiliar word reliably.
I am not trying to alter anything. I'm merely pointing out a few of the more bizarrely-spelt words in the overgrown garden that is English orthography and suggesting that they could do with a better spelling.
All I did was post a few words that could do with better spellings. I don't see why I must also post a dissertation on these other topics. Do you plan to explain why all existing spellings must be preserved, why they are the best ones available, and why all such spellings must remain in the orthography in perpetuity?

As for selection of spellings, that already happens with many words. Colour/color, centre/center, zeros/zeroes, flamingos/flamingoes.
Do you also discard those that don't spell that word exactly as "résumé" with the proper acute accents over both es? Or are you more tolerant?

CIE: ancient, efficient, deficient, glacier
CEI: ceiling, receive

The ratio is about 2:1. The CIE words aren't covered by this (misquoted) rule, but some people do not pay enough attention in class. :D

Really? Worked just fine for me, I think. Mind you, I was taught under the public school system's "we're going to repeat this endlessly until you get it" method, but... hey, they use a different method now, right? Please tell me they do.

Nah. All languages change, especially spelling, over time. It will happen and it is happening. "Nite" (hasn't this one come full circle?), "lite", "til", and "thru" will be the standard in some years. Even word use changes, as "data" is now accepted as both the singular and plural. It's inevitable, I guess.

More tolerant? Getting the accent marks gets you extra points!

Those are trophies, baby. English speakers rule...we came, we conquered, we took your words, bwahahaha.:vikingsmi

Yes sir, ship loads of tea, silk, spices, silver and gold, but in the Captains strongbox was the real treasure. Captured words, still wild and uncouth, but they would be broken.... even if they had to be corrupted to do it.
What ever the cost, they would be forced into yeoman service for the masses. That way the masses would be distracted by these trophies and not notice who got the rest of the cargo.