Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic

As a matter of fact, Joe, after i had shut down the computer for the night, it occurred to me that there was a misunderstanding between RG and me. I was operating on the belief that RG was saying that the lack of phonetic standards in orthography is a cause of divergent dialects, which i considered absurd. Only after i had shut down for the night did i realize that he was saying that a lack of phonetic standards in speech has that result, an idea so obvious, i would not have thought it necessary to point out.

So his reference to expert opinion made no sense to me. I referred to the spread of English speakers over time and space, and noted that many of them weren't literate because i was denying a claim that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language would result in differing dialects.

However, i don't agree that the Québecois and any of the speakers of a patois in France would be mutually incomprehensible, or that German speakers from Berlin and Vienna would be incomprehensible to one another. I agree with you that they might have some difficulties. My remarks, proceeding as they did from a belief that RG was speaking of phonetic standards in the written language, were not really concerned with the mutual comprehensibility of the spoken language.

The topic of this thread is orthography after all, so it was on that basis that i formed my misunderstanding. Lest anyone construe this as an apology, allow me to say that although under other circumstances i might have considered that, the nasty character of the response i got leads me to state that no apology is warranted.

0 Replies

Subtitles are a god send. Have you noticed that news organizations and the producers of "news magazines" on television have taken to putting in subtitles for people speaking English who might not be comprehensible to their audience? To me, the idea that there could be a standardized phonetic spelling of English which would not be as arbitrary and capricious as our current system is preposterous.

0 Replies

One last thing, Joe. I've not seen Train Spotting--do you recommend it?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

To be precise, the written language remains mutually comprehensible, just as a Brazilian and a Portuguese might not understand each other's speech but would have no problem exchanging written correspondence.

There are significant differences in Brazilian and European Portuguese orthography, so much so that it's common for software localization to provide both as separate language options.

In fact, there is a treaty (Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990) to eventually reconcile the differences.

That being said, I personally don't have much difficulty reading either despite very little exposure to European Portuguese, so it's certainly interchangeable to some degree, but there are those to whom the differences do pose a problem and the Portuguese language is undergoing the kind of orthographic standardization that I advocate for English.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Ditto ditto The Wire

I can understand Trainspotting, though

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

I think you have, unwittingly, said as much. Not just once; you've repeated it again, in a new post.

No, i'm not saying that spelling matters to grammar. I am pointing out, and have all along, that if people are sufficiently inarticulate, they are not necessarily going to be able to discern what word a "phonetic" spelling refers to when their ability to make sense of context is impaired to begin with.

Quote:

From context, native speakers intuitively know what part of speech is to be chosen. That is why the spelling matters not at all to the uninitiated, ie. children. What they learn in writing/spelling are words that they already know, in grammar and pronunciation.

Your remarks, like most of RG's remarks, here refer to speech. The topic is orthography. The point i am making is that if people lack the necessary language skills in reading and writing to discern the appropriate spelling from the context, attempts to force an allegedly "phonetic" spelling on the readers and writers of the language is simply going to confuse them further. At no point have i alleged that people's ability to properly deploy the grammar of their language is going to be hobbled by any style of spelling. What i am pointing out is that when an allegedly "phonetic" spelling no longer distinguishes between homophones, those whose skills of language articulation are poor to begin with are going to be further hampered by any lack of the ability to discern the appropriate word from context.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

It goes with your caustic disposition well. Nearly every post of yours I've read recently was ill-tempered and quarrelsome and you shouldn't expect kid gloves in return.

I did not employ any sarcasm in responding to your remark. You chose that path. That you allege that i am caustic, or ill-tempered or quarrelsome is meaningless in the context of any specific exchange. Do you claim that you are somehow entitled to punish me for a tone which you imagine i am using, without being able to hear and see me, and that this justifies your own ill temper. I haven't asked to be handled with "kid gloves," but when you address me with sarcasm, you can't expect anything better in return.

I know of the relationship between phonology and phonetics, smart ass. In that i had assumed, given the topic of this thread, that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography, the passage was nonsensical. The remarks i made about the spread of English speakers over time and space was very much to the point, given the topic of this thread, and my understanding that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography. The remarks about the French Academy and the divergence of French usage in Canada was very much to the point, given the topic of this thread, and my understanding that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography. You and your source have failed to convince me, given the topic of this thread, and my understanding that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography. It is not "moving the goal posts" to point out that phonetic standards in orthography cannot reasonably be alleged to prevent divergence in the speaking of a language. The study's claim about regional standards has nothing to do with a claim that a lack of phonetic standards in orthography can cause the divergences which result in spoken dialects. The remark about enforcing phonetic standards has everything to do with any claim to the effect that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language will lead to rise of divergent dialects.

You can continue to claim that i have employed bombast, given your hostile tone, it certainly won't surprise. I frankly think your reaction is a result of your having been wounded in your self love. You can also continue to claim that i have nothing to offer other than my conviction. However, any claim that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language leads to the rise of regional dialects is not supported by anything you have said. If, as it now appears to me that that is not what you intended to say, that's fine. But your continued hostility and sneers do nothing to support such a claim, which is all that i was arguing against.

Once again, allegations about my tone and temper are meaningless in a context in which you cannot hear of see me as i offer my ideas and opinions. Once again, an attempt to "punish" me for what you allege to be my behavior elsewhere is irrelevant to the exchanges in this thread. You've behaved very badly in a situation in which i did not offer any personal reflections on your character or intellect. I simply said that a claim, which i read as being that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language leads to the rise of dialects, is about the most ridiculous thing i'd ever see you write. Live with it.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

I still convert metric to imperial

And the old standards continue to be employed, in Canada, at least. If you buy meat at M&M Markets, the product is weighed out in pounds and ounces. In any store, at the deli counter, if you ask for a pound of the roast beef, they don't hesitate for a moment to provide you what you've asked for. If you buy a block of butter at the store, the package may read 454 grams, but basically you have been sold a pound, as was the case before the use of the metric standard was decreed. If you buy a bottle of soda at a convenience store, you'll 355 ml. or 590 ml, which are 12 oz. and 20 oz. respectively. If you buy a bottle of windshield cleaner fluid at the gas bar, you'll get a four litre bottle, which is as close to a gallon as makes no difference.

The only success in metric which i've seen in the United States is with one and two litre bottles of soda. In Canada, you can add the system of measuring distances on highways in kilometers, and you've got just about all the difference which has been made.

I rather suspect that if anyone attempted to enforce a new set of spelling rules in English, they'd enjoy about as much success, and probably less. It might be accomplished, but it would take a very long time, and as you have pointed out, there is a complete power vacuum as regards an authority to mandate such a change. Noah Webster's changes in spelling were accomplished at a time when there were few texts to be replaced, and most texts in schools were relatively new, while the consuming public for school texts was very small, so effecting the change wasn't difficult. But there are now literally billions of people on the planet who use the language on a daily basis, and millions of books in print. I sincerely doubt that any such change could be effected quickly--as i've said, it would take a very long time. I think that it will be effected to at least a certain extent, because of the internet and text messaging. Dinosaurs such as you and i will die off, but the text messengers will live on.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

One last thing, Joe. I've not seen Train Spotting--do you recommend it?

Miserable, disgusting people whose lives revolve around their heroin addictions and who speak a language only slightly resembling English -- what's not to like?

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Ditto ditto The Wire

I can understand Trainspotting, though

I once saw a British movie (the name escapes me) in Vienna. It centered on the lives of some lower-class council housing inmates who spoke very rapidly in thick accents and with a lot of incomprehensible slang thrown in -- I was very glad for the German subtitles.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
To be precise, the written language remains mutually comprehensible, just as a Brazilian and a Portuguese might not understand each other's speech but would have no problem exchanging written correspondence.

There are significant differences in Brazilian and European Portuguese orthography, so much so that it's common for software localization to provide both as separate language options.

In fact, there is a treaty (Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990) to eventually reconcile the differences.

Official efforts at standardizing the written language go back to the 1970s.

Robert Gentel wrote:

That being said, I personally don't have much difficulty reading either despite very little exposure to European Portuguese, so it's certainly interchangeable to some degree, but there are those to whom the differences do pose a problem and the Portuguese language is undergoing the kind of orthographic standardization that I advocate for English.

Why would you favor that? If Brazilians and Portuguese pronounce the words differently, shouldn't they be spelled differently?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

A high recommendation, indeed!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your remarks, like most of RG's remarks, here refer to speech. The topic is orthography. The point i am making is that if people lack the necessary language skills in reading and writing to discern the appropriate spelling from the context, attempts to force an allegedly "phonetic" spelling on the readers and writers of the language is simply going to confuse them further. At no point have i alleged that people's ability to properly deploy the grammar of their language is going to be hobbled by any style of spelling. What i am pointing out is that when an allegedly "phonetic" spelling no longer distinguishes between homophones, those whose skills of language articulation are poor to begin with are going to be further hampered by any lack of the ability to discern the appropriate word from context.

I was ready to concede the point reading the first part of yur posting but you've done it again. language articulation is speech and you have been talking about the two without even realizing what yur doing.

What you seem to be missing is that people do grasp and do know intuitively what part of speech needs to be deployed in a given language situation.People can be illiterate, meaning they can't read or write but no one, save those with brain damage, are "illspeakable".

I agree with you that a switch to a phonetic system presents problems, but I don't believe that this is one of them. Life has a way of kicking all brilliant ideas firmly in the butt.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I did not employ any sarcasm in responding to your remark. You chose that path.

I said you were caustic, I did not say you were sarcastic.

Quote:

That you allege that i am caustic, or ill-tempered or quarrelsome is meaningless in the context of any specific exchange.

No it is not. When you are complaining about being treated poorly when you are rude day in and day out to others it's a valid point.

Quote:

Do you claim that you are somehow entitled to punish me for a tone which you imagine i am using, without being able to hear and see me, and that this justifies your own ill temper.

No, I'm not trying to "punish" you. You whined about being mistreated and I told your penchant for being a prick to others is why I am not going to treat you with kid gloves.

Quote:

I haven't asked to be handled with "kid gloves," but when you address me with sarcasm, you can't expect anything better in return.

I'm not the one whining about sarcasm. I couldn't care less if you wish to be sarcastic with me. Because you spend so much time mocking others I've merely decided to mock your penchant for regurgitating completely unrelated historical facts in lieu of original thought.

Quote:

I know of the relationship between phonology and phonetics, smart ass.

You do a good job of disguising this knowledge then.

Quote:

In that i had assumed, given the topic of this thread, that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography, the passage was nonsensical.

I never said anything of the sort, and your claim was that it could play no part. Furthermore, you are wrong regardless of how you redefine your claim.

It doesn't matter if you were talking about phonetic standards "in orthography" as opposed to speech as you've come to redefine it. You are dead wrong either way. Because your claim was an absolutism (that they play no part) a single example is all that is needed to disprove it:

The word human was borrowed from French, and initially did not have a pronounced "h". With no phonetic standards for orthography the "h" was borrowed from French orthography and eventually became part of the word's pronunciation.

There are many more examples of this, you can educate yourself with a simple search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Words+whose+spelling+has+influenced+their+pronunciation

Quote:

The remarks i made about the spread of English speakers over time and space was very much to the point, given the topic of this thread, and my understanding that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography.

No they really weren't. They did nothing at all to support your absolutism.

Anyone can regurgitate facts, but none of those facts substantiated your claim and were wholly irrelevant to the brainfart you'd contributed.

Quote:

You and your source have failed to convince me, given the topic of this thread, and my understanding that you were alleging that dialects arise from a lack of phonetic standards in orthography.

As I've already said, I can live with failing to convince you.

Quote:

It is not "moving the goal posts" to point out that phonetic standards in orthography cannot reasonably be alleged to prevent divergence in the speaking of a language.

Yes it is. Because I never claimed they "prevent divergence". Let me break it down for you very simply:

1) I said they play a part.
2) You said they play no part.

So basically, I believe they play some unspecified role, you claimed they play no role. Your "evidence" for this is the absolutism that they are unable to prevent divergence altogether.

That's nice, but the point is whether they can have influence at all, not whether they can have total control.

Quote:

The study's claim about regional standards has nothing to do with a claim that a lack of phonetic standards in orthography can cause the divergences which result in spoken dialects.

Again Setanta, not "cause" but contribute to. Your absolutism was ridiculous and is indefensible. I only need one single example to disprove it when you overstate your position to say they play no part at all.

Quote:

The remark about enforcing phonetic standards has everything to do with any claim to the effect that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language will lead to rise of divergent dialects.

You are still moving the goalposts. I did not say that the lack of phonetic standards leads to divergent dialects. I said the divergence is party due to a lacking standard.

Quote:

You can continue to claim that i have employed bombast, given your hostile tone, it certainly won't surprise. I frankly think your reaction is a result of your having been wounded in your self love.

No, it's anger and frustration at seeing you be a prick to other users day in and day out. You aren't going to wound my "self love" ( Laughing

) by coming here and demonstrating your ignorance of linguistics and giving me the opportunity to deride you.

Quote:

You can also continue to claim that i have nothing to offer other than my conviction. However, any claim that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language leads to the rise of regional dialects is not supported by anything you have said.

And yet again, it is not something I have ever said. You keep trying to convert my position into an absolutism instead of defending your own.

Quote:

But your continued hostility and sneers do nothing to support such a claim, which is all that i was arguing against.

I've supported my claim separately from sneering at your foolish absolutism and regurgitation of dates.

Quote:

Once again, allegations about my tone and temper are meaningless in a context in which you cannot hear of see me as i offer my ideas and opinions.

No they are not. I don't need to see and hear you to know when you are being an ass.

Quote:

Once again, an attempt to "punish" me for what you allege to be my behavior elsewhere is irrelevant to the exchanges in this thread.

I'm not "punishing" you. I am mocking you. The reason I am mocking you is your penchant for mocking others. You like to make personal attacks against the people you consistently disagree with, and to make fun of their style and contribution history so I am doing the same with yours.

Seems like I hit a nerve when pointing out your irrelevant history regurgitation.

Quote:

You've behaved very badly in a situation in which i did not offer any personal reflections on your character or intellect.

You are hilariously hypocritical. Pull the beam out of your eye. You do this every day to others. If you dislike it you should think about it when you do it.

Quote:

I simply said that a claim, which i read as being that a lack of phonetic standards in the written language leads to the rise of dialects, is about the most ridiculous thing i'd ever see you write. Live with it.

I, in turn, pointed out how you are wrong and went on to mock your penchant for irrelevant historical transcription. If you are going to be a dick to others day in and day out then don't be surprised if anyone treats you in kind. Live with it.

0 Replies

I'm not going to play the idiotic game of deconstructing people's posts line for line. I did not claim that you had said that i was sarcastic. I said you were, and that it was unwarranted. Your snivelling about how i respond to others is pointless as well. If someone calls me names, i'm going to respond in like kind. Eventually, i will probably ignore them. If you have a problem with how i address people, than don't read my posts which are not addressed to you, that's simple enough. I did no whining, i simply pointed out that your sarcastic response was unwarranted, it's hardly my fault that you were affronted by that, as well.

I see you are attempting to salvage your nastiness by claiming there is no distinction between phonetic standards in speech and orthography. I thought you might, but that's nonsense. People who have had elaborate cultures and langauges have been illiterate--do you allege that they can have no phonetic standards because they have no written language? There are languages which are no longer spoken, but which can be read and written in our times--do you allege that there can be no phonetic standards because the languages are no longer spoken languages? The English and the Americans spell "schedule" in exactly the same way, but pronounce it in entirely different ways; at the same time, they both pronounce the word center/centre in the same way, and spell it differently. I don't see any merit to a claim to that effect on your part, and i see no reason to come to any other conclusion than that you are displaying as much ignorance of linguistics as you accuse me of, and that you are being as absolute and as bombastic as you accuse me of being.

And none of it alters the undeniable fact that proposals to "rationalize" English spelling run up against the inertia of tradition, that very lack of a phonetic standard, and the lack of an authority to impose upon English speakers. Once again, the English langauge is now the property of billions of people, quite a respectable number of whom are not native speakers. It would be as arbitrary and capricious to insist upon an alleged phonetic spelling now, and cause as many problems for non-native speakers as the silly article with which this thread began claims current orthography causes for school children. You said you would prefer an American pronunciation for deteriming a phonetic standard for spelling, and Joe asked you which American pronunciation that would be. I didn't see a response from you on that. What would that response be?

I asked if it were not rather stupid to object to students who are engaged in a process of learning being obliged to memorize things, such as spelling irregularities. I've seen no comment on that, either.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If someone calls me names, i'm going to respond in like kind.

You'll often be a total ass to them regardless of whether they do or not, so it's not just retributive rudeness.

Quote:

If you have a problem with how i address people, than don't read my posts which are not addressed to you, that's simple enough.

You sure can't take what you are willing to dish out. When you deride and insult people do you chide yourself for not ignoring them as well?

Quote:

I did no whining, i simply pointed out that your sarcastic response was unwarranted, it's hardly my fault that you were affronted by that, as well.

I take no affront to it (I was sarcastic). I just don't agree with it being unwarranted.

Quote:

I see you are attempting to salvage your nastiness by claiming there is no distinction between phonetic standards in speech and orthography.

False, I've not claimed that there is no difference. I said you were wrong regardless of which you had in mind when making your claim. So in that respect it's a meaningless distinction as you are wrong either way, but that does not mean I think there is no difference between the two.

Quote:

People who have had elaborate cultures and langauges have been illiterate--do you allege that they can have no phonetic standards because they have no written language?

I've said nothing about this and don't see any benefit in following this red herring.

Quote:

There are languages which are no longer spoken, but which can be read and written in our times--do you allege that there can be no phonetic standards because the languages are no longer spoken languages?

I've said nothing of the sort. And this once again does not support your contention that phonetic standards play no part.

Quote:

The English and the Americans spell "schedule" in exactly the same way, but pronounce it in entirely different ways; at the same time, they both pronounce the word center/centre in the same way, and spell it differently.

And? I've not proposed an absolutism in which no variance would happen with shared orthography. You are trying to disprove a converse absolutism to your own, but it's not one I subscribe to.

Quote:

I don't see any merit to a claim to that effect on your part, and i see no reason to come to any other conclusion than that you are displaying as much ignorance of linguistics as you accuse me of, and that you are being as absolute and as bombastic as you accuse me of being.

Absolute about precisely what? I don't subscribe to any of the absolutism you like to knock down.

Quote:

And none of it alters the undeniable fact that proposals to "rationalize" English spelling run up against the inertia of tradition, that very lack of a phonetic standard, and the lack of an authority to impose upon English speakers.

I've never disagreed with this, significant inertia is needed to try to reform any language's spelling. What does this have to do with your absolutism? It's just a general argument against spelling reform and I'd rather not get into that general argument with you if you aren't going to defend or quit your absolutism.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I'm taking your pettiness pretty well. If i "couldn't take it," i wouldn't still be here. There is actually only one member i consistently ignore, and i ignore him because what he posts is irrelevant, not because he calls me names. But i wouldn't really know if he does now or not, because i don't read his posts any longer. I have also largely avoided political threads lately because of too many people there who seem to see them as opportunities for slanging matches, and i'm just not interested.

Your claim that i'm " a total ass" to people without regard to whether or not they've insulted me or called me names is largely without foundation, although i'll acknowledge that i don't suffer fools producing incoherent religious or political rants gladly. To be able to substantiate your claim, you'd have had to have read every post in which i responded to any particular individual, and be able to state that said individual had never insulted me, nor called me names. I rather doubt that you've done that.

If you are now attempting to claim that the lack of a phonetic standard in orthography produces divergent dialects, than i will say once again that that is about the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen you write, and i will point out that the expert witness you provided does not support such a claim. It is not a red herring to point out what i did about illiterate cultures, or about dead languages--and certainly not just because you have said so. That's ipse dixit for you. You also continue to whine about absolutism on my part, but you don't even bother to demonstrate it.

I see no good reason to accept your claims about the effect of a lack of a phonetic standard in orthography leading to divergent dialects, and i see no evidence from you that this is true.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your claim that i'm " a total ass" to people without regard to whether or not they've insulted me or called me names is largely without foundation, although i'll acknowledge that i don't suffer fools producing incoherent religious or political rants gladly.

Is this not a euphemism for exactly what I am saying? When you say you don't "suffer fools gladly" aren't you talking about when you attack them personally and mock them?

If this is your excuse then I'm adopting it as my own. I'm mocking you here because I don't suffer fools gladly.

Quote:

To be able to substantiate your claim, you'd have had to have read every post in which i responded to any particular individual, and be able to state that said individual had never insulted me, nor called me names. I rather doubt that you've done that.

I don't make any claim to reading every of your interactions, but time and time again I see you attacking people who I had not seen previously attack you.

Sure, it may well be that I just don't happen to read all the times people are a jerk to you and only read when you are a jerk to them but I find that unlikely and find it far more likely that you merely have a penchant for being a jerk.

Quote:

If you are now attempting to claim that the lack of a phonetic standard in orthography produces divergent dialects...

Once again, I've never said it "produces" regional dialects, I said that it plays a part in the range of regional variation you'll see. I think that languages that are closer to being perfectly phonetic and that have strong orthographic standards will not tend to have as much variance.

Quote:

...than i will say once again that that is about the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen you write...

You wrote that, I did not. You persist in trying to move the goalposts. I said the "great variance is itself partly due to the lack of a phonetic standard".

I did not say that a lack of a phonetic standard produced regional dialects.

Quote:

...and i will point out that the expert witness you provided does not support such a claim.

I simply did not make the claim you are trying to knock down. Furthermore my citation was to refute a claim you made, which was an absolutism that I will quote verbatim:

"I simply do not believe that a lack of a phonetic standard plays any part at all in such a process"

I was showing you that phonetic standards do play a part. I was not trying to show you that they are the cause of regional dialects. I understand it is easier to knock down straw men than to defend your intenable absolutism here, but anyone can just look back and see exactly what we are talking about.

You claimed it plays no part. I was showing you that it does. I never claimed that regional dialects are caused by lacking phonetic standards.

Quote:

It is not a red herring to point out what i did about illiterate cultures, or about dead languages--and certainly not just because you have said so. That's ipse dixit for you. You also continue to whine about absolutism on my part, but you don't even bother to demonstrate it.

I've demonstrated it over and over. I'll do it for you yet again:

In post # 3,521,733 you said:

Quote:

[...]there is no good reason to assume that phonetic standards play any part at all in regional accents and pronunciations
[...]
I simply do not believe that a lack of a phonetic standard plays any part at all in such a process, nor that having had a phonetic standard--especially in times when so much of the population was not literate--would have assured that we all spoke the same.

The statement you took issue with on my part was where I claimed the lack of the standard contributed towards the great degree of variation in pronunciations. Here you claim that:

1) That is plays no part at all.
2) That it does not absolutely cause or absolutely prevent such variation.

I have never argued for the second absolutism, so keep knocking it down all you want. I argued that it was a contributing factor. You contradicted this with the absolutism that it plays no part at all. You did not merely misspeak you repeated this again for emphasis.

This was an absolutism that I showed to be false with a quick search, because it is an absolutism ("no part") it only requires a single example to disprove. I don't subscribe to either absolutism (that it plays "no" part or that it "causes") and think that the degree to which it does play a part is arguable.

That is not, however, what you are arguing. You come here and argue (incorrectly) that it plays no part and (correctly) that it is not the cause or the solution for regional pronunciation.

I have not argued against the latter, and provided you the example to refute the former.

Quote:

I see no good reason to accept your claims about the effect of a lack of a phonetic standard in orthography leading to divergent dialects,

You also have no good reason to make up that I made such a claim. Again, I made no such claim. I said that the degree of variance is influenced in part by the lack of such standards.

Quote:

and i see no evidence from you that this is true.

I see no evidence that I even said that, so it shouldn't surprise you that your straw man falls down easily. You made it that way by design.

1 Reply

Well, now that this thread has degenerated into a free-for-all between Set and Craven, I guess it's time to hit the "stop e-mail updates" button. Too bad. There was a point there where, for a short while, some posters were actually making some cogent comments.

3 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Sorry about that M.A.

1 Reply

Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know