Reply
Wed 8 Aug, 2007 08:02 am
Its long past time to tear down and abandon
so much of the orthografic paradime as is not fonetic.
Jabbing Ls into wud, cud or shud,
or adding ugh to the word THO,
is an offense against logic, and the perpetuation of carrying a USELESS burden.
This is an abuse of all future generations who r subjected to it by their teachers.
Spelling shud serve US; we shud not serve IT.
We have risen to the top of the food chain by the exercise of SOUND REASONING;
consistent, therewith, let us abandon useless burdens
and teach children to spell the ez and natural way: FONETICLY.
( Some silent letters r useful as pronunciation guides;
those which serve no purpose shud be cast off as worthless inconveniences, as Teddy Roosevelt suggested. )
Perpetrating and perpetuating the old, obsolete non-fonetic parts of English
in school is EDUCATIONAL MALPRACTICE and professional negligence.
David
Yell it from the highest mountain top, David.
The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c".
Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.
By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by z" and "w" by " v".
During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.
Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
***
NOW I get it!
The poor little fella just can't spell!
(Is it just I, or are the nuts getting nuttier every day around here?
I look at the new posts, and see the same people ranting ever more often and more rantinglier about the same things, and I just sigh, and go out and play.)
dagmaraka wrote:o gud grif, bumrang.
Boomerang is SO not pronounced "Bumrang"...even by OmSigs or happy goats!
dlowan wrote: I just sigh, and go out and play.
Please do stay there: your sand moulds make much better sand cakes than those I've got!
yeah, except they were kidding.
dagmaraka wrote:yeah, except they were kidding.
Really ?
Well, by the same reasoning as thay already
created a uniform financial currency,
thay will choose to eliminate linguistic interferences and inconveniences;
it may be sooner; it may be later.
It will
BE
David
Language fear rides the fruited plain, again.
ossobuco wrote:Language fear rides the fruited plain, again.
I never saw language fear ride the fruited plain b4.
Did I miss something ?
Is someone afraid of language ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:dagmaraka wrote:yeah, except they were kidding.
Really ?
Well, by the same reasoning as thay already
created a uniform financial currency,
thay will choose to eliminate linguistic interferences and inconveniences;
it may be sooner; it may be later.
It will
BE
David
nope. it will not be.
by the way, that spoof on EU creating a common language is about 12 years old, possibly older.
not everybody wants what YOU want. In fact, very very few. I'm afraid you're on your own there in your crusade for easy spelling, David. Most of us want to understand each other. That's what norms are form. Spelling is one of them. When you say things like "thay" and "wud" it takes awhile to translate your posts into english... hence after awhile it becomes too tedious and just not worth the effort. of course, the choice is yours. i'm just saying that rather than being more comprehensible, your posts are far less comprehensible to me than those that use correct spelling.
You know what I just can't stand about this whole phonetic thing, David? It's "wud" and "cud." Those aren't at all representative of how would and could are pronounced, really, are they? I certainly don't pronounce "could" so that it is in any way reminiscent of rumination, anyway. I always get thrown off by that when reading your posts...
Well, I've heard that dyslexia is more common to speakers of English than many other languages. This could the answer. I would dread it, but just maybe.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace