Spelling is ruining the English language

[Shawnee123]

For some words, it is possible for them to be spoken but not transcribed without loss of meaning. Example: If one mentioned "axes" in face to face conversation, the listener would know immediately whether "axes" was the plural of "ax" or "axis", but the reader won't know unless context was supplied. Maybe 30 words cannot be disambiguated readily because both meanings are nouns or both verbs.

If you're reading a single word, with no context whatsoever, it's irrelevant whether it's the plural of, using your example, ax or axis. Unless you're at Home Depot and can't remember if the word on the paper is to remind you to pick up a couple axes, in which case there is context.

That's not my problem.

It's not really mine either. (Oh wait, did I mean mine as in "belongs to me" or "someplace to get coal and stuff"?)

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

If you're reading a single word, with no context whatsoever, it's irrelevant whether it's the plural of, using your example, ax or axis. Unless you're at Home Depot and can't remember if the word on the paper is to remind you to pick up a couple axes, in which case there is context.

How would you know that it is always irrelevant? How do you know that context is always available?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

How would you know that it is always irrelevant? How do you know that context is always available?

These questions make no sense. OK, I'll play. Show me an example, one word on a piece of paper, with no context whatsover, where you would be completely confused as to the meaning of that word and that knowing the meaning of that word is essential for any purpose. I contend that if no context exists (and this is your argument, I think there is always context) then the meaning of the word is irrelevant. It is, then, only an arrangement of letters.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat a smilie.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

These questions make no sense. OK, I'll play. Show me an example, one word on a piece of paper, with no context whatsover, where you would be completely confused as to the meaning of that word and that knowing the meaning of that word is essential for any purpose. I contend that if no context exists (and this is your argument, I think there is always context) then the meaning of the word is irrelevant. It is, then, only an arrangement of letters.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat a smilie.

I encountered an article on Wikipedia on the weekend about the upcoming Magic:the Gathering expansion Zendikar. It reads in part: "Zendikar (codenamed Live) is a Magic: The Gathering expansion set, set to be released on October 2, 2009." Can you tell from that context alone whether the codeword "live" is the adjective or the verb? You can't.

Fortunately for you, I don't have to force-feed you a smilie right now, as context is provided in an infobox elsewhere in the article. The code names for this block of three expansions are given there, as live, long and prosper. However, the context that is needed to disambiguate this also requires knowledge of Star Trek and the thematic naming conventions employed in MtG expansions.

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

I encountered an article on Wikipedia on the weekend about the upcoming Magic:the Gathering expansion Zendikar. It reads in part: "Zendikar (codenamed Live) is a Magic: The Gathering expansion set, set to be released on October 2, 2009." Can you tell from that context alone whether the codeword "live" is the adjective or the verb? You can't.

Fortunately for you, I don't have to force-feed you a smilie right now, as context is provided in an infobox elsewhere in the article. The code names for this block of three expansions are given there, as live, long and prosper. However, the context that is needed to disambiguate this also requires knowledge of Star Trek and the thematic naming conventions employed in MtG expansions.

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

Oh well hell, certainly a game and a stupid show and movie have shown me the errors of my ways.

No, it has context. You pointed out the context yourself. If you are buying the game, you know the reference. No one is going to think it means Lie-ve long and prosper. Even if you don't know Star Trek you won't think it's lie-ve, because that doesn't make sense.

No, I won't be eating a smilie today. You have not proven anything. Again, show me an example, one word on a piece of paper with no context, where not knowing the meaning of that word makes any difference whatsoever.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Now, why must we endure that kind of rigmarole? Why must we keep resorting to context in this manner just because some stuffy old pedants won't allow any needed changes to be introduced? If we cut the totally useless silent e from live (the verb; the silent e in live the adjective is OK because it marks the long vowel), then we wouldn't need any context to identify the shade of meaning of the word when given in isolation, as it is in the article.

I have to ask...

Aside from your wanting it to be so, what's to stop 'liv' from being pronounced with a drawn 'i', similar to the word 'leave'? The standard issue vowel 'i' has the potential for three sounds. This allows for your commuted 'live' to have three forms: 'liv' as in 'I live in the US.', 'leeve' as in "We leave in 10 minutes." and 'live' as in "Saturday Night Live". Does your rule bank on the fact that we currently use the 'ea' to create the 'ee' sound in 'leave' to remove that sound from the list of possibilities? Do you have a rule in your New Spelling Order transform 'leave' into 'leev' to fix that problem?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

I have to ask...

Aside from your wanting it to be so

Don't misrepresent what I say.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

, what's to stop 'liv' from being pronounced with a drawn 'i', similar to the word 'leave'?

It would be spelt on a similar pattern to words like sit, him, dish? Do you have trouble with these words?

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

The standard issue vowel 'i' has the potential for three sounds. This allows for your commuted 'live' to have three forms: 'liv' as in 'I live in the US.', 'leeve' as in "We leave in 10 minutes." and 'live' as in "Saturday Night Live".

Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Does your rule bank on the fact that we currently use the 'ea' to create the 'ee' sound in 'leave' to remove that sound from the list of possibilities? Do you have a rule in your New Spelling Order transform 'leave' into 'leev' to fix that problem?

The redundant silent e in "leave" is only there so that you know it's not a u.

As for the ea digraph, I count it as a regular spelling. I have already said that.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Don't misrepresent what I say.

It would seem, just from reading through this thread, that you'd like to see a change in how English is presented for those who would read, write and speak it. I gather this from how vigorously you defend, explain and elaborate on your position on the subject. This is what you present to the forum, even if this isn't what you intended. Given this, how am I misrepresenting you when I say 'your wanting it to be so'? Isn't a change what you want? Or is all this just a mental exercise for you? It might help to clarify.

Now, back on topic...

Originally Posted by Kingswood

It would be spelt on a similar pattern to words like sit, him, dish? Do you have trouble with these words?

I don't. But I can see where people could have problems with that. That rule wouldn't clear anything up. It would just shift the problem to a different set of people.

Originally Posted by Kingswood

The redundant silent e in "leave" is only there so that you know it's not a u.

Where exactly does this 'u' come in here? The word and pronunciations involved here don't have a 'u' or any sounds associated with the vowel. Or do you mean 'u' in the sense that it's how we know it's not any other letter?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

These questions make no sense. OK, I'll play. Show me an example, one word on a piece of paper, with no context whatsover, where you would be completely confused as to the meaning of that word and that knowing the meaning of that word is essential for any purpose. I contend that if no context exists (and this is your argument, I think there is always context) then the meaning of the word is irrelevant. It is, then, only an arrangement of letters.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat a smilie.

Time for you to eat a smilie, Shawnee123. (Please don't eat this one: it looks like it's spoilt and might make you ill.)

Here are ten words, each put into grammatically-complete sentences (so an adequate amount of syntactic context is present). Each word is either a noun or a verb with two meanings and each meaning has a different pronunciation. The sentences do not have any semantic context supplied. Each sentence has a short question associated with it. If the sentences were spoken to you, you would be able to answer all the questions correctly. However, the sentences are written, not spoken. This makes the meaning ambiguous; you cannot answer the questions because as written both answers are plausible.

He is putting on the first.

• Is he playing golf or doing something else?

She showed her mother a tear.

• Did she show her mother a rip or some liquid from someone's eye?

He has been promoted to lieutenant.

• Does he serve in the British Navy or the US Army?

They read the newspaper every day.

• Present or past tense?

He resigned yesterday.

• Did he terminate his contract or extend it?

When they entered the hall, the musicians were bowing.

• Were they still performing or acknowledging the applause afterward?

She placed the lead on the table.

• Did she place on the table a cable or a lump of dense metal?

She bought a rare viola.

• Did she buy a plant or a musical instrument?

Bob hit a skier.

• Did Bob hit a ball into the air or did he hit someone on skis?

Our teacher drew some axes on the whiteboard.

• Does the teacher teach mathematics or woodworking?

To gain some insight into how the ambiguity can cause difficulty, it is instructive to experiment with text-to-speech engines. Text-to-speech engines can use syntactic context to disambiguate, but they cannot make use of semantic context because it is very difficult - if not impossible - to program computers to understand semantic context with 100% accuracy, and certainly not possible with the current state-of-the-art in desktop operating systems.

If you have Windows XP or Windows Vista, you can access the built-in text-to-speech engine in this way: Control Panel, then Speech. There is a prompt there that says: "Use the following text to preview the voice." If you paste the sentences into this prompt, and then click the button that says: "Preview Voice", it will read it out.

However, the sentences I provided do demonstrate the limitations of the technology. For example, the first sentence I gave reads as follows: "He is putting on the first." The text-to-speech engine assumes that the verb is "put", not "putt". Even if you add the word "green" to the end of the sentence (which provides some semantic context for golf that you can disambiguate as a human), the text-to-speech engine still says it as if the verb was "put". This shows that computers (or, to be more precise, Microsoft's text-to-speech engine) cannot understand semantic context very well.

Syntactic context is different. Computers understand this relatively easily. If you have it read the text: "We estimate to make an estimate." (a little contrived but it demonstrates the point adequately), the text-to-speech engine reads both occurrences of the word "estimate" correctly even though the two instances are pronounced differently (the last syllable of the verb has a clearly-pronounced vowel and the last syllable of the noun has a reduced vowel).