Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic

I'm addressing the matter that you are an argumentative and clueless dingbat.

All sentences are about the subject. Should I scan in the dozen or so text books that the publishers continually send me or are you going to rely on common sense?

From Wiki:

Old English (Ænglisc, Anglisc, Englisc) or Anglo-Saxon is an early form of the English language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants in parts of what are now England and south-eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century.

Being full of **** is not something that you should be bragging about. But whatever floats you and Setanta's boat.

Tsk-tsk!

JTT is missing the dialect point. Im quite sensitive to dialects and accents and there are several sub dialects (like the German/English forms of Pa Deistch) the use of the letters that OSD often subs in his phonetic words would hve an AMishman (conversant in colloquial American ENglish) just throw up his hands if he were reading out loud.
D's are pronounced like T's, G's like K's (and vice versa)
diphthongs are often not transferrable in phonetic usage
vowels have a wide range of pronunciation (similar to Polish). If OSD wanted to submit a phonetic reading to AMish, hed have to utilize an entirely different sound set.

Same thing for the Elizabethan (Cornish dialects) of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions

No need to scan other's material. You're the English teacher.



Peter ate pizza.

The subject of the sentence is Peter. That doesn't tell us what the sentence is about.

I'm not missing any point, FM. Setanta isn't Amish or PA Deistch [whatever that is] nor is he of the Piedmont or Tidewater regions.

Setanta, you, ehBeth, POM and large numbers of other A2Kers have all responded to Om's "incomprehensible" posts.

Setanta proffered a bit of nonsense. Why is everyone trying to defend that nonsense? The facts don't support him or you.

Does a man act distinctly different, under such circumstances, Plain ?

If so, how ?





David

This reflects the common interest Setanta and I share:

Plainoldme posted:



But this is not:

JTT posted:


So, how many citations must I post before you realize who is a overflowing?

That's a point that I have been trying to make although neither my ear nor my familiarity with American dialects is as keen as yours. Thanks for your post.

If you think that the sentence is not about Peter, you have a serious problem.

Given your inability to discuss language issues in any competent fashion, I'd say it's your poor students that are burdened with a serious problem.

I've seen far too many teachers who try to wing it, who spend more time buffaloing their students to stay on top, to forestall students asking pointed questions.

It's not particularly difficult to get up to speed on how language works and it's infinitely more rewarding than simply drilling students in falsehoods about language.

JTT is not able to reason and about maybe 2 years ago,
he explicitly repudiated the use of logic,
in consequence whereof, I put him on Ignore; hopeless.





David

You're commenting on things you haven't viewed, on discussions that you're not a part of. Now that's a fine example of logic, Om.

You're a liar to boot. You put me on ignore because you couldn't manage the discussion, you couldn't stand to have your dismal little ideas knocked down.

yeah, right - they can just use their spell checker:

Ode to the Spell Checker

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
It's letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me so.

First of all, awesome poem there, you happy genius just above me.

Secondly, I definitely do not vouch for a "freedom of spelling", if I may use that term. The spelling and the shape of words are formed in a way that allows foreigners and Englishmen alike to understand the meaning. In a lot of cases we would stir up a lot of confusion if we allowed people to write however they wanted to. Especially when you have the homonyms in place.

He held back the queue.
He held back the cue.
- Without those two different spellings, there would be no way for us to distinguish whether he was charging a shot in a game of pool, or he was standing in line at WalMart and had some serious flatulence to deal with. Obviously, with a little context it'd be easy for us to distinguish the two, but since the whole objective of this change would be to ease the learning process for the younger children, I hardly think asking them to create multi-line explanations for everything will benefit their case. Also, it seems to me quite obvious that these explanations might also hold homonym contradictions that would then require further explanation.

"Yes, but we're not stupid, we don't confuse the two."
Eh, excuse me, but I am not necessarily talking to the people on A2K.
We know that we already have 25-30 year old people who are unable to structure a proper sentence, we have the dyslexics who already have trouble reading and whose only way to read is to memorize the exact pattern of letters and use the gift of recognition - which would obviously be eliminated by allowing us to spell in our own way.

I have an example of why spelling matters. In Canberra this morning there was a major industrial fire with a high risk of phosgenes being released the fire brigade sent out this emergency SMS
http://yfrog.com/nx202ayj

Understandably many people thought it was a hoax.

WELCOME to the forum, Ann.
I hope that u will enjoy it.

I support full fonetic spelling.
There is no logical reason
to add the letters UGH to the word tho,
nor do Ls have any logical place in woud, coud nor shoud;
neither is there any good reason to write Fs as "ph".
Logic shoud trump ill conceived tradition.




David

It sure doesn't in the usa, Om.

Well, we still have partially non-fonetic spelling.