@xris,
xris;106836 wrote:mI rcap ta enlgihs tub uoy aveh to darw hte lnie somhwere.
Changing the order of the letters make it very hard to read.
---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:31 AM ----------
jgweed;106866 wrote:16 out of 16 words were incorrectly spelled.
Rather than reform English over and over again, why not just put emphasis on correct spelling ("oh dear," someone whines, "now I have to MEMORISE stuff") and teach people to spell correctly (and perhaps how to use a dictionary and thesaurus properly).
One wonders if we aggressively change spelling over say, 30 years, that much of great value in English literature will be so taxing to their minds that they will abandon reading Macaulay or Mill or Dickens or Carlyle or Tennyson (to confine my list to some eminent Victorian authors)? At the very least, they would have to learn TWO spellings of many words.
Over and over again? There haven't been one in a long time AFAIK. Do you know?
Language's primary function is communication. What is currently correct spelling is not important to that goal. Many forms of formally incorrect english are just as good for communication as formal english.
The main problem with english (and danish) is this: The spellings are hard to learn because they are highly irregular. It makes the language harder to learn, both to spell and to pronounce. German is much easier to both spell and pronounce because it lacks the same level of irregularities. (It has an awful grammar system instead though.) There is no need for this. In fact it is counter-productive to the primary function of language: Communication. It is possible to change the spellings over time.
Question: Should we do it?
My answer: Yes.
---
You're talking about our (your) cultural inheritance. Is it that important? Probably old english (that is, english now seen from 30 years into the future assuming we begin to reform english now), will still be easily readable, just as most of these reform proposals are easily readable to people we can current old english. Some of the reform proposals come in multiple steps. One cannot change it too much at a time.
As time passes new cultural objects will be made and the importance of the
old cultural objects will lessen.
And it is possible to simply update the spellings of old literature. In fact we do this already for much literature.
---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:32 AM ----------
Aedes;106903 wrote:I got all 16 right, but I'm sort of anal about spelling.
I drive medical students and residents crazy because I hate them using so much medical shorthand that their documentation looks like a text message. "60 yo w/m w PMH CHF, DMII, HBV, ESRD p/w CP + SOB x 48h". It just looks unprofessional.
If it works, then why is it unprofessional? Why not embrace their new words? They seem to be better than yours, since they allow for faster communication. Even though it may be a little more context dependent.
---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:35 AM ----------
Link is dead. Link is dead.
---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:41 AM ----------
Pangloss;106869 wrote:Well, I just got one wrong on that test, but I blazed through it quickly, and made an easy error. Still, that's 3 better than the 'post-graduate teacher trainees' they tested, which is pathetic. For a native english speaking college grad, there's no reason to miss any of those words...the spellings may be redundant, or not entirely 'necessary' in some minds, but they are encountered in readings quite often. These should be words that are all well-known by the time one finishes high school.
Your expectations are insane compared to the reality of high schools in the US. Just saying. The US. education system is awful.
What about foreigners (notice the spelling of that word)? English is a world language. Tons of people that are non-natives learn it, yet they rarely become very good at it because it is so hard to learn. And there really is no point in it being so hard to learn.
Pangloss;106869 wrote:This would be a reform that seems to be based on the idea that we need to dumb down the standards in this country. We don't need language reform, we need education reform, in my opinion; more reading, and less video games/TV/facebook.
Not really. They are not based on "dumbing down standards". They are based on "dumbing down" language. Why does it have to be so hard to learn it? What is the point? There is no point. That's the point!
Of course, if people would use more time on learning, the problem would be less severe, but people won't and I see no way to change that fact. Light entertainment is how it is. This fact is irrelevant to the question of whether english should be reformed or not.
That said, I never watch television. I don't own a television.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace