1
   

Push for Simpler Spelling Persists

 
 
Reyn
 
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 05:30 pm
I think this is absolutely stupid! We all managed to get through it in our day, and now we're going to cater to a generation who are unable to spell?

"Dumbing down" the language is a backwards way to approach the problem, in my opinion.


Push for Simpler Spelling Persists

WASHINGTON - When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?

Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun.

It's been 100 years since Andrew Carnegie helped create the Simplified Spelling Board to promote a retooling of written English and President Theodore Roosevelt tried to force the government to use simplified spelling in its publications. But advocates aren't giving up.

They even picket the national spelling bee finals, held every year in Washington, costumed as bumble bees and hoisting signs that say "Enuf is enuf but enough is too much" or "I'm thru with through."

Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.

"It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," says Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways.

Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy - witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues.

Doughnut also is donut; colour, honour and labour long ago lost the British "u" and the similarly derived theatre and centre have been replaced by the easier-to-sound-out theater and center.

"The kinds of progress that we're seeing are that someone will spell night 'nite' and someone will spell through 'thru,'" Mole said. "We try to show where these spellings are used and to show dictionary makers that they are used so they will include them as alternate spellings."

"Great changes have been made in the past. Systems can change," a hopeful Mole said.

Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed.

In languages with phonetically spelled words, like German or Spanish, children learn to spell in weeks instead of months or years as is sometimes the case with English, Mole said.

But education professor Donald Bear said to simplify spelling would probably make it more difficult because words get meaning from their prefixes, suffixes and roots.

"Students come to understand how meaning is preserved in the way words are spelled," said Bear, director of the E.L. Cord Foundation Center for Learning and Literacy at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Th cuntry's [censored by forum] larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects.

Michael Marks, a member of the National Education Association's executive committee, said learning would be disrupted if children had to switch to a different spelling system. "It may be more trouble than it's worth," said Marks, a debate and theater teacher at Hattiesburg High School in Mississippi.

E-mail and text messages are exerting a similar tug on the language, sharing some elements with the simplified spelling movement while differing in other ways. Electronic communications stress shortcuts like "u" more than phonetics. Simplified spelling is not always shorter than regular spelling - sistem instead of system, hoep instead of hope.

Carnegie tried to moov thingz along in 1906 when he helpt establish and fund th speling bord. He aulso uezd simplified speling in his correspondens, and askt enywun hoo reported to him to do the saem.

A filanthropist, he becaem pashunet about th ishoo after speeking with Melvil Dewey, a speling reform activist and Dewey Desimal sistem inventor hoo simplified his furst naem bi droping "le" frum Melville.

Roosevelt tried to get the government to adopt simpler spellings for 300 words but Congress blocked him. He used simple spellings in all White House memos, pressing forward his effort to "make our spelling a little less foolish and fantastic."

The Chicago Tribune aulso got into th act, uezing simpler spelingz in th nuezpaeper for about 40 years, ending in 1975. Plae-riet George Bernard Shaw, hoo roet moest of his mateerial in shorthand, left muny in his wil for th development of a nue English alfabet.

Carnegie, Dewey, Roosevelt and Shaw's work followed attempts by Benjamin Franklin, Daniel Webster and Mark Twain to advance simpler spelling. Twain lobbied The Associated Press at its 1906 annual meeting to "adopt and use our simplified forms and spread them to the ends of the earth." AP declined.

But for aul th hi-proefiel and skolarly eforts, the iedeea of funy-luuking but simpler spelingz didn't captivaet the masez then - or now.

"I think that the average person simply did not see this as a needed change or a necessary change or something that was ... going to change their lives for the better," said Marilyn Cocchiola Holt, manager of the Pennsylvania department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.

Carnegie, hoo embraest teknolojy, died in 1919, wel befor sel foenz. Had he livd, he probably wuud hav bin pleezd to no that milyonz of peepl send text and instant mesejez evry dae uezing thair oen formz of simplified speling: "Hav a gr8 day!"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 497 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:24 pm
You have not met OmsigDavid, I presume.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:38 pm
I think we should also get rid of words that can be misconstrued! Words like "bimonthly"! Does that mean twice a month? Once every two months? You are bi twice a month? And words like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis! No one ever uses that word! Let's get rid of it!
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:41 pm
Hey, Reyn and Rog. Remember the IPA?
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:56 pm
NickFun wrote:
I think we should also get rid of words that can be misconstrued! Words like "bimonthly"! Does that mean twice a month? Once every two months? You are bi twice a month? And words like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis! No one ever uses that word! Let's get rid of it!


Why, I use that word all the time, Nick.

One of the major problems in this push for simplification of spelling is the prevalence of homophones in the English language. There are major differences between the meanings of their, there and they're, for example. And I see the younger, semiliterate generation misusing these words all the time becauuse nobody ever taught them proper spelling. "Their going to get it." "I'll be right over they're." etc. "The baseball crashed right through the window pain." "C;mon, give me a brake." The list could be well nigh endless.

Another major problem is that the people who are in favor of this sort of reform almost always are those who not only can't spell, but have a very hazy concept of phonics to begin with. For example, spelling "night" as "nite" is not a phonetic spelling in the eyes of any linguist. The word 'nite' -- if it is to be phonetic -- should be then pronounced NEE-tay, not nait (which is the correct phonetic spelling). But if we instituted a change whereby 'night' was spelled 'nite', then how would be reform the spelling of 'knight'?

There is nothing really new about any of these suggested 'reforms.' G. B. Shaw suggested similar reforms nearly a hundred years ago, and he was by no means the only one. Personally, I detest the IM kind of garbage that the kids use in text messaging and that our esteemed poster OmSigDavid has picked up. To write "R U there?" instead of "Are you there" is not space-saving or hip -- it's just childish and a good indicator of a person's intellectual laziness.

All that said, however, there are some areas where spelling reform might not be a completely bad idea. For example, we have a number of words with double letters in them where no double letter is actually needed. I always write "traveling", not "travelling." People in the UK and the Commonwealth countries really should abandon the silly 'ou' in words such as favor, honor etc., the way their Yankee cousins did quite a while ago. On the other hand, the British spelling of 'kerb' is far more sensible than the American 'curb.' It would be nice if we could achieve some sort of unanimity on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and stop telling British school kids that'gaol' really spells 'jail.'
0 Replies
 
soozoo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 07:03 pm
I think this is an interesting subject, and you have some very good points there, Merry Andrew. This is just a picky little thing, but wouldn't night phonetically be spelled nit? C'mon tell me I'm rit.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 02:56 pm
Push for Simpler Spelling Persists
For anyone interested in language, there is a great deal of satisfaction in seeing the derivation of a word. This would be inmpossible with "simplified" spelling. "Simplified" spelling would dilute much of the rich heritage of English.

Anyway, who would be the final arbiter - okay, "night" should change to "nite" but who's to decide on pronouncing that -"nait" (weird spelling, right there) or "neetae"?

And how would we render in print the differences of pronounciation found among the many and various dialects and regional speech habits to be found in English?
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 03:19 pm
soozoo wrote:
I think this is an interesting subject, and you have some very good points there, Merry Andrew. This is just a picky little thing, but wouldn't night phonetically be spelled nit? C'mon tell me I'm rit.


Sorry, soozoo, but 'nit' would be pronounced just as it is spelled in a phonetic world. The 'n' sound, the 'i' sound and the 't' sound. 'I' is never pronounced 'aye' in any phonetic system that I know of and in hardly any other language except English. But that's just nit-picking. Smile
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 04:59 pm
Push for Simpler Spelling Persists
Part of the problem is that English vowels aren't single sounds; they are diphthongs. "I' is really composed of "ah" & "ee"; "u" is really "ee + "oo".
That throws people used to the more universal pronounciation of western alphabet vowels. In this respect English is - for better or worse - unique, and it's just one more of the many things that make English so difficult.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:04 pm
Push for Simpler Spelling Persists
A large part of the problem is that English vowels aren't single sounds, but diphthongs. "i" = "ah + "ee"; "u" = "ee + "oo". This makes it just that much harder for native speakers of other languages to learn English. English is unique in this respect; most other languages using the Western (Roman) alphabet share a different set of vowel pronounciations.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Push for Simpler Spelling Persists
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 03:07:05