Spelling is ruining the English language

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I suspect he may be referring to a convention applied, when u and v looked very similar in print.

That's nvts..

i was looking for where they say N V T S, nuts! in history of the world part1, but i found the mighty joint scene:

[Shawnee123]

That word...straight. Shouldn't it be strate? Otherwise it's confused with strait. I can't keep it all strate. Spelling is ruining the post.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

That word...straight. Shouldn't it be strate? Otherwise it's confused with strait. I can't keep it all strate. Spelling is ruining the post.

Spelling is ruining the fence post?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

That word...straight. Shouldn't it be strate? Otherwise it's confused with strait. I can't keep it all strate. Spelling is ruining the post.

An interesting word (it is the only common root word with the sequence aigh), but I do not have an issue with this particular spelling.

The reasons are to do with pronunciation in regional accents in England, particularly the north of England. In the Middle Ages, the gh was pronounced, but was later lost. In most places, the consonant simply fell silent and the vowel in the sequence aigh was pronounced identically to the sequence ai, and the same for the similar sequences ei and eigh. However, in some regions the vowel was modified before the consonant was lost. In these regions wait and weight are still pronounced differently.

Although I do not know for sure, it is likely that these people pronounce strait and straight differently. If so, these words should remain differentiated in spelling and the current spellings are fine.

[Undertoad]

The spelling problem in English is a pansy next to the gender problem in other languages.

[DanaC]

Maybe we should form a committee to sort it all out. That'll work.

[ZenGum]

Clearly, Dana is still feverish.

[monster]

so wait, who thinks kingswood has a point?

(does that need context?)

[Aliantha]

I get his point, but I don't agree with it simply because languages evolve naturally, and regardless of whether spelling is made 'easier', there'll still be those who bastardize it anyway. For example, all this txt spk we hve l8ly. We all still get it, but it's hardly what you'd call english is it? Some people think txt spk is better and more economical. I think it's ugly and inexpressive. Well written and spoken english is beautifully expressive, just as the other romance languages are which is probably how they come by their definition.

Anyway, that's my point.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I get his point, but I don't agree with it simply because languages evolve naturally

I don't get this. Isn't orthography a part of the language too?

If spellings remain fixed while pronunciations change in the spoken language, it is inevitable that the orthography will diverge from the spoken language and the alphabetical principle will become more and more corrupted. Most languages have their orthographies maintained from time to time to prevent this. It doesn't happen in English because the English language lacks an NGO with the power to maintain the language. If such an NGO existed, it wouldn't even be necessary to ask whether the English orthography should be maintained, in much the same way that we don't ask if roads should be repaired. It would simply be maintained as necessary to keep pace with the evolution of the spoken language.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Regardless of whether spelling is made 'easier', there'll still be those who bastardize it anyway. For example, all this txt spk we hve l8ly. We all still get it, but it's hardly what you'd call english is it? Some people think txt spk is better and more economical. I think it's ugly and inexpressive.

I agree that textspeak is ugly. However, the idea that some people will spell words in a nonstandard way is not in any way a compelling argument against a revision of English orthography. In French, accents are often omitted in casual writing, but that doesn't cause the Académie Française to stop reforming the orthography of the French language from time to time.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well written and spoken english is beautifully expressive, just as the other romance languages are which is probably how they come by their definition.

Romance languages are so called because they evolved from vulgar Latin, the vernacular language of ancient Rome. English is not technically a Romance language, it is a Germanic language (however, it does have substantial borrowings from Romance languages like Norman French and Latin).

Almost every one of the Romance languages has an NGO that oversees the language and promulgates spelling reforms from time to time. French has the Académie Française, Spanish has the Real Academia Española, Portuguese has the Academia das Ciências de Lisboa and the Academia Brasileira de Letras.

Well-written English would by definition be well written if it conforms to the standard orthography of the day, regardless of whether it is the orthography of Shakespeare's time (with spellings like logique, warre, atte, sinne and beare), the present orthographies (the national varieties of English each have their slight differences), or a revised orthography that results after any spelling reform. Thus, I do not agree that English would in any way be less well written or expressive if it conformed to a reformed orthography rather than any of the current standards.

[classicman]

point as in a direction, a sharp end, or a topic of discussion?

[monster]

could the need for contect have been eliminated by spelling corrections?

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by monster

could the need for contect have been eliminated by spelling corrections?

[classicman]

British government spells end of 'i before e' rule

Sat Jun 20, 3:49 pm ET

LONDON – It's a spelling mantra that generations of schoolchildren have learned — "i before e, except after c."

But new British government guidance tells teachers not to pass on the rule to students, because there are too many exceptions.

The "Support For Spelling" document, which is being sent to thousands of primary schools, says the rule "is not worth teaching" because it doesn't account for words like 'sufficient,' 'veil' and 'their.'

Jack Bovill of the Spelling Society, which advocates simplified spelling, said Saturday he agreed with the decision.

But supporters say the ditty has value because it is one of the few language rules that most people remember.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of Bovill, sted Bovell, in graf 4.)

[Shawnee123]

That's weird.