Words that should be respelt

[DanaC]

I like to able to see a word's origins.....even when the origins have been played with (like with debt), they tell a story.

[Shawnee123]

Words are words are words, made up of letters in assorted combinations. "Simplifying" spelling would be another instance of the dumbing down of America.

Words are art...leave them alone!

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

"Simplifying" spelling would be another instance of the dumbing down of America.

...but think of how much faster we'll be able to communicate when we make changes like:

"To/too" should become "2"
"Your"..."ur"
"are"..."r"
etc

Just think of what it would be like to read an entire book written this way.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I like to able to see a word's origins.....even when the origins have been played with (like with debt), they tell a story.

In the word debt, the b was inserted erroneously by the hypercorrectionists. It has no business being there because the word was derived from Norman French dette. If the spelling of this word reflected its origins accurately, it would be spelt dett like it used to be before the hypercorrectionists did their damage.

A similar case can be made for island as discussed above.

The only story that words should tell is pronunciation. I would rather put the origins of a word in the dictionary and correct pronunciation on the page, rather than the illogical current practice of putting the origins of words on the page and correct pronunciation in a dictionary.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Words are words are words, made up of letters in assorted combinations. "Simplifying" spelling would be another instance of the dumbing down of America.

Words are art...leave them alone!

If English words were art, they would be classified as belonging to the Rococo period. This is apt because the first dictionaries for English were written during the Rococo period.

This has nothing to do with the alleged "dumbing down" of America. English is spoken in many countries all over the world.

English-speaking students who learn Spanish, Italian, Finnish or several other languages can achieve a greater spelling proficiency in those languages after a year of instruction than they had in English after six years or more. Native speakers of such languages can spell any word reliably after less than two years of instruction. Does that mean their languages have been "dumbed down"? Or is that because such languages have an orthography that is easy to learn?

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

The only story that words should tell is pronunciation.

No, I disagree with that, sorry. Orthography often carries clues to the word's meaning, both overt and the subtle connotations associated with the word. This is useful for the reader and for the writer.

Further, pronunciation changes over time, and a word's spelling shouldn't necessarily have to change every time a language shifts.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

English-speaking students who learn Spanish, Italian, Finnish or several other languages can achieve a greater spelling proficiency in those languages after a year of instruction than they had in English after six years or more.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Spanish, because I'm deep into my second semester on it and am frustrated beyond my wit's end as to how many forms there are of any given verb when compared to English. The conjugation is madness and irregular verbs/stem changers are very difficult to remember. Just like the students in my class that complain about why Spanish isn't easier, you need to realize that you can't approach a language that has been developing for thousands of years and simply request it change because you have a tough time remembering certain technical aspects of it.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Exactly my point. The journey that word has gone on tells a story. It tells us of the sensibilities and aspirations of those people who changed the word to \make it more latinate. By attempting to 'correct' the spellings, you take the place of the 'hypercorrectionists' you seek to displace.

I prefer to think of it as reducing the systematic child abuse that is spelling in English. It is only the English language that can have an annual competition to prove that all school students except one in a country of 300 million people will misspell at least one word - the National Spelling Bee of the USA.

One does not need to know the history of a word every time one puts that word to paper. Most people couldn't care less about that. How often in a lifetime does the average person need to know the history of a particular word? Maybe once or twice? How often do people just need to spell words? A lot more often than that. Most people don't know or care that the -gh- digraph was originally a letter called yogh (Ȝȝ) that was purged from the orthography by Norman French scribes who despised non-Latin letters. But I'm sure most people have had trouble learning the ten or so different ways that the ending -ough can be pronounced, and assigning the correct pronunciation to each unfamiliar word with that ending.

Most people won't shed a tear for lost history if "debt" lost its silent b. The history can still be found in a good dictionary if anyone wants it. Yet English-speaking children all over the world would not mind a bit if you told them that "frend" was now an acceptable alternative spelling for "friend". (Derived, btw, from OE "freond", via ME "frend" - so "frend" is actually a historically plausible spelling.)

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Spanish, because I'm deep into my second semester on it and am frustrated beyond my wit's end as to how many forms there are of any given verb when compared to English. The conjugation is madness and irregular verbs/stem changers are very difficult to remember. Just like the students in my class that complain about why Spanish isn't easier, you need to realize that you can't approach a language that has been developing for thousands of years and simply request it change because you have a tough time remembering certain technical aspects of it.

I didn't say that learning Spanish would be easy. If I was learning Spanish, I would also be complaining loudly about irregular verb conjugations. (I know I did when I studied French. ) I said that spelling in Spanish is easy compared to English, once you've spent some time learning the basics. Had you heard these conjugated verbs spoken out loud, you would have had a decent chance of spelling them correctly.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Had you heard these conjugated verbs spoken out loud, you would have had a decent chance of spelling them correctly.

Well, I'm certainly not that good, but I can say that it became even more difficult this semester as I came from a class taught by someone who spoke South American Spanish and am now being taught by an instructor that speaks the dialect spoken in Spain. Suddenly, many of the sounds became "th" where there was none, before. Spelling based upon listening to the spoken word got thrown out the window, entirely.

So, for English, what standard do we use for all these spelling changes? The north and south are going to fight over "peacon" versus "puhcon" pie, people from Bahstan will get the "idear" to have "r" swapped with "h" in many words so they can drive a "cah", and Pittsburghers are still going to put their clothes in a "worsher". Let's hope to god we never change "schedule" to "shedule" in an attempt to standardize on Queen's English, although I do agree they need to start dropping those "u"s in "colour" and "favourite".

Besides, all these words get underlined in red no matter where I type them in, so I can correct common mistakes from hearing and learn over time. Autocorrect in MS word, however, will be the dooming of us all...

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

If English words were art, they would be classified as belonging to the Rococo period. This is apt because the first dictionaries for English were written during the Rococo period.

This has nothing to do with the alleged "dumbing down" of America. English is spoken in many countries all over the world.

English-speaking students who learn Spanish, Italian, Finnish or several other languages can achieve a greater spelling proficiency in those languages after a year of instruction than they had in English after six years or more. Native speakers of such languages can spell any word reliably after less than two years of instruction. Does that mean their languages have been "dumbed down"? Or is that because such languages have an orthography that is easy to learn?

How does the knowledge of other languages following into increased proficiency have anything to do with being "dumbed down."? I don't get the connection.

What I'm talking about is the penchant for making everything easier. If we make words "easier" then kids will get better grades on spelling tests and we'll have smarter kids? The logic doesn't follow. I was talking about America; I actually do know that there are other English speaking cultures around the world. [/green acres]

Better yet, let's give test answers, let's not make the kids learn to do addition and subtraction without calculators, let's do everything in our power to make life easier because having to learn something is for the birds.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

What I'm talking about is the penchant for making everything easier. If we make words "easier" then kids will get better grades on spelling tests and we'll have smarter kids? The logic doesn't follow.

A quotation from The Matrix:

Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Kids who don't have to waste their time on rote memorization of 500-year-old pronunciations, 600-year-old printers' typos, 700-year-old scribal conventions and other odd spellings can put their time in the classroom to another use. Would kids be smarter then?

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Better yet, let's give test answers, let's not make the kids learn to do addition and subtraction without calculators, let's do everything in our power to make life easier because having to learn something is for the birds.

Do you put a "u" into words like color, flavor, honor? Do you use -er or -re on words like center? Do you use -ise or -ize endings? Do you spell jail or gaol? If you use American spellings for these words, you are already using the products of spelling reform. Noah Webster, who wrote the first American dictionaries, was a supporter of spelling reform and introduced simpler spellings in early editions of his dictionaries. Some of those spellings became standard in American English.

But you seem to think that changing spelling is a bad idea. Does that mean you will also reject American spellings for such words and use the older British spellings? Maybe you would also put the silent e back onto words such as shop and run? And maybe you would also use "u" for "v" and "i" for "j" because if it was good enough for Shakespeare then it is good enough for you? And while we're at it, let's make all the kids learn them too, because we don't want them to go to school just to have a good time learning easy stuff. Let's make learning as hard as possible for our kids. Why stop at bizarre spellings? We'll make them multiply numbers using Roman numerals, learn to tell the time using a sundial, make them calculate the epicycles in planetary motions and calculate the proper number of gargoyles to place on a new building.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Kids who don't have to waste their time on rote memorization of 500-year-old pronunciations, 600-year-old printers' typos, 700-year-old scribal conventions and other odd spellings can put their time in the classroom to another use.

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.