 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why spelling reform can never work
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Phillip Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:09 PM At least in the UK. I was intrigued by a website I was looking at with tips on how to pronounce bird names. Not Sharon, or Tracey, and such, but avifauna. For the fulmar it said that the first syllable should be pronounced to rhyme with "full" and not with "gull." Now, I'm from Manchester, so this does not compute. They are the same to me. It's the problem with standard letters and regional accents, of course, and that's why spelling reform can never work. Take the words "class" and "ass" - same vowel sound to me, but not to my daughters who have grown up in the south. To them it would need to be "arse." Or "drawing." The vowel's easy in that one - but what about the middle consonant? To most people in the UK, as to me, I suspect it would be an "w". But my soft southern abdab off-spring have an "r" in it! How to reconcile these differences with just 26 letters and an apostrophe (for the glottal stop, perhaps)? And whose accent should we use as a basis any way - well, mine of course. It would be worse for my parents, and all the other poor souls who never fled Tyldesley. To them "fairy" and "furry" are pronounced the same. I gave that one up cause people kept laffing at me. (When I said them, not because I am either.) (Eether) Phillip |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Sorcha Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:13 PM And over here, we have these Wes 'Ginny skinny butts that just cain't spel fer beens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Phillip Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:15 PM A Wes 'Ginny skinny butt, eh? I have no idea what one of them might be! So-called common language strikes again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: MMario Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:19 PM fairy; faery; ferry; furry; fury I've heard them ALL given the same pronounciation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:27 PM Yes, wel, wee cood just go too a compleetly fonetic speling sistem and then evreewun cood spel eech wurd egzaktlee thu way thay say it. That wood bee thu most demokratik way too doo it, I think. This wood not discriminayt agenst peepl hoo hav difrent aksents, bekaws thay cood just spel the wurds the way thay say them and it wood mayk for an interesting varaiety of spelings frum wun reejun to anuther. Grate ideea, ay? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Sorcha Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:34 PM Phillip, do a search for Bobert's posts..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Phillip Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:41 PM Yis, wee cud but ay see problems orlredy - nou "shva" simbul, nou symbul t"shva" difurenshiate bitween the "i" sownz in "in" n "yis" - if yoo yooz "y" wot doo yoo yooz f"shva" th (AAARGGH) I have to stop, itsa crayzy! What do you use for the "glide" at the start of "you", and as for "this" and "theory"....? The IPA should be adopted by all. Still doesn't fix the problem, though. Filip (Not Filup, as my American relatives call me. That's what you do with the kettle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: katlaughing Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:43 PM My Rog would burr-ee something in a hole, while I would berry it. *bg* I'm with you, Philip, on class and ass, as well as full and gull. Do ya suppose they meant full to sound like fool? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 02 - 12:56 PM Oh, I figgured this day would come and come it has! Danged! I resemble sum of these remarx, thankee very much and all I gotta say is, well, ahhhhh..... hmmmmm? (What was that I was gonna say?) Oh, I got it. Nan-a-nan-a-nan-ahhh! Takes a small mind to spell a wird the same way every time. Boringggg! Now, that being said, no, I don't spell fir beens but if someone has a pot of 'em cooked up.... and humms the first few bars, I'll give it a chance. Speckin' of chances, I figgured I'd take me a chance on a corresponence course in typoing and, well, just completed it and got me cetifercat right here on the wall in friont of me. I got a little clear p[lastic push pin in it 'cause I couldn't find a colored one like I like to use for my important certifericats. Well, tyhought you'd be real happy fir me and maybe since this is my rockee, ruckie, hmmmmm, first year in the Catbox that you'd vote for me as the Catbox "Rokie of the Ear" award which I figgured I'd earned with my vast imporovement in my typoing and spellin' and impecable grammer and uses iof commas.... That's my story and until someone comes up with a bedder one then Iz stickin to it... Boberdz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Mr Happy Date: 20 Nov 02 - 01:07 PM a fiend who grew up in roby near liverpool told me of a bad experience she had as a young schoolgirl in a spelling test. when the teacher inspected her spellings, she'd been told off for spelling 'eagle' as 'eagull'. she said she thought the speling would be like 'seagull'. people in her locality would have pronounced 'eagle' to rhyme with 'seagull', hence 'eagull' daft, isn'it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Nov 02 - 01:21 PM I suppose the most noticeable experiment in spelling reforem in the United States took place on the pages of the Chicago Tribune. I thought it was still going on, and worried that I'd have to put up with "reformed" spelling when the Trib bought my favorite newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. This article (click) says the Trib's experiment ended in 1975, so the Times was not affected. So far, the Times has not taken on the Trib's right-wing politics, either. I read the Chicago Tribune occasionally when I was growing up in southeastern Wisconsin. The spelling always bugged me. Be sure to take a look at the Website of the Simplified Spelling Society, http://www.spellingsociety.org. Click here for yet another spelling reform site. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Liz the Squeak Date: 20 Nov 02 - 02:32 PM NOOOOOOO!! Please, not universal Hull spelling, my proofreading days have left a lasting impression and I can't bear to see things mis-spelled.... I've even taken Selfriges (top London store in Oxford St) to task about its' "not moving" paper and occassional tables.... Phonetic won't work either until the whole world speaks with a mid west American accent. My daughter learns things aurally at school, she's come home tonight singing 'Hark the herald angels' and how Christ was barn in Bethlehem.... thank you so much, Mormon Tabernacle Choir! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bert Date: 20 Nov 02 - 03:00 PM Nah lisnear you lo`. The proppah way ter speak is wot 'ow we do i` in Lundn. Nah Full is prunahnced like the oo in good or wood, wairraz Gull is like the u in rub. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 02 - 06:05 PM "The rine in Spine falls minely on th' pline" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bert Date: 20 Nov 02 - 06:09 PM The rain in Spain goes mainly down the drain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 02 - 06:14 PM hit DO?..waaaal, ain't thet sump'n! It are a blessin' we don't have no gol durn stoopid aksents or spellin' over here in the USA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: GUEST,Ed Date: 20 Nov 02 - 06:20 PM Joe, I found the spellingsociety.org. site interesting, but somewhat frustrating. They make a number of valid points regarding current spelling, but don't appear to offer a better system. Maybe I looked at the wrong pages. Ed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: GUEST,adavis@truman.edu Date: 20 Nov 02 - 06:36 PM As a result of the way my teachers spoke, I got to a surprisingly ripe stage of education thinking the dot between whole number and fraction (e.g., 1.5) was a "dezmo pawnt," and wrote it that way. In Sunday school, I learned that Abraham's son was named "Izey," and nobody could persuade me otherwise. And I blew one of those matching exercises when I found "Richard Nixon" in column A, but no "praz-dinn" in column B. Adam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: mack/misophist Date: 20 Nov 02 - 08:03 PM May I toss in one of my favourite bits of English history here? When Jos. Caxton published "The Idylls of the King", which is considered the first book in modern English, there WERE no standard English spellings except for a few words like 'nation' that the parilament occasionally used. This gave Caxton MUCH too free a hand with spelling. It is said that there were five distinct dialects within a days ride of London in his day and that he chose the spelling of each word according to which pronunciation he liked best and spelled them as he thought fit. We owe it all to him. Damn him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Genie Date: 20 Nov 02 - 08:28 PM When we were both in grad school in psychology, my then roommate used me as a guinea pig for her WAIS (IQ) testing course. I got my IQ lowered (by 2 points, IIRC) because she asked me to define "im-payle." Knowing she was from S. Carolina and being used to her accent, I defined "impel." Unfortunately, she had bent over backwards to use "standard" American English pronunciation of the word "impale," so, of course, my definition was wrong. Another time, my mom kept hearing some friends from the south talk about a beautiful "pantry." She was terribly puzzled as to how a pantry could inspire such awe, until it finally came out that they were talking about a "pine tree." My Texan roommate and I had a running argument about how to pronounce "o-i-l." To me, she pronounced it as "awl." She thought I (damnyankee that I was) was making it into two syllables. *BG* Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: GUEST Date: 20 Nov 02 - 11:55 PM Please give the URL of the website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: artbrooks Date: 21 Nov 02 - 12:11 AM And who REALLY thinks the words "Don" (short for the man's name Donald) and "dawn" (what the sun does in the morning) are pronounced the same? I can sympathize with you and Phoebe, Liz. When I lived in Utah, I was amazed to learn that "barn", "horse" and "fork" all had the same vowel sound (barn/harse/fark). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 21 Nov 02 - 02:54 AM Liz-You spelled Selfridges wrong! :-) If anyone else wants to know how to spelling anything, just let me know.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: mooman Date: 21 Nov 02 - 04:49 AM Working in Brussels I can report the following for your interest (with apologies in advance to Wolfgang!) (;>) moo __________________ Euro plan for improving English spelling The European Commission have just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase in plan that would be known as "EuroEnglish". In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c"-- Sertainly this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favor of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" wil be replaced with the "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expected to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"'s in the language is disgraceful, and they should go away. By the 4th yar peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz yar, 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 hav kum tru! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Steve Parkes Date: 21 Nov 02 - 06:23 AM If you ask me, those other Euro countires are just jealous: English has somehting like 30% more words thatn French (even if you take out the French loan words) and about twice as many as German; not to mention about ten times more than Latin. You want subtle, we got it! Steve P.S. I think those weird southern affectations of dimorphic vowel sounds, like "good luck" ("good lack"), "gas mask" ("gess marsk") and so on, come from the French influence in mediaeval times. This didn't extend to northern parts of England, so you tykes speak a purer form of English that goes back to Alfred the Great, and none of this poncy modern Plantagenet-speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 21 Nov 02 - 07:22 AM Bert sahnds like hes from Fort Neaf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: mooman Date: 21 Nov 02 - 07:35 AM Hah Paul, Defernitely Pec'am! moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Nov 02 - 08:55 AM Mooman, why should I object to that post? Look here what I have posted way back in 1999 (and it was pointed out to me that even then it wasn't the first time) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Nov 02 - 08:57 AM Look here is what I had try to post. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Steve Parkes Date: 21 Nov 02 - 09:14 AM But on that basis, the French would have to drop about 40% of their consonants ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: mooman Date: 21 Nov 02 - 09:25 AM Dear Wolfgang, Clearly great minds think alike! (Except I am not smart enough to do a DT search!) I have seen it many times before too and believe it originally came from a UK military research establishment. Richard P.S. In my defence, I did do a smiley! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Ringer Date: 21 Nov 02 - 12:54 PM Re misophist's post, 20 Nov 02 - 08:03 PM: I am being picky, but 1. Idylls of the King is a Tenyson poem, much later than Caxton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bill D Date: 21 Nov 02 - 03:46 PM when properly motivated, a Texan can pronounce 'ranch', 'wrench' and 'rinse' almost the same...sort of 'rainch'. And I used to listen in horrer as some kids I knew discussed their grandfather plowing his 'filled'. I sincerly believe some people cultivate (some subconciously, some not) these variations in order to 'announce' their cultural identity. Senator Howell Heflin used to wield his accent like a club in committee meetings. He knew very well what the reactions to his extreme drawl were, and relished them! I suspect that many speakers of UK English also identify themselves to their peers by their particular dialect/accent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Genie Date: 21 Nov 02 - 08:41 PM LMAO, moo!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why spelling reform can never work From: Bert Date: 22 Nov 02 - 12:10 AM Paul, I'm from Canning Tahn. Or is it Tahen there just isn't a letter for it. That's weird, the English language doesn't have the right letters to spell the dialect from it's own capital city. |