# Phonetic English for Better Education?



## Gmart (Jun 25, 2006)

I currently live in South Korea where their language is completely phonetic, ie their spelling is exactly how their words sound.

It struck me that this could be done in English. At the moment each child is expected to remember by memory how to spell thousands of words, and the dyslexics have a greater difficulty with this than others.

There are about 36 different sounds in English and if these were taught at the beginning then everyone would be able to read and write. 

In Finland and South Korea they both have this system and are regularily top of the education tables for literacy, mainly due to this, and leaving more space in our child's head to learn more important things.

So why is spelling so important? Isn't this discrimination against the dyslexics? And most importantly why can't a child be allowed to spell things phonetically and not be penalised?

Is this another example of the educated keeping the masses down?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 25, 2006)

i dunno  i'm dyslexic   and  i get on okish (well good enough to get a degree anyhow)

i fairly much didn't write at all   till secondary school   though  ....     i could  never  get it to come out ...


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Jun 25, 2006)

As you know gmarthews, I agree with you (about this! ) and I do think Englands determination to keep placing such an emphasis on the correct spelling and also some peoples dislike of Americas simplified spelling of certain words is basically snobbery.

The English alphabet has a surplus of letters for a start which I never even noticed until I learned to read Korean.  Part of me thinks we should all just shift over to the Hanguel alphabet although I understand this will never happen.


----------



## Pingu (Jun 25, 2006)

ITA anyone?

http://www.itafoundation.org/ita.htm

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/itaaddis.html

was tried in the 70s and didnt really work out.   

something similar is being tried again though hopefully this time they will do it properly and it will work out better.

however its only a means to teach "propper" english as opposed to a full on phonetic language thingy.


----------



## coastloop (Jun 25, 2006)

how much tribble would it be to change the english language tho


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 25, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> ITA anyone?
> 
> http://www.itafoundation.org/ita.htm
> 
> ...


I went to school in the 70s and learned how to read with ITA (the Intermediate Teaching Alphabet).

I found it fine, but I was a bit of a book worm, quickly worked my way through all the set books, was the first child in my class to finish all the ITA books and move on to the 'proper' books.  Proper little swot I was!  I still vaguely remember a book with a squirrel... sort of greenish cover...

Hard to compare though, because that's the way I learned, don't know if I would have fared even better learning the 'proper' alphabet first, but I always had an advanced vocabulary and reading age, looking back and knowing what I know now, it probably had something to do with me having Asperger's Syndrome, and hyperlexic traits and a virtually photographic ("eidetic"???) memory.  Which helped a lot.


----------



## Gmart (Jun 25, 2006)

We could just have a declaration that phonetic spelling is adequate for school exams to start with, with no penalty. 

I don't see why this would be so bad?


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 25, 2006)

AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> ...*Disclaimer:  this doesn't include people who are dyslexic.


I have some friends who are dyslexic, and they've grown up with terrible 'I feel stupid' complexes, which is very wrong, because two out of the three friends I know who certainly have dyslexia, have been astounding, outstanding geniuses when it comes to computer programing and electronic stuff (two blokes), and one girl who ended up as a carer in an old people's home, possibly partly because she felt she couldn't do any better.  I think there should be a similar acceptance in employment, if you're dyslexic, you're dyslexic, you need some acceptance and accommodation in terms of employment opportunities, using word processors spellcheckers... but a lots of dyslexics are so brow beaten by the educational system that they are underachievers, but if you're just stupid and can't spell... well, fair enough...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 25, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> We could just have a declaration that phonetic spelling is adequate for school exams to start with, with no penalty.
> 
> I don't see why this would be so bad?


Oops, I jujst edited my previous post instead of quoting a bit of it 

The problem with your suggestion is that lots of pupils/students would start using txtspk, even some GCSE students are noted to have written in txtspk in exams to date.  The problem with that is that when they come to apply for jobs, they will be unsuccessful.  Employers will want employees who can spell and write grammatically correct English.  If you go down the whole phonetic: with = wiv mate = m8 line, a heck of a lot of young people become unemployable... 

And it's okay for the teachers/educationalists who say that children should be able to express themselves, and it doesn't matter if they can spell or if their English is grammatically correct (this happened a lot during the 1970s) the bottom line is that employers need and will recruit people who can spell and who can write grammatically correct English.

All those right-on people who say that expression is more important that correctness are actually doing all those young people a great disservice.


----------



## Gmart (Jun 26, 2006)

I am not suggesting that we should go towards txtspeak. All the vowel sounds exist and should be in the word if it is spelt phonetically. A campaign to normalise this would be a good step towards inclusion. The current 'right' way of spelling could continue to be 'right' but the phonetic way could be 'right' too. No one is suggesting that 'm8t' should be adopted into the english language. Having an 'e' on the end of the word is quite adequate to lengthen the vowel, and should be considered as right.

Children would be able to learn how to spell English phonetically first and foremost, and if they wish to learn the 'old' version too (if there is one) then fine.

The only problem would be the number of different versions, such as 'castle', which would have 2 spellings one for the south, one for the north. But to be honest I don't think this would be a big deal, and in time things would be fine, with dyslexics finally able to communicate without so much discrimination.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jun 26, 2006)

Children who learn to read phonetically appear to learn to read more easily anyway.
Dyslexia also affects how you 'hear' sound blends ( my daughter doesnt hear them properly at all) and this affects how many dyslexics build words.
You then add in a completely different method of word reading (memorisation) which is used across primary education at the mo and I suspect many dyslexics life is made even harder. I know my eldestcan read 99 out of 100 high frequency words becuase she has memorised them, that doesnt mean she can actually read( give her a word not on the list and she has no idea how to build the sounds together)

I think if phonics was taught first and foremost and spelling later then more children would be sucessful
That doesnt account for the other dyslexic features of completely missing out letters or including letters in words where they arent supposed to be there butit might well be a great help


----------



## Gmart (Jun 26, 2006)

Thus if we have aphonetic form, theneveryone would be able to write and read, thus halting the major part of the problems dyslexics have with spelling.

But is this even feasible? Would a major political party be likely to this visionary? Unlikely i suppose.

To start with we could allow people to spell 'little' with only one 't' in the middle. Why is that other 't' there? Same with swimming etc. Allowing people to spell these words without the useless doubling of the letters would be a good first step.

It could be a progressive thing, without saying that either system is better. Personally i reckon that in time UK english would become closer to the ideal phonetic form, though this would mean negating the need for the letter 'c' which is either hard as in 'k' or soft as in 's', while there would be a 'z' often at the end of the word to denote plurality.

Can anyone else imagine this?


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 27, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> ...It could be a progressive thing, without saying that either system is better. Personally i reckon that in time UK english would become closer to the ideal phonetic form, though this would mean negating the need for the letter 'c' which is either hard as in 'k' or soft as in 's', while there would be a 'z' often at the end of the word to denote plurality.
> 
> Can anyone else imagine this?


I've heard this joke before.

It ends with the spoof English in a German accent thingy doesn't it?


----------



## Gmart (Jun 28, 2006)

With a defeatist attitude like that, things will never change.

This is a good idea, and constructive comments are appreciated.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jun 28, 2006)

Historically english was written phonetically anyway

I dont know we need to go as far as a dumbing down leading to phonetic spelling. I think phonetic teaching during early years should be paramount though.
It was the way lots of older people( 25+) were taught to read and its only recently that other methods were supposedly seen as better, we need to look at what possible contribution that has made to the drop in basic skills in primary and secondary age children. Phonics, once learned effectively is to most children second nature, Im not convinced that the teaching methods currently popular in primary schools necessarily give children the same seciure basis for language and literacy learning which correct knowledge of spelling rules can then be built upon


----------



## scifisam (Jul 5, 2006)

Learning to read phonetically is excellent practice, though you need to couple it with some sight-reading (for some kids, phonetic reading is actually more difficult than sight reading). This is the way most schools do teach early English. Even later in education, phonetics is focussed on, particuarly for children who have literacy problems (the RML scheme, used by many primary schools and by secondary schools for year 7 students, is almost purely phonetic). Continuing with phonetics after that stage would be fraught with so many problems that it just wouldn't happen.

Problem is, whose phonetic spelling do you choose? Phonetic English for kids in English would be really difficult for kids in Newcastle, and vice versa. Having everybody write differently would be impossible.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 5, 2006)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Historically english was written phonetically anyway
> at what possible contribution that has made to the drop in basic skills in primary and secondary age children. Phonics, once learned effectively is to most children second nature, Im not convinced that the teaching methods currently popular in primary schools necessarily give children the same seciure basis for language and literacy learning which correct knowledge of spelling rules can then be built upon



I'm a bit confused about that. I'm a secondary school English teacher, but I also did most of a primary PGCE, I have a young daughter and I've volunteered in several primary schools. I don't know any school which doesn't base its early language teaching around phonics. It certainly was the practice on my primary PGCE. I'm not doubting your word, I'm just confused as to why our experiences are so different.


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 5, 2006)

Who's phoenetics are we talking about here?

How are we supposed to decide which accent is the right accent?  And what kind of effect is this going to have on written communication with people from other countries?

There are good reasons for having commonly agreed spellings for words.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 5, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused about that. I'm a secondary school English teacher, but I also did most of a primary PGCE, I have a young daughter and I've volunteered in several primary schools. I don't know any school which doesn't base its early language teaching around phonics. It certainly was the practice on my primary PGCE. I'm not doubting your word, I'm just confused as to why our experiences are so different.


becuase the schools youve taught in use phonics and only one out of four my children have attended have used any?
As I understand it from both the dyslexia institute and from seeing my own childrens teacher ( from 1997-now) there is very little phonics taught in schools, children are generally taught using word familiarisation and memorisation techniques( the 100 frequently read words) with any phonics taught used for correct pronunciation rather than to teach children to read


----------



## northernhord (Jul 5, 2006)

there are some great arguments for phonetic English but there is a stronghold of Queens English merchants ranting and raving about it, tossers


----------



## jæd (Jul 5, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> We could just have a declaration that phonetic spelling is adequate for school exams to start with, with no penalty.
> 
> I don't see why this would be so bad?



Whee kud jus av a deklarraton hat fonnetik spell lin s adekat fr skoo xams t srt wi wi n peanutty.

Ey don c y hiss ood b so baad...?


----------



## Thora (Jul 5, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Whee kud jus av a deklarraton hat fonnetik spell lin s adekat fr skoo xams t srt wi wi n peanutty.
> 
> Ey don c y hiss ood b so baad...?


Why are you missing out some sounds?


----------



## northernhord (Jul 5, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Whee kud jus av a deklarraton hat fonnetik spell lin s adekat fr skoo xams t srt wi wi n peanutty.
> 
> Ey don c y hiss ood b so baad...?



I can clearly understand what you have written, you make a good argument for phonetic writing


----------



## scifisam (Jul 5, 2006)

northernhoard said:
			
		

> I can clearly understand what you have written, you make a good argument for phonetic writing



Cue mass resignations of GCSE examiners, a 2-week wait to mark each paper for those examiners that can still cope with the struggle to comprehend the writing, and an appeal for almost every D grade on the basis that the examiner didn't understand the dialect the pupil was writing in.

If there were a move towards letting everyone write the way they speak, it would be the dyslexics, foreign language learners and anyone else who has trouble with reading who would suffer most - instead of learning one writing system, they'd have to learn to discern a few dozen. 

@LilMiss - it's not just the schools I was in, it was the teacher training course. There were hundreds of teachers there learning to teach using phonics. Teacher training courses are (to an extent) standardised across the country. Of course, I only know what teacher training for primary was like 6 years ago - it could be that teachers trained before that time, but after the 60s, didn't learn to teach using phonics. Two of the most popular early reading schemes are RML (Ruth Miskin Literacy), and the related Read Write scheme, and they teach phonetically. I guess perhaps your LEA hasn't taken that up. Many of the 100 most frequent words cannot be taught phonetically, (which ties in with the arguments of those who do want a phonetic language), but simple memorisation shouldn't be the main teaching tool for them. I'm sorry to hear your children haven't been getting the kind of teaching they need.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 5, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Whee kud jus av a deklarraton hat fonnetik spell lin s adekat fr skoo xams t srt wi wi n peanutty.
> 
> Ey don c y hiss ood b so baad...?



That looks fucking awful. 

Teach kids with whatever method BEST SUITS THE CHILD. If a child is best taught to read using phonics then use phonics, if whole word techniques work better use those.

But changing the written language to one that is phonetic? Jesus, I fucking weep sometimes - what's funny as well is that when a country like France of Germany gets all uptight about correct grammar and protecting their language it's 'defending their culture' and yet when it's the English doing it it's snobbery.

Fuck that. What next? Good, plusgood and doubleplusgood as intensifiers instead of good, better and best? That would simplify the language too - dpg can mean best, extremely good etc so you could get rid of whole swathes of words so that people didn't have to remember them.

Phonetic written language...fucks sake...as if US spellings like 'thru' weren't bad enough (and just out of interest...do they have 'threw' in the US as well, or is 'having thrown' also spelled 'thru'? Why have both words in fact? why not just leave it for the reader to establish from context.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 5, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That looks fucking awful.



He hasn't even spelt them phonetically. Ffs this is what i mean about a lack of vision. This could help not only the dyslexics, but also many children who have difficulties with spelling.

I appreciate that the accents issue means that 'castle' would be spelt two ways if spelt phonetically, but although this might prove difficult, i'm not sure it means that the idea should be chucked out. Anyway the word would be understandable, so what's the problem. Just a form of snobery for the way things are, i suppose. What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either.

Why would it cause such a problem. It would be the same as having a braille form, or having French on the signposts. Anyway from what people have said here there is already phonics taught in schools and there's not much complaint from them up north, or is there?

Like i said, it can't be avoided that South Korea and Finland are at the top of the education pile, and so maybe we can learn from others? Take the lead rather than try and imitate the Americans.


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Jul 5, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> He hasn't even spelt them phonetically. Ffs this is what i mean about a lack of vision. This could help not only the dyslexics, but also many children who have difficulties with spelling.
> 
> I appreciate that the accents issue means that 'castle' would be spelt two ways if spelt phonetically, but although this might prove difficult, i'm not sure it means that the idea should be chucked out. Anyway the word would be understandable, so what's the problem. Just a form of snobery for the way things are, i suppose. What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either.
> 
> ...




to be fair though honey, the americans have simplified some spellings, eg 'color'. 
x


----------



## scifisam (Jul 5, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> He hasn't even spelt them phonetically. Ffs this is what i mean about a lack of vision. This could help not only the dyslexics, but also many children who have difficulties with spelling.
> 
> I appreciate that the accents issue means that 'castle' would be spelt two ways if spelt phonetically, but although this might prove difficult, i'm not sure it means that the idea should be chucked out. Anyway the word would be understandable, so what's the problem. Just a form of snobery for the way things are, i suppose. What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either.
> 
> ...



He did write it phonetically, just not in an accent you understand, which kinda undermines your point. 

You state that it would help dyslexics and people with spelling difficultis, yet you concede that it would be necessary to have two different spelling for castle. Do you not see a contradiction there?

Children are _taught to read _using phonics. They are not taught_ a different alphabet_. There is, actually, some complaint from them up North, because the phonics materials have to be based on some dialect or other, and most are based on 'Standard English' (not just a class thing - it's a dialect with a very high number of speakers). Some materials, tapes, CDs, videos and so on, are in differerent accents - there are quite a few that sound like the old narrator from Big Brother - and, again, that engenders complaints. 

Finland, that tiny, homogenous, wealthy country, can't be compared to the UK. I really don't know about Korea either way, though. I know that ethnically it's fairly homogenous, but I don't know about anything else that affects their education. I also don't know what you mean about America. 

What you say about signposts does make some sense though - having additions to the signs in International Phonetic Alphabet and could potentially do some good (at least in places where they're putting signs up anyway). Of course, they would still have to agree on which dialect they're representing, and it would entail extra teaching, but it wouldn't be unworkable. 

Personally, I'd love to see the schwa added to the alphabet and the letter c phased out, for a start, but further than that it's just not practical. That is why no other country in the world has (to the best of my knowledge) changed from a partially phonetic alphabet to a fully phonetic one.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> He hasn't even spelt them phonetically. Ffs this is what i mean about a lack of vision. This could help not only the dyslexics, but also many children who have difficulties with spelling.
> 
> I appreciate that the accents issue means that 'castle' would be spelt two ways if spelt phonetically, but although this might prove difficult, i'm not sure it means that the idea should be chucked out. Anyway the word would be understandable, so what's the problem. Just a form of snobery for the way things are, i suppose. What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either.
> 
> ...



Listen there's one thing to be said for teaching kids to read using phonics - I learned that way via the Humptey Dumptey club and went into school at 4 with a reading age of 8-10. That does not mean, however, that spelling everythi8ng phonetically would be a good idea. Your suggestion (that you could have regional differences for dialect) goes against the evolutionary history of language and communities - standardising the spelling of language is what makes law funtion effectively, ensures that someone reading ANYWHERE in the UK/whatever country can understand what they are reading.

And on top of that...what are you going to do about the 600 years or so of written English - are you about to rewrite Macbeth in phonetic language? Or Paradise lost? Or would those only be for people who have learned 'extended English' to appreciate in the fullness of the language they were written in?

LAw of unintended consequences here GM - you'd end up with a genuine two tier written language that favoured those with greatest access to educational resources...and I'm sorry but you'd also massively detract from the written language as well.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2006)

> Just a form of snobery for the way things are, i suppose. What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either



Like I said - the French or Germans try and defend their language and it's called 'defending their culture'. And where do you get this 'we don't like things the way they are'? From the chronic ignorance most Brits have toward learning another language I'd say that most people are perfectly happy with it.


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 6, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> What a conservative country we are. No change please we're British. We don't like things the way they are, but we don't like change either.


Languages evolve naturally, you can't force change onto a language without uninitended reprecussions anymore than you can force a language to stay the same without stagnation.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 6, 2006)

*Why not? We could always change it back!!*

I accept what everyone is saying here and i know that to allow children who want to, to spell things phonetically would cause examiners some difficulty. I remember having difficulty with the word 'business' which i wanted to spell as 'bisness', and as a kid it seemed and still seems effin stupid.

But i don't think the accent issue would cause such a great problem as i'm sure that most words are said the same. See how it goes, that's all i'm suggesting. Allow children to spell phonetically, and then maybe the system would lean towards this naturally. I am NOT suggesting some Orwellian nightmare of making anything illegal.

As far as other issues go. Yes, Korea did have a previous alphabet which was changed over night to a phonetic system, but it was a long time ago.

There is nothing to say that the relative sizes of countries would affect the readiness to change anything, it is just probable that more people would complain.

Yes, i would be very happy if phonetic versions of all books were printed, why not? If there is a demand then good, and some students might find them easier to read.

I see no problem with having different spellings for words, why not, we have different pronunciations. Did anyone try and read Trainspotting? That was written in part in the Scottish dialect, and why not?

As far as the text speak pretending to be phonetic speak goes Volt asked why it was missing so many sounds, and indeed it was. If it was phonetic it would have had 'be' spelt like that, not spelt 'b' which is a consonant sound with no vowel. I am not arguing for text speak here.

Just ask yourself why every child needs to learn all the words which have the different spellings for the same vowel sound, and think what better use this precious learning could be put to. Why is 'beer' and 'gear' spelt differently? Why is 's', 'z' and 'c' used indiscriminantly for the same sound and why not have one combination for the 'er' sound? 

I am not suggesting making it illegal to do anything, I am merely suggesting that we stop making it wrong to spell things phonetically

Obviously there would need to be some agreed rules, and if we try and it turns out to be impossible then so be it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2006)

Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden,

Ov manz furst disobeediens, and the froot
Ov that forbidden tree hooz mortal tayst
bort def into the wurld, and all r wo
Wiv loss ov Eden.

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding   
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing   
Memory and desire, stirring   
Dull roots with spring rain. 

Aprill iz the croolest munf, breeding
Lylaks owt ov the ded land,miksing
Memoree and desyah, stirring
dull rootz wiv spring rayn

Yup, I can see the improvements phonetic English would bring to the written word.

I did attempt this with the first verse of V but it was too depressing to brutalise the language so much.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2006)

> I see no problem with having different spellings for words, why not, we have different pronunciations. Did anyone try and read Trainspotting? That was written in part in the Scottish dialect, and why not?



Yeah, and do you know something? It was written by someone with an outstanding command of the written English langauge. Iain M Banks does it in 'Feesum Enjinn' with one of his characters too - but it requires the knowledge of how the language works to make such examples work so effectively.



> Why is 'beer' and 'gear'



Because 'beer' is said flat, whereas when you say 'gear' you slightly raise your intonation to say 'ge-ah'



> 'bisness'



Why not spell it as 'bizniz' instead? 

This is the biggest load of toss of a thread I've read for a long time; and one which has really got me riled as well. On so many levels I think this is a bollocks idea.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2006)

One way of doing it would be to persuade all manufacturers of keyboards and mobile phones to only use the phonetic alphabet on their products. And get all the US media to use it in their newspapers, magazines and on television. And to persuade all publisher's to start using it. Of course, for the first few years their profits would plummet, but I'm sure their inherently altruistic natures would make them see that education is more important than making money. Meanwhile, returning home from that parallel universe...


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 6, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Because 'beer' is said flat, whereas when you say 'gear' you slightly raise your intonation to say 'ge-ah'


Even that depends on accent, too.  I'd tend to raise the intonation on "beer" very slightly myself.


----------



## Neva (Jul 6, 2006)

You are spot on Gmarfuse. People are disagreeing with you because they lack vision and just want to keep the masses down.

I mean sure at the moment we can communicate using a commonly accepted language so we can both understand the other person's ideas but where's the fun in that? It would be much better with dozens of regional languages all taught and marked separately. Let's not forget the fact that language changes over time and with every new word instead of having one accepted spelling we would have many completely different ones but that would only add to the fun that is the confusing bullshit of a phonetic language.

In fact why stop with just changing words to make them simpler. I mean people say great and exciting and brilliant to mean varying degrees of how good something is so why don't we just have good, gooder and goodest! If we did that with all the words no-one could ever fail a spelling test!


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 6, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> @LilMiss - it's not just the schools I was in, it was the teacher training course. There were hundreds of teachers there learning to teach using phonics. Teacher training courses are (to an extent) standardised across the country. Of course, I only know what teacher training for primary was like 6 years ago - it could be that teachers trained before that time, but after the 60s, didn't learn to teach using phonics. Two of the most popular early reading schemes are RML (Ruth Miskin Literacy), and the related Read Write scheme, and they teach phonetically. I guess perhaps your LEA hasn't taken that up. Many of the 100 most frequent words cannot be taught phonetically, (which ties in with the arguments of those who do want a phonetic language), but simple memorisation shouldn't be the main teaching tool for them. I'm sorry to hear your children haven't been getting the kind of teaching they need.



 Ive Never ever heard of either and my kids have attended 4 schools in 2 seperate LEAs
I use a  parenting website  too and nobody has ever mentioned  them there either
The most popular one seems to be oxford reading tree which is memorisation and familarisation based. If theywere as popular as you say Im sure they would be being talked about??
Unfortunately given my experience I have to doubt what you are saying to be true across the country. It may well be true in your experience but it ertainly isnt mine and RML and read and write are, as faras Im aware completely unheard of amongst the parents I know


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Jul 8, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_script

For all of you with concerens, why not have a look at how a new script can be introduced and work.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 16, 2008)

Was thinking about this again coz of this article.

We have thrashed this out a few times here and I concede that it would be difficult and that some people feel that we would lose out on the aesthetic look of the language, but perhaps only making the consonants consistent would be a good compromise. Accents seem to be based round the vowels anyway, and the consonants don't change so much.

This would also cut down on the amount of rote learning a child would need for spelling, thus enabling learning elsewhere.


----------



## Giles (Nov 16, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> With a defeatist attitude like that, things will never change.
> 
> This is a good idea, and constructive comments are appreciated.



It will never happen, because of the employment and work thing.

I meen, if I got a leter from, say, a bank, or my loryer, riten in fonetik or txtspk, i wood not b imprest. and alot ov peeple woodnt giv a job 2 sumwon hoo rote a leter or applicashun form like dis eever.

No-one would take people seriously if they wrote like that in a work environment.

Giles..


----------



## scifisam (Nov 16, 2008)

Why are you bumping this thread again? So that everyone can make the same points once more?


----------



## Gmart (Nov 17, 2008)

Giles said:


> It will never happen, because of the employment and work thing.
> 
> I meen, if I got a leter from, say, a bank, or my loryer, riten in fonetik or txtspk, i wood not b imprest. and alot ov peeple woodnt giv a job 2 sumwon hoo rote a leter or applicashun form like dis eever.
> 
> ...



Shows that you can't write phonetically even when you try. Impressed has a 'd' on the end not a 't'. And 'this' has a 'th' and 'either' would be the same too. You are trying to make it look wors than it wood be.

It wood be an evolushion, over yearz. I am not stopping people from spelling, I am extending the freedom to spell it phonetically if you wish.

Az far az Scifisam goez, I am interested in the subject, and if you are not, then there are plenty of other discushionz which mite be more suitable for you...


----------



## scifisam (Nov 17, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Shows that you can't write phonetically even when you try. Impressed has a 'd' on the end not a 't'. And 'this' has a 'th' and 'either' would be the same too. You are trying to make it look wors than it wood be.
> 
> It wood be an evolushion, over yearz. I am not stopping people from spelling, I am extending the freedom to spell it phonetically if you wish.
> 
> Az far az Scifisam goez, I am interested in the subject, and if you are not, then there are plenty of other discushionz which mite be more suitable for you...



Actually, impressed does end in a t sound, and, in many accents, the 'th' in either is pronounced v, and the 'th' in the is pronounced d. It was a pretty good stab at phonetic writing, as it happens. It just wasn't in your own accent, so it looked wrong to you. Which, yet again, is one of the main reasons a completely phonetic language wouldn't work. 

If you're really interested in the subject, try to think up some actual arguments for it.


----------



## Giles (Nov 17, 2008)

The big problem would be one of where to start.

Presumably you would start with schoolkids, but you would then have the problem of what would happen when the first kids to have been taught like this applied for jobs, college courses etc.

They would be (justifiably, IMO) discriminated against by employers, who would look at their applications and rule them out of any job where writing was required.

And then because of that, parents wouldn't want their kids to be the first to be taught this way because they would know that their kids would then be disadvantaged in work life.

I cannot see any way around this.

Giles..


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 17, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> We could just have a declaration that phonetic spelling is adequate for school exams to start with, with no penalty.
> 
> I don't see why this would be so bad?



When the pupils got into the real world, they'd be in a whole world of fail unless they can spell properly.

NB all the Koreans that I've come into contact with seem to have no difficulty with English spelling (as a second language) so why should we make any allowances for UK kids?


----------



## dessiato (Nov 17, 2008)

Recently, for one of my classes, we discussed this issue. I referenced an article from a news site, I'll see if I can find it again.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2008)

This idea would create lot of employment.  Everything that is written in English in the whole world ever, would have to be transcribed into the new phonetic lanuage.  Otherwise the rising generation would not be able to read it.

A similar argument is used against Esperanto.  It sounds a great idea a language made up from a mixture of European languages so that it would be easier for all members of the countries of Europe to communicate because they would have learned a common language.  There would be no continuity with past literature of any of these countries because there is no literature already written in Esperanto and it would all have to be translated.
_"
For every complex idea there is a simple answer that is wrong"_  I think that phonetic spelling falls into this category.

Phonics for learning reading is however indispensible.  As far as I know that is the accepted method of teaching English in the National Curriculum as inspected by Ofsted.  In recent years the government has talked about bringing it back as if it had gone away.  I think mostly it has been used continuously as part of the teaching method.

There has been a clash of ideas between those who favour reading schemes with books having set vocabularies in different levels of difficulty as against those who advocate using 'real books' for learning.

I heard the late Professor Ted Wragg on this topic once.  He said that a journalist had called him up  asking which side of the fence he was on this issue.  Ted Wragg refused to take sides.  When the journalist pressed his question Professor Wragg asked him for help he had with a current problem.  He said he was writing a book on eating.  He asked the journalist if he could say whether or not it was better to eat with a knife or a fork.

As for dyslexics, changing the spelling to a phonetic (fonetik) system would not help them with their particular visual perception problems with letter recognition and sometime tendency to confuse symmetrically opposed letters like b and d.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 27, 2009)

Spelling reform would happen gradually, as in other countries, not all at once, over night, a few words here, a few letters chopped off there and both spellings, the new improoved and the Traditional, would be acceptable, and the moritorium would about 70 years.
for example it could go something like this:

 (The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign)


First bunch of changes: get rid of all unnecessary 'e's, like in have becomes "hav", achievement (becomes achievment), "themselves" (becomes -themselvs), serves- (becomes "servs) "leaves" (becomes -leavs)- give (becomes giv) axe becomes ax, are becomes ar, plus groups of words that end in the suffix, "tive", as in active, relative etc. plus 
opposit, doctrin, examin, famin, infinit, definit and believ. None of those new words ar difficult to read.


then twenty years later another type of change.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 27, 2009)

*Heteronyms:*

1. The bandage was _*wound*_ around the *wound*.
2. The farm was used to _*produce*_ *produce*.
3.The dump was so full that it had to _*refuse*_ more *refuse*.
4. We must _*polish*_ the *Polish* furniture.
5. He could _*lead*_ if he would get the *lead* out.
6. The soldier decided to _*desert*_ his dessert in the *desert*.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to _*present*_ the *present*.
8. A _*bass*_ was painted on the head of the *bass* drum.
9. When shot at, the _*dove*_ *dove* into the bushes.
10. I did not _*object*_ to the *object*.
11. The insurance was _*invalid*_ for the *invalid*.
12. There was a _*row*_ among the oarsmen about how to *row*.
13. They were too _*close*_ to the door to *close* it.
14. The buck _*does*_ funny things when the *does* are present.
15. A seamstress and a _*sewer*_ fell down into a *sewer* line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his _*sow*_ to *sow*.
17. The _*wind*_ was too strong to *wind* the sail.
18. After a _*number*_ of injections my jaw got *number*.
19. Upon seeing the _*tear*_ in the painting I shed a *tear*.
20. I had to _*subject*_ the *subject* to a series of tests.
21. How can I _*intimate*_ this to my most *intimate* friend?

Do you know what a buck _*does*_ to *does*? 
With every _*number*_ I read, my mind gets *number and number*. 
After having a _*row*_, the couple went out on the river to *row*. 
I like to _*read*_. In fact, I *read* a book yesterday.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Because 'beer' is said flat, whereas when you say 'gear' you slightly raise your intonation to say 'ge-ah'


Nope, they're close rhymes the way I say them.  _Beerrrr_, and _geerrr_.

To answer the OP, there'd be so many different spellings it'd be very confusing. My phonetics would have _r_s at the ends of words, kyser's wouldn't (except where they don't exist in my accent, like law*r*).  My spellings would have _h_s in why, where, what, whether.  Many people's wouldn't.  And so on.  

The argument for standardised spellings is that we, for example, know what is meant by _they're_, _there_ or _their_.  A phonetic rendering would create ambiguity.  And when I write _whether_, you know I don't mean _weather_.  I pronounce them differently, but some people do not.  A standardised system ensures that meaning is maintained however the reader and/or writer would pronounce the words.

That doesn't mean I think there should never be updatings.  Just as spoken English evolves, so should written English.  Not faddishly, to include the latest catchphrase, such as "whatevvuh", but sensibly, to remove unnecessary archaisms and complications.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

Bugger.  I didn't realise this was an old thread.


----------



## JHE (Jul 27, 2009)

It's true that English spelling is a bit of a bugger, but I think any thoroughgoing reform is probably a non-starter.

Some questions for reformers:

English is spoken with many accents.  Assuming that you want English to have pretty much just one written form, which accent are you going to choose to represent when you devise your phonetic spellings?

Are you going to revise spellings every ten or twenty years to keep up with any changes in pronunciation that have caught on in the meantime?  (If you are, again the question arises of whose pronunciation to map.)

Are you going to leave everything written before the Great Spelling Reform in the old spellings which before long will be largely inaccessible to people brought up after the GSR or are you going to try to transliterate everything in English to the reformed orthography?

If you choose to convert all previous English into the reformed orthography and think the effort worthwhile, do you not mind losing the evident connections with the words' origins, for example, words taken straight from French?


----------



## Gmart (Jul 27, 2009)

JHE said:


> It's true that English spelling is a bit of a bugger, but I think any thoroughgoing reform is probably a non-starter.
> 
> Some questions for reformers:
> 
> English is spoken with many accents.  Assuming that you want English to have pretty much just one written form, which accent are you going to choose to represent when you devise your phonetic spellings?



The 'correct' form would need to be based on numbers - so Queen's English - but that is not to say that different regions could not have their own versions.

I was reading Pepys' diary from the 17th century not so long ago - and he spelt 'cousin' as 'cuzen' which shows a great deal of sense on the one hand and on the other that pronunciation doesn't change that much. We could leave it to the OED or another institution if needs be to come up with the basic spellings.

Gradually I would see everything to move towards a more phonetic form because it would be easier to teach literacy that way - freeing up time in education where we could teach other things. But it would take a long time - best to start with the obvious ones such as 'through' and to move on to the vowel sounds later.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The 'correct' form would need to be based on numbers - so Queen's English


Do you mean RP?  Because, there's surely very few who speak like the Queen.  I'd be surprised if a small city like Bristol couldn't beat them for numbers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The 'correct' form would need to be based on numbers - so Queen's English - but that is not to say that different regions could not have their own versions.
> 
> I was reading Pepys' diary from the 17th century not so long ago - and he spelt 'cousin' as 'cuzen' which shows a great deal of sense on the one hand and on the other that pronunciation doesn't change that much. W*e could leave it to the OED or another institution if needs be to come up with the basic spellings.*
> 
> Gradually I would see everything to move towards a more phonetic form because it would be easier to teach literacy that way - freeing up time in education where we could teach other things. But it would take a long time - best to start with the obvious ones such as 'through' and to move on to the vowel sounds later.




I prefer a language that evolves naturally and is compiled backwards, rather than an institution deciding on what's allowed and what is not. Yo know the acadamie fracais thing right? the largely ignored body that issues edicts on what is and isn't proper french words?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 27, 2009)

So, what is the correct phonetic spelling of 'through' likely to be then?

I'm guessing that for millions of Londonders and estuary english types it'd look like 'Fru' 

The whole theory seems forced and daft tbh.


----------



## JHE (Jul 27, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you mean RP?  Because, there's surely very few who speak like the Queen.  I'd be surprised if a small city like Bristol couldn't beat them for numbers.



If it were decided by numbers, the accent chosen would not be a British one at all.  It would be an American one.

Whichever set of pronunciations were chosen, there would be many more people (the aggregate of all other accent users) who would _not_ find their spoken form well represented in the new spellings.

We could, I suppose, opt for many many many many different written forms of English, but that would rather detract from the current great advantage of being able to read and write English!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I prefer a language that evolves naturally and is compiled backwards, rather than an institution deciding on what's allowed and what is not. Yo know the acadamie fracais thing right? the largely ignored body that issues edicts on what is and isn't proper french words?



Indeed.

English is a fascinating language precisely because it doesn't have some hidebound body dictating what is and isn't English, which leaves it free to borrow words and influences from all over.  That's why (IIRC) French contains about 100,000 words and English nearer a million.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

JHE said:


> If it were decided by numbers, the accent chosen would not be a British one at all.  It would be an American one.


Indeed so.


----------



## isitme (Jul 27, 2009)

imagine how much spunking korea would do if we adapted their (better) alphabet

they are bad enough as it is for going on about how they invented kimchi and something else i can't remember


----------



## isitme (Jul 27, 2009)

italians use the roman alphabet completely phonetically, except a couple of things it wouldn't be a huge leap

it would be way too much work for the end result tho...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I prefer a language that evolves naturally and is compiled backwards, rather than an institution deciding on what's allowed and what is not. Yo know the acadamie fracais thing right? the largely ignored body that issues edicts on what is and isn't proper french words?



Innit? With their 'carte electromagnetique' or whatever they came up with for 'email'...


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 27, 2009)

I had a fucking nightmare when I used to have to deal with tech support queries in French, 'cos all the dictionaries of technical terms use the official words for things which by and large aren't the ones people actually use.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 27, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I had a fucking nightmare when I used to have to deal with tech support queries in French, 'cos all the dictionaries of technical terms use the official words for things which by and large aren't the ones people actually use.



Heh, sounds like technical support and navigating the continental m-way networks are similar.

Belgium is terrible for it - 4 different naming conventions for roads, 3 languages, and usually only 2 or 3 of each on any given road sign...which won't match the information you have on your map...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2009)

It's bizarre to think that english needs re-working. It's been described (and I am paraphrasing here) as 'a language that leads other languages up dark alleys and mugs them for vocabulary'

Given that it is the dominant lingua franca, the traders tongue, one has to ask why anyone would want to do serious re-engineering of it and how they would do so without becoming pointless and much mocked institutions playing King Canute with a living and constantly evolving language.

Western europe hasn't seen such a shared tongue since Latin.

It isn't broken. So don't try to fix it.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 27, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed so.



Very true - the US would will hands down...

We are assuming that there is not an overlap between all the accents - sure the vowels change, but in general the consonants remain the same - and so there is room to move the current system towards a more phonetic version, while retaining accents.

I don't think that anyone who says 'fru' for 'through' would seriously expect to spell it with an 'f' it is obviously a 'th' - and so there is a large area of negotiation.

In other words this is not black and white - it would not be hard to move slowly towards a more phonetic system while retaining the flexibility of the current one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I
> Given that it is the dominant lingua franca


And the French and Germans don't even have a word for that...


----------



## Gmart (Jul 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It isn't broken. So don't try to fix it.



It isn't broken for everyone who can read and write sure - but for the children who need to learn it, the number of exceptions are inordinate.

Like I say, I can see the argument that there is little or no political will - and I accept that I am just being whimsical - but it would be an improvement...

There is no reason why it would stop being the language of the world trade - and indeed making it easier to learn would improve this aspect not diminish it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2009)

this is like unTHINK! all over again, but with longer paragraphs


----------



## isitme (Jul 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It's bizarre to think that english needs re-working. It's been described (and I am paraphrasing here) as 'a language that leads other languages up dark alleys and mugs them for vocabulary'
> 
> Given that it is the dominant lingua franca, the traders tongue, one has to ask why anyone would want to do serious re-engineering of it and how they would do so without becoming pointless and much mocked institutions playing King Canute with a living and constantly evolving language.
> 
> ...



this is very true

china seems to be trying to adapt their language to the dominance of english now they are becoming a superpower, no matter how powerful they become their written language won't replace modern written languages tho i don't think, it took me about a week to learn korean, chinese have 20'000 letters, and even 'hello' is hard to draw....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It isn't broken for everyone who can read and write sure - but for the children who need to learn it, the number of exceptions are inordinate.
> 
> Like I say, I can see the argument that there is little or no political will - and I accept that I am just being whimsical - but it would be an improvement...
> 
> There is no reason why it would stop being the language of the world trade - and indeed making it easier to learn would improve this aspect not diminish it.



illiteracy levels in our care and prison system are shocking. Fucking shocking. It ain't language keeping folks down though. You know what it is. Begins with a C


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> We are assuming that there is not an overlap between all the accents - sure the vowels change, but in general the consonants remain the same


"We're" not assuming any such thing, though.  Of course there's overlap; there's even overlap between languages.  

I'd pick you up on the consonants thing, though.  I prrronounce my _r_s, my _wh_s and drop _t_s others might pronounce, for example.


----------



## JHE (Jul 27, 2009)

isitme said:


> ...it took me about a week to learn korean...



I guess you mean that it took you a week to master _the alphabet_.  If you had really learned Korean, or any other language, to a decent level in a week, I would have to think you were the most impressive language-learner in the world.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 27, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> "We're" not assuming any such thing, though.  Of course there's overlap; there's even overlap between languages.
> 
> I'd pick you up on the consonants thing, though.  I prrronounce my _r_s, my _wh_s and drop _t_s others might pronounce, for example.



Sure but you don't SPELL these words differently just because you say them like this...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 27, 2009)

> illiteracy levels in our care and prison system are shocking. Fucking shocking. It ain't language keeping folks down though. You know what it is. Begins with a C



Pish and posh. Capitalism isn't stopping people learning to read FFS.


----------



## isitme (Jul 27, 2009)

JHE said:


> I guess you mean that it took you a week to master _the alphabet_.  If you had really learned Korean, or any other language, to a decent level in a week, I would have to think you were the most impressive language-learner in the world.



yeah the alphabet

after 2 years living there all i learned was how to cuss people out


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Sure but you don't SPELL these words differently just because you say them like this...


That is correct.  And so I support standard spelling.   (Although, I pronounce _r_s that are written which RP speakers drop, and pronounce the _wh_ in while, what, whales and so on, which the South East of England pretty much treats as a _w_).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Pish and posh. Capitalism isn't stopping people learning to read FFS.



is that the assertion I made Kyser? No it isn't. 

But what conclusion can we draw from the fact that penal and care institutes have a hell of a lot of illiterate or semi-literate inmates?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 27, 2009)

You said 'C' - presumably you didn't mean the conservative party 

That they either don't receive, or in many cases actively rejected, learning to read. I've worked on local adult literacy programmes, and IME the majority of those who I've taught to read usually give 'not liking school' or 'not being bothered to learn, didn't think I needed it' reasons.

It's fucking sad, and an appalling state of affairs that is actually getting worse in the non-penal, non-care population. Literacy rates in the UK and US are both dropping from their peaks in the 1970s&80s...there are a diverse range of reasons for it happening (immigration for example), but the main one I think is the change in the way kids are taught to read...


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

*It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents!*

It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents! It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:


Save
Dave 
Rave 
Cave
"Behave", take away the "Be" and you have "Have", 
"Have" should be spelt "Hav".

Dive
Hive
Five

and then "Give"
"Give" should be spelt "Giv",

so fucking simple, so why can't you get it? The people on this site ar so fucking thick!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2009)

oh fuck this shit all over again.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

*THINK! for Fuck's Sake!*



DotCommunist said:


> is that the assertion I made Kyser? No it isn't.
> 
> But what conclusion can we draw from the fact that penal and care institutes have a hell of a lot of illiterate or semi-literate inmates?



That our spellings need to be changed. WE have and other Anglo-phone countries hav a functionally illiterarte population of about 20% compared to other countries where their spellings mor closely resemble how it is spoken and follow alfabetical rules, where it's about 8%. It takes the average English speaking child 3 years longer to master his written language than the average non-English speaking child to master theirs. (Masha Bell).


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> oh fuck this shit all over again.



Yes, that shit again, my little timid one. Isn't it about time you started thinking instead of being so scared of the World you fear any change. You'll not very revolutionary for a Revolutionary!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2009)

You'll have to spell that all phonetically for a poor ignorant prole such as myself. And do so in my native accent ta!


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> You'll have to spell that all phonetically for a poor ignorant prole such as myself. And do so in my native accent ta!



I won't spell it in an regional accent buit i will simplify it:

You'll hav to spell that all fonetically for a por ignorant prole as myself. And do so in my Nativ assent ta!

Fucking simple.

Don't you want to reduce our literacy problem? Changing the spellings is cheaper than getting mor teachers and mor prisons to fill up with people let down by our spelling system.


----------



## Giles (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Changing the spellings is cheaper than getting mor teachers and mor prisons to fill up with people let down by our spelling system.



Doo they put peepl in prizon for spelling rong then?

Gilez..


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That our spellings need to be changed. WE have and other Anglo-phone countries hav a functionally illiterarte population of about 20% compared to other countries where their spellings mor closely resemble how it is spoken and follow alfabetical rules, where it's about 8%. It takes the average English speaking child 3 years longer to master his written language than the average non-English speaking child to master theirs. (Masha Bell).



That's such a load of bollocks it's unbelievable.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK always betrays his username by speaking an entirely simplistic load of betty swollocks.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

Giles said:


> Doo they put peepl in prizon for spelling rong then?
> 
> Gilez..



Eh, check out the quote abuv. our prison populations hav illiteracy problem of between 50% to 70%! That is a huge problem, Face it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2009)

don't reference me in your tagline please THINK.

fankyoo


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> THINK always betrays his username by speaking an entirely simplistic load of betty swollocks.



meaning? Spelling reform impossible? Every other major country has had spelling reform, we ar the odd ones out and the Sky didn't fall in.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That's such a load of bollocks it's unbelievable.



Look up "Masha Bell" or "the Spelling Society".


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 30, 2009)

Iceland has an adult literacy rate of over 95%, and has a written language which is nothing like the phonetic pronounciation. 

It's a load of bollocks.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 30, 2009)

OK. Went to see my mum yesterday and brought the subject up. She spent 40 years teaching remedial reading. Is a pioneer in dealing with dyslexia. She laughed at the idea. Case closed. It's a humourously dumb idea.

For the record the reason is that we each have too many ways of pronouncing the same word, let alone a wide range of accents. Any system of phonetic spelling would end up being pretty much as complex as what we already have. The advantages simply wouldn't be worth the cost of reprinting all the books etc.


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

"The decoding and comprehension skills of Turkish and American first and third graders learning to read their respective languages were assessed. Turkish students were faster and more accurate on the decoding task than Americans at first-grade level and equally accurate but faster at third-grade level. 'The data suggest that languages with more letter-sound correspondences lead to faster acquisition of decoding skills.' 

one quote i found on their site. I haven't got time to do a propper search, maybe you should check out their site and read some research stuff first.


----------



## Giles (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Eh, check out the quote abuv. our prison populations hav illiteracy problem of between 50% to 70%! That is a huge problem, Face it!



Thatz coz ther stoopid, wich is wy ther in prizon, innit. 

Not coz spelings 2 hard to lern.

Gilez..


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

ericjarvis said:


> OK. Went to see my mum yesterday and brought the subject up. She spent 40 years teaching remedial reading. Is a pioneer in dealing with dyslexia. She laughed at the idea. Case closed. It's a humourously dumb idea.
> 
> For the record the reason is that we each have too *many ways of pronouncing the same word*, let alone a wide range of accents. Any system of phonetic spelling would end up being pretty much as complex as what we already have. The advantages simply wouldn't be worth the cost of reprinting all the books etc.



Again:It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents! It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:


Save
Dave 
Rave 
Cave
"Behave", take away the "Be" and you have "Have", 
"Have" should be spelt "Hav".

Dive
Hive
Five

and then "Give"
"Give" should be spelt "Giv",

so fucking simple, so why can't you get it? The people on this site ar so fucking thick!


----------



## THINK! (Jul 30, 2009)

I also think you're lying, all the educationist I'v spoken to think it may be the solution.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Again:It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents! It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:
> 
> 
> Save
> ...


Except, Londoners would pronounce Dave, "Dive", you div.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Eh, check out the quote abuv. our prison populations hav illiteracy problem of between 50% to 70%! That is a huge problem, Face it!



There isn't an "illiteracy problem" of 50-70%, there's a *literacy* problem, which is an entirely different thing, because the issues range from "functional illiteracy" through to low reading ages. Actual *illiteracy* in prisons has been around 18-22% for the last 20 years and requires specialist intervention. The rest could easily be dealt with (but rarely is) through basic education in prison.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 30, 2009)

eye doenet fink it iz a gud ideer


----------



## kabbes (Jul 30, 2009)

For me, one of the most glorious things about the way English words are spelt is that you can often take a good guess at the meaning of a word you've never seen before purely from the obvious etymology.  Phonetics would destroy this.  You'd gain a dubious and arguable improvement in the ease of learning to spell but lose the massive bonus of understanding the language.  You'd also lose the unexpected bonus that words in Foreign are often understandable because there is an English word with the same root.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> For me, one of the most glorious things about the way English words are spelt is that you can often take a good guess at the meaning of a word you've never seen before purely from the obvious etymology.  Phonetics would destroy this.  You'd gain a dubious and arguable improvement in the ease of learning to spell but lose the massive bonus of understanding the language.  You'd also lose the unexpected bonus that words in Foreign are often understandable because there is an English word with the same root.



this is part of it. The way it borrows, the way it has evolved etc gives you clues when looking at foriegn speak. Had a 'wow' moment in basic french at school: 'regardez' is 'regard'!

theres a reason why it's the lingua franca of europe ennit.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 30, 2009)

Just beware of faux amis...


----------



## Corax (Jul 30, 2009)

I posted on the other thread that a great deal of subtext and history is encapsulated in our language, and that it would be a woeful act of vandalism to cast that aside.  As an English Lit graduate and sometime mediocre poet, I find huge pleasure and fascination in our language.

For anyone who shares the interest, Radio 4's _Word of Mouth_ series cannot be too highly recommended.  The most recent edition is here.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 30, 2009)

In short, it might make English easier to learn, but it would make learning English a lot less worth the bother.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Just beware of faux amis...



Martin?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Martin?


That's the fella.  Him and his deadly books.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 30, 2009)

Fenetiks iz konfuzing.

Different dialects would spell the same words differently.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "The decoding and comprehension skills of Turkish and American first and third graders learning to read their respective languages were assessed. Turkish students were faster and more accurate on the decoding task than Americans at first-grade level and equally accurate but faster at third-grade level. 'The data suggest that languages with more letter-sound correspondences lead to faster acquisition of decoding skills.'
> 
> one quote i found on their site. I haven't got time to do a propper search, maybe you should check out their site and read some research stuff first.



It isn't important how fast literacy is learned. It only matters how well people can communicate in speach and writing when they leave school. Having more literate 10 year olds is of absolutely no value if we end up with 16 year olds with less ability to communicate effectively. It's the latter that you have to prove would be positively affected by a change to phonetic spelling.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Fenetiks iz konfuzing.
> 
> Different dialects would spell the same words differently.



Again:

*It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents!* It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:


Save
Dave 
Rave 
Cave
Behave, 
take away the "Be" and you have "Have", 
"Have" should be spelt "Hav".

Dive
Hive
Five
Give
"Give" should be spelt "Giv",

so fucking simple, so why can't you get it? The people on this site ar so fucking thick!


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The people on this site *ar* so fucking thick!



Do you pronounce an 'r' on the end of that word? A proper 'r' with your tongue on the roof of your mouth? If so, that puts you in a distinct minority of English speakers in the UK. (apols if you are Scottish or from the west country in which case you probably do, however it would be clearer if you left it off next time as most of us don't).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

*Spelling reform would be a gradual thing over a 120 year period , not an over-night thing, root'n'Brach all-change, gradual gentle change would be the theme of the day, with user-frendly spellings*.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "The decoding and comprehension skills of Turkish and American first and third graders learning to read their respective languages were assessed. Turkish students were faster and more accurate on the decoding task than Americans at first-grade level and equally accurate but faster at third-grade level. 'The data suggest that languages with more letter-sound correspondences lead to faster acquisition of decoding skills.'
> 
> one quote i found on their site. I haven't got time to do a propper search, maybe you should check out their site and read some research stuff first.



Chinese and Japanese school students can barely even read a newspaper until they're about 12-13. However I don't think this reflects on their communication or literary abilities as nations. How does making a system quicker for children to learn improve a system primarily used by and for adults?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Do you pronounce an 'r' on the end of that word? A proper 'r' with your tongue on the roof of your mouth? If so, that puts you in a distinct minority of English speakers in the UK. (apols if you are Scottish or from the west country in which case you probably do, however it would be clearer if you left it off next time as most of us don't).



Hare 
Dare
Rare
Mare
Fare
Care
Bare
Stare
Share
Tare
Ware

take away the first letter of any of the above words and you hav "are" rhymes with "air". 

Tar 
Jar
Car
Far
Par
Bar

take the first letter from any of the above words and you hav "ar".

Simple.;


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Chinese and Japanese school students can barely even read a newspaper until they're about 12-13. However I don't think this reflects on their communication or literary abilities as nations. How does making a system quicker for children to learn improve a system primarily used by and for adults?



We would be only catching up with most countries in Europe, not doing something new, the sky won't fall in.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

kabbes said:


> In short, it might make English easier to learn, but it would make learning English a lot less worth the bother.



Why?

Surely, so many of us would be liberated and an out pouring of ideas and literacy would happen.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Tar
> Jar
> Car
> Far
> ...



Father and bath both contain the same long 'a' sound without an 'r' after the vowel though. Should a speaker of Northern English be expected to remember which 'a's are lengthened by speakers of the UK prestige dialect and which are not. What about 'plastic'? Most southerners use an 'a' as in 'cat' but this is regularly pronounced by the upper classes and older BBC presenters with an 'ar' as in 'car'. Which spelling should I be using?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We would be only catching up with most countries in Europe, not doing something new, the sky won't fall in.



We would be creating a prestige dialect of English and adding pressure to students who grow up speaking other dialects.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Except, Londoners would pronounce Dave, "Dive", you div.



No we don't, any way, you ar still missing the point as i stated befor it's *not about reflecting regional accents* it's about implementing alfabetical rules that we wer taught as kids.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> No we don't, any way, you ar still missing the point as i stated befor it's *not about reflecting regional accents* it's about implementing alfabetical rules that we wer taught as kids.



So it's about learning how to transliterate a prestige dialect then.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Father and bath both contain the same long 'a' sound without an 'r' after the vowel though. Should a speaker of Northern English be expected to remember which 'a's are lengthened by speakers of the UK prestige dialect and which are not. What about 'plastic'? Most southerners use an 'a' as in 'cat' but this is regularly pronounced by the upper classes and older BBC presenters with an 'ar' as in 'car'. Which spelling should I be using?



Don't worry about those points too much, you're going back to accents not implementing alfabetical rules, stick to the simple and obvious stuff, gradual simple improovements.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> So it's about learning how to transliterate a prestige dialect then.



?
no. implementing alfabetical rules. Surely, it's the present spellings that reflects and is enjoyed by Cultural elites and snobs?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> ?
> no. implementing alfabetical rules. Surely, it's the present spellings that reflects and is enjoyed by Cultural elites and snobs?


Despite having only one spelling mistake that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. You may wish to change the 'n' in your name to a 'c'. If you don't understand what I'm saying how about asking an adult or more intelligent friend before trying to reply.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Despite having only one spelling mistake that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. You may wish to change the 'n' in your name to a 'c'. If you don't understand what I'm saying how about asking an adult or more intelligent friend before trying to reply.



You still managed to read it, didn't you? small, gradual change. I think it is you that needs to hav a little think about what i hav written instead of being obsessed by Class Wor/Hatred. It's nothing to do with Class snobery. 

One minute I'm being accused tof dumbing-down the next of being an elitest snob?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

kabbes said:


> For me, one of the most glorious things about the way English words are spelt is that you can often take a good guess at the meaning of a word you've never seen before purely from the obvious etymology.  Phonetics would destroy this.  You'd gain a dubious and arguable improvement in the ease of learning to spell but lose the massive bonus of understanding the language.  You'd also lose the unexpected bonus that words in Foreign are often understandable because there is an English word with the same root.



That's everything I hate about present spellings. Spellings ar about literacy *not History!*


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You still managed to read it, didn't you? small, gradual change. I think it is you that needs to hav a little think about what i hav written instead of being obsessed by Class Wor/Hatred. It's nothing to do with Class snobery.
> 
> One minute I'm being accused tof dumbing-down the next of being an elitest snob?



No, I didn't manage to read it. The sentence was so poorly constructed that I gave up on the argument and resorted to personal abuse.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Thus if we have aphonetic form, theneveryone would be able to write and read, thus halting the major part of the problems dyslexics have with spelling.
> 
> But is this even feasible? Would a major political party be likely to this visionary? Unlikely i suppose.
> 
> ...




I would say that it is 'K' that is obsolete, not 'C'. Many mor words ar spell the 'KER' sound with a 'C', as in concur, concord, concrete, conclude, etc. but the existence of the letter 'K' is fine with me, maybe it will deleted many years layter on, after we ar dead.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> One minute I'm being accused tof dumbing-down the next of being an elitest snob?



Because your idea comes from a very patronising view of education yet the effect of its implementation would be to create a prestige dialect of English where speakers of other dialects would be expected to learn a whole new set of pronunciations as well as spellings.

Please don't reply to this unless you have actually understood what I have written.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, I didn't manage to read it. The sentence was so poorly constructed that I gave up on the argument and resorted to personal abuse.



I may construct my sentences poorly, probably a symptom of dyslexia, but that doesn't mean spelling reform is unattainable, does it. I can't actually see where my sentences go wrong.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I may construct my sentences poorly, probably a symptom of dyslexia, but that doesn't mean spelling reform is unattainable, does it. I can't actually can't see where my sentences go wrong.





> Surely, it's the present spellings that reflects and is enjoyed by Cultural elites and snobs?



The verb 'reflect' doesn't have a suitable object. You might think it's 'cultural elites and snobs' but because that is being used as the passive subject of the verb 'enjoy' I am unable to parse it as the object of the first verb.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Because your idea comes from a very patronising view of education yet the effect of its implementation would be to create a prestige dialect of English where speakers of other dialects would be expected to learn a whole new set of pronunciations as well as spellings.
> 
> Please don't reply to this unless you have actually understood what I have written.



I'v understood, but i still think you ar missing my point. It doesn't matter where you come from in the country, no-one pronounces "Have" as HAVE (rhymes with Dave) everyone pronounces it as "Hav", the same with "Give" everyone says "Giv" not _Give_ (rhymes with Dive).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> The verb 'reflect' doesn't have a suitable object. You might think it's 'cultural elites and snobs' but because that is being used as the passive subject of the verb 'enjoy' I am unable to parse it as the object of the first verb.



Oh, Dear. I think you ar just showing off. I bet you wer popular at school.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'v understood, but i still think you ar missing my point. It doesn't matter where you come from in the country, no-one pronounces "Have" as HAVE (rhymes with Dave) everyone pronounces it as "Hav", the same with "Give" everyone says "Giv" not _Give_ (rhymes with Dive).



So your rule works for 2 words. Cool. I can give you a couple of thousand that it doesn't work for.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2009)

Having ANY concept of correctness in spelling creates the possibility for discrimination that you alude to. Sadly (or otherwise) this decision was made by the invention of the dictionary. As I have pointed out, for the majority of our history we had a regime of 'make it up as you go along' which meant that Shakespeare, Chaucer and Pepys all spelt really 'badly'.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that those with spelling problems would find it easier to spell phonetically - but I am not putting it forward as a solve all idea - just if we wish to change it then this would be the best direction to go in. However the upper echelons of society can already spell and indeed the conservative instinct to stop all change also works against this...


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Oh, Dear. I think you ar just showing off.



I was trying to show you why your sentence didn't work. I don't think there were any particularly uncommon words in my explanation.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> So your rule works for 2 words. Cool. I can give you a couple of thousand that it doesn't work for.



There aren't thousands of _Bath scones _problems just one or two. Our alfabetical rules would be enuf to improove, simplified thousands of spellings.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Having ANY concept of correctness in spelling creates the possibility for discrimination that you alude to. Sadly (or otherwise) this decision was made by the invention of the dictionary. As I have pointed out, for the majority of our history we had a regime of 'make it up as you go along' which meant that Shakespeare, Chaucer and Pepys all spelt really 'badly'.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to suggest that those with spelling problems would find it easier to spell phonetically - but I am not putting it forward as a solve all idea - just if we wish to change it then this would be the best direction to go in. However the upper echelons of society can already spell and indeed the conservative instinct to stop all change also works against this...



Gmarthews is right, all we would doing is putting the evolution back into our spellings that always existed befor. Nu spellings would kill old spellings in any straight out fight of popularity, but that's not what we ar poposigng: graudual change over 120 year period then an on-going system.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> There aren't thousands of _Bath scones _problems just one or two. Our alfabetical rules would be enuf to improove, simplified thousands of spellings.



Not quite sure what the e's doing on the end of improov. You're not even clever enough to do it logically or consistently are you. Quoting people who's posts agree with you and declaring that they are right while ignoring substantive points made by people who don't is no way to conduct a debate.

How do you respond to the assertion made by myself on this thread and the other one that spelling reform based on pronunciation would inevitably create a prestige dialect of UK English _as it has in every other language that uses phonemic spelling_ and:

a)increase workloads for children who speak other dialects and have to learn the standard pronunciation as well as a standardised spelling 

and 

b)increase discrimination, in academic and work environments, against speakers of other dialects who spell as they speak rather than using the prestige dialect spelling?

To counter your 'bath scones comment above there are thousands of words containing the letters 'a' and 'u' which underwent a shift in vowel sounds several hundred years ago in Southern English but not Northern English dialects. The pronunciations are unevenly distributed between the two dialects and between individual speakers (I, for example, say 'barth' but not 'scown')  A speaker of a Northern dialect would now either have to learn by rote the Southern pronunciations or reveal their native dialect every time they put pen to paper.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Not quite sure what the e's doing on the end of improov. You're not even clever enough to do it logically or consistently are you. Quoting people who's posts agree with you and declaring that they are right while ignoring substantive points made by people who don't is no way to conduct a debate.
> 
> How do you respond to the assertion made by myself on this thread and the other one that spelling reform based on pronunciation would inevitably create a prestige dialect of UK English _as it has in every other language that uses phonemic spelling_ and:
> 
> ...



Of course "Improve" should be be spelt "Improov", but i left the 'e' on the end for familarity, 'Improov is definately the best version/improovment.

And for yor second point. as i said befor 100 times it's not reflecting regional accents, and we hav different pronounciations now with our present spellings Northerners havn't been forced to learn dirty Southern pronounciations  by rote, hav they?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> And for yor second point. as i said befor 100 times it's not reflecting regional accents, and we hav different pronounciations now with our present spellings Northerners havn't been forced to learn dirty Southern pronounciations  by rote, hav they?



No, they only have to learn the spellings. Same as Southerners. And everyone. A level playing field and a better system.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I would say that it is 'K' that is obsolete, not 'C'. Many mor words ar spell the 'KER' sound with a 'C', as in concur, concord, concrete, conclude, etc. but the existence of the letter 'K' is fine with me, maybe it will deleted many years layter on, after we ar dead.



I agree - I prefer getting rid of 'k' too



maomao said:


> Not quite sure what the e's doing on the end of improov. You're not even clever enough to do it logically or consistently are you.



How snide!

For your information - in English putting an 'e' on the end lengthens the preceding vowel sound - so for example 'star' and 'stare'



maomao said:


> How do you respond to:
> 
> a)increase workloads for children who speak other dialects
> 
> ...



If I may I don't see why these arguments are relevant - there is already a vast workload to learn spelling by rote, word by word. And discrimination will always exist; and sadly this idea will not stop it. The kids already have to learn a 'correct' spelling and tho I started this thread thinking that we could go back to Shakespeare's time of just spelling how you wish - I am convinced that this is impossible as it would limit communication in a global world.



maomao said:


> To counter your 'bath scones comment above there are thousands of words containing the letters 'a' and 'u' which underwent a shift in vowel sounds several hundred years ago in Southern English but not Northern English dialects. The pronunciations are unevenly distributed between the two dialects and between individual speakers (I, for example, say 'barth' but not 'scown')  A speaker of a Northern dialect would now either have to learn by rote the Southern pronunciations or reveal their native dialect every time they put pen to paper.



It is fair point that accents would be difficult - but there is a simple answer - the idea is to address the consonant issues first and foremost becoz they cause the greatest problems -while the vowel sounds could be addressed later - and it is these which cover accents.

As THINK pointed out 'have' is always pronounced to rhyme with 'lad' worldwide and so I feel that you are slightly exaggerating the problems such a step would cause.

If you fear that accents would disappear somehow - then I see your logic but disagree that it would happen.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is fair point that accents would be difficult - but there is a simple answer - the idea is to address the consonant issues first and foremost becoz they cause the greatest problems -while the vowel sounds could be addressed later - and *it is these which cover accents.*



Not remotely true at all. Distribution of 'r's after vowels is very uneven over the whole of the UK. Retention of the full 'g' sound at the end of the 'ng' sound is common in the North of England. Various unvoiced consonants are dropped and replaced by glottal stops in lots of dialects Use of the 'th' sound is far from standardised. Many Scottish and North Western dialects use velar and palatal fricatives at the end of words rather than final 'k' sounds. That's just off the top of my head, you want more?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> For your information - in English putting an 'e' on the end lengthens the preceding vowel sound - so for example 'star' and 'stare'



So why was there an e there when a) improve doesn't rhyme with trove and b) he'd already used a double o?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> Not remotely true at all. Distribution of 'r's after vowels is very uneven over the whole of the UK. Retention of the full 'g' sound at the end of the 'ng' sound is common in the North of England. Various unvoiced consonants are dropped and replaced by glottal stops in lots of dialects Use of the 'th' sound is far from standardised. Many Scottish and North Western dialects use velar and palatal fricatives at the end of words rather than final 'k' sounds. That's just off the top of my head, you want more?



Not really - No system is going to be perfect but if your reaction to this is that we should not change at all - then I beg to differ.

All the people who use these accents currently spell the words in a standardised way - I am merely calling for this way to be more phonetic - so they would still spell the words differently to how they actually pronounce it.

Change is difficult (thus the conservatives) but from an evolutionary point of view it is those who change who succeed.



> So why was there an e there when a) improve doesn't rhyme with trove and b) he'd already used a double o?



You're right - we need to make the spelling system more consistent.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Change is difficult (thus the conservatives) but from an evolutionary point of view it is those who change who succeed.



The majority of mutations in living beings actually result in disablement and/or death. It is those who change, survive, and do better at surviving than other living beings who succeed.



> All the people who use these accents currently spell the words in a standardised way - I am merely calling for this way to be more phonetic - so they would still spell the words differently to how they actually pronounce it.



So whose dialect is going to be the prestige dialect? Whose pronunciation are you going to choose?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2009)

All this talk of northern vs. southern accents also pales into insignificance compared with considering English as it is spoken in:

* the Americas
* Australasia
* The Indian sub-continent
* The far-East
* Africa
* Everywhere else

English is a really global language, spoken massively differently in different places.  A phonetic spelling based on just one of those dialects would be really exclusive of other dialects.  And if any single one was to be chosen, it would *definitely* be one of the USA versions, not any English version.  Expect to be writing "toemaytoes" or something, for a start.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2009)

maomao said:


> So whose dialect is going to be the prestige dialect? Whose pronunciation are you going to choose?



It is NOT a matter of which dialect - as has been commented before. There is NO dialect for example which pronounces 'have' to rhyme with 'dave' - so the first step is to find what is CONSTANT with all forms of English - so 'goes' would be spelt 'goez' becoz _everyone _says it like that even if some accents change (slightly) the vowel sound in the middle - they ALL have the 'g' and the 'z' - and for those learning English worldwide this would mean that they would know where to pronounce 'z' and where to pronounce 's' for the third person singular - thus making English even easier to learn and an even better international language.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2009)

There's virtually nothing that is universal, actually.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is NOT a matter of which dialect - as has been commented before. There is NO dialect for example which pronounces 'have' to rhyme with 'dave' - so the first step is to find what is CONSTANT with all forms of English - so 'goes' would be spelt 'goez' becoz _everyone _says it like that even if some accents change (slightly) the vowel sound in the middle - they ALL have the 'g' and the 'z' - and for those learning English worldwide this would mean that they would know where to pronounce 'z' and where to pronounce 's' for the third person singular - thus making English even easier to learn and an even better international language.



Did you read post 144?

Also vowel changes are not consistent across dialects. Edinburgh Scottish takes the English 'oo' sound and changes it into two distinct vowels. 

There's very little point arguing with you about this as you aren't interested in reading any arguments against your point.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is NOT a matter of which dialect - as has been commented before. There is NO dialect for example which pronounces 'have' to rhyme with 'dave' - so the first step is to find what is CONSTANT with all forms of English - so 'goes' would be spelt 'goez' becoz _everyone _says it like that even if some accents change (slightly) the vowel sound in the middle - they ALL have the 'g' and the 'z' - and for those learning English worldwide this would mean that they would know where to pronounce 'z' and where to pronounce 's' for the third person singular - thus making English even easier to learn and an even better international language.



I really don't know why you think any written language would be phonetic despite ignoring differences in vowel sounds. The g won't be pronounced in exactly the same way in all accents, either.

FYI, foreign language learners generally find it very easy indeed to know how to pronounce the s ending in third person singular (and in plurals). The sound just comes out naturally as s or z depending on whether it follows a voiced or unvoiced sound. When they pronounce it incorrectly, it's because they're pronouncing the preceding sound incorrectly. 

Blimey - why am I bothering? I'll just be told, yet again, that I'm a conservative who's afraid of change and that I know nothing about language or education.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 1, 2009)

FWIW, I have a friend who's an activist in various ways, and she is also in favour of changing to a more phonetic spelling system. She spells around a third of her words phonetically. Unfortunately, she's a Canadian living in England and hardly anyone can understand what she writes.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2009)

Besides, the glory of English is that they CAN pronounce the s "incorrectly" and _people will still understand them_.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Blimey - why am I bothering? I'll just be told, yet again, that I'm a conservative who's afraid of change and that I know nothing about language or education.



You're a teacher of some description aren't you Sam?


----------



## Jonti (Aug 1, 2009)

_No_ to phonetics.  _Yes_ to reducing the tyranny of the printing press, and the stasis that it has held English spelling in for centuries ~ we should be more accepting of alternative spellings, is all.

We should learn to read with Chinese characters instead. Or any writing system like, say Mandarin, in which one does not need to learn the language, to read the text!

The way we write should have nothing to do with the way we sound the writing.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2009)

Maomao - Post 144

I did read it and I pointed out (again) that even Korea has accents and that there is always a 'correct' spelling. I know you read this answer coz you asked which accent would be the 'prestige' one, missing the point made several times in this thread, and repeated in #149 by myself that there are many constants which don't change at all.

You then ignore these constants and go on about vowel changes, again, and I agree that vowel changes vary - but this doesn't actually counter the point I am making - that making the spellings more phonetic would help literacy levels etc. Sure it would be great to have the vowel sounds also phonetic in spelling, as in Korean etc. But there are so many different spellings for the same vowel sound such as 'tea' 'see' 'key' etc that I am sticking with changing the more obvious consonant ones first. 

The 'g' on the end of the present participle is a good example of an accent which would be difficult to make phonetic - which shows that even an improved spelling system will not be totally phonetic.

Your 'argument' seems to be that you see no reason to change the current system. You seem to refuse to accept that the spelling system is very difficult to learn and even if you do accept this, you refuse to countenance any move to solve it as a problem. Added to this you seem to be in denial as to the existence of other languages (with accent variations) which are more phonetic and yet still 'work' as a communication medium. Your repeated retorts are: here is an accent that would be difficult to spell phonetically, or even: it would be unfair on this accent because they would need to learn to spell it 'correctly' (as if they don't already have to do this).

Still I am surprised to be accused of not being open to your 'arguments' against. I would claim the inverse as I have addressed your points one at a time, but you seem to have ignored mine. 

To be fair tho, I understand your reluctance - I would never have recognised this issue if I hadn't been to Korea. Actually seeing a more phonetic language that can work in the modern world is more convincing than I can be.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 1, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> so the first step is to find what is CONSTANT with all forms of English - so 'goes' would be spelt 'goez' becoz _everyone _says it like that even if some accents change (slightly) the vowel sound in the middle - they ALL have the 'g' and the 'z' - and for those learning English worldwide this would mean that they would know where to pronounce 'z' and where to pronounce 's' for the third person singular - thus making English even easier to learn and an even better international language.



There are a few things which are constant. There are lots of things which aren't and have distinct differences.

So we find the ones that are constant - then what do we do with the rest of the language?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are a few things which are constant. There are lots of things which aren't and have distinct differences.
> 
> So we find the ones that are constant - then what do we do with the rest of the language?



What!!!! It is quite the inverse - there are many more constants than slight differences in my experience - on what do you base this opinion? Take any of the words in this sentence and tell me that they would not be the same in all Englsih speaking countries! 'quite' always has the 'k' at the beginning and a 't' at the end - 'inverse' has the 'n' and the 'v' and the 's' sound - 'there' might have a slight variance in vowel sound but the 'th' sound is constant. All the words would be the same - if it weren't generally true then we wouldn't be able to communicate so easily with the rest of the English speaking world.

Still the point remains that we would have to leave the rest of the language alone. Any move towards a more phonetic spelling system would make it easier to teach literacy and so I would applaud even a small change.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2009)

You've not answered my question in the slightest, all you've done is pick at my use of the word "few".

Are you claiming that there are no differences in pronunciation? I assume not.

If not, what happens to those words? How do they get spelt?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If not, what happens to those words? How do they get spelt?



Can you give an example of a word which has a consonant difference between dialects, because I would need an example to tell you what I would do. 

As I can't think of an example - I can only think of ones with vowel sounds - I suggest that there are very few indeed. 

But assuming that there are a few that we don't know - I would use the current phonetic form in the Oxford English Dictionary, with the vowel phonemes represented with the current letters.

There would be a few issues like these to deal with - such as whether to replace all the 'ks' sounds with an 'x' - and I would expect an institution to be set up to facilitate this - but the general principle - ie the movement towards a more phonetic spelling system could be set in motion, and tho it would not help those who can already read and write - it would, in time improve the literacy rates in general and aid learning difficulties etc.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 2, 2009)

But it isn't the consonants that we are being told that anybody has a problem with!

All the arguments are about things like rave vs. have -- that's a vowel sound.  And improve vs. trove -- that's a vowel sound.  All the complaints are about vowel sounds!


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'quite' always has the 'k' at the beginning and a 't' at the end



I don't pronounce a 't' at the end of quite. Others (americans and west of England) would replace it with an alveolar flap.



> 'inverse' has the 'n' and the 'v' and the 's' sound -



The nasal before the 'v' in inverse is articulated as a velar nasal (normal 'n') in some dialects and as a labial dental in others (lip against the teeth). The 's' may be voiced to a 'z' in some west of England or American dialects.



> 'there' might have a slight variance in vowel sound but the 'th' sound is constant.



Lol lol lol. 'th' is the least constant sound in the whole language and may be pronounced variously as a 'v', a 'd', a 'z', a dental fricative, a dental stop or an aveolar fricative.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Maomao - Post 144
> 
> I did read it and I pointed out (again) that even Korea has accents and that there is always a 'correct' spelling. I know you read this answer coz you asked which accent would be the 'prestige' one, missing the point made several times in this thread, and repeated in #149 by myself that there are many constants which don't change at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2009)

kabbes said:


> But it isn't the consonants that we are being told that anybody has a problem with!
> 
> All the arguments are about things like rave vs. have -- that's a vowel sound.  And improve vs. trove -- that's a vowel sound.  All the complaints are about vowel sounds!



I agree that there are many issues to do with vowels which would necessitate a change which many people would find too drastic. That is why I have specified continually that I would concentrate on the consonant issues which are the dominant problem for teaching literacy IME. For example 'fone' instead of 'phone'. 



maomao said:


> You don't understand the concept of a prestige dialect and you haven't addressed at all the issue of the effect of introducing one into English which would be the effect of your spelling reform.



But there is already a prestige spelling system and a prestige dialect (ever heard of Queen's English?). Certainly some children with strong accents would have to learn spelling by rote to a certain degree (tho I struggle to find an example), but changing 'phone' to 'fone' would make it easier for them as well, because there are many more constants than differences, (otherwise we wouldn't be able to understand them). 



maomao said:


> No I didn't I gave you a list of consonant differences.



OK, if you think that I haven't dealt with it - let's take one of them - the 'g' at the end of the 'ing' form - the present participle.
I would suggest having the spelling 'ing' to represent this ending. Luckily this is the existing spelling, and I can't think of any variations which would fail to work. If you can then please do, but if you can't then please take a moment to think about this for a moment - your examples are not very distinct. 



maomao said:


> No I haven't. I've pointed out that all those languages, especially Korean, have prestige dialects which mean people outside the capital and the dominant class effectively have to learn two languages.



Here is a great example of an agenda-driven poster being driven to absurdity. This claim is the same as saying that an Englishman would need to learn American English if he moved to the US. Sure, there are differences that he could pay attention to, but relevant in a debate about a more phonetic spelling system it is not.

If you want to talk about class war in Korea, Maomao,  then start your own thread and invite me, coz I will post, but don't derail my thread on another topic. Here, I am not interested in your moral crusade. Perhaps I would be elsewhere. 



maomao said:


> Lol lol lol. 'th' is the least constant sound in the whole language and may be pronounced variously as a 'v', a 'd', a 'z', a dental fricative, a dental stop or an aveolar fricative.



So what? Yet again you miss the point. Everyone who uses these accent variations spells the words with a 'th' now - and so I would not be suggesting change. A better retort would have been that there are two variations, voiced and unvoiced which would need two symbols in the system I am suggesting - which would have been true, but you didn't...

Anyway that post was in response to a ridiculous claim by Fridgemagnet stating that English around the world has 'few things which are constant, and many which are not' - obviously, if this were the case then English speakers would not be able to visit other English speaking countries and communicate so easily. Absurd! 

There are many problems with moving English towards a more phonetic form, and I know them as well as anyone. Above is an example, the voiced and unvoiced 'th' sound; and there are many others, but trotting them out as a reason to stay with the current system is a bit of a neophobic attitude, as is simply listing accent variances which would mean that they would still need to learn to spell. Change CAN happen, but it would not be a perfect answer. I would not choose these problem areas to start with as there are so many other examples of much more ridiculous spelling which can be addressed first...

I would address the more straightforward examples like using 'ph' instead of 'f' - which are much more confusing for kids learning to read and write than the difference between 'th' in mother and 'th' in 'broth'.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Here is a great example of an agenda-driven poster being driven to absurdity. This claim is the same as saying that an Englishman would need to learn American English if he moved to the US. Sure, there are differences that he could pay attention to, but relevant in a debate about a more phonetic spelling system it is not.



British English _is_ a prestige dialect in the US.

How many Koreans do you actually know Gmarthews? Do you actually speak Korean?


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2009)

And could you stop saying phonetic when you mean phonemic.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> All this talk of northern vs. southern accents also pales into insignificance compared with considering English as it is spoken in:
> 
> * the Americas
> * Australasia
> ...



It is *NOT* about spellings based on a accent, it is about implementing the alfabetical rules that we wer taught as a kid, lojical simplified spelling. example:

take gone 

bone
tone
lone
phone
gone*?

"Gone" should be spelt "Gon". just implementing alfabetical rules, no where in the World is "Gone" prononced "Gone" (rhymes with Bone) it's always "Gon", same with "Have" no where in the World is it prononced "Have" (rhymes with Dave), it is always prononced "Hav".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> There's virtually nothing that is universal, actually.



Oh, Dear.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

scifisam said:


> FWIW, I have a friend who's an activist in various ways, and she is also in favour of changing to a more phonetic spelling system. She spells around a third of her words phonetically. Unfortunately, she's a Canadian living in England and hardly anyone can understand what she writes.



She is a Heroic pioneer.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

Giles said:


> The big problem would be one of where to start.
> 
> Presumably you would start with schoolkids, but you would then have the problem of what would happen when the first kids to have been taught like this applied for jobs, college courses etc.
> 
> ...



you would start with just a handful of spellings and another handful every 20 years or so.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Innit? With their 'carte electromagnetique' or whatever they came up with for 'email'...



That's about French Nationalism *nothing to do with spelling*..


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> For me, one of the most glorious things about the way English words are spelt is that you can often take a good guess at the meaning of a word you've never seen before purely from the obvious etymology.  Phonetics would destroy this.  You'd gain a dubious and arguable improvement in the ease of learning to spell but lose the massive bonus of understanding the language.  You'd also lose the unexpected bonus that words in Foreign are often understandable because there is an English word with the same root.



You ar a *Spelling Ludite*. Our descendants won't believ how we used to spell our words and that there wer people actually resisitant to spelling reform, and they will be definately not wanting to go back to the old spellings. But, in a hundred years time, there will be a man, like you, kabbes, extoling the brilliance and virtues of written English and what marvelous inhieritance the people of now hav endowed to them, but change, mor change to keep up with developments, no way it's perfect, change is bad, it wil spoil the beauty of the language we hav inherited.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

maomao said:


> And could you stop saying phonetic when you mean phonemic.



Ok, phonemic, if that is the correct word.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 3, 2009)

No where in the World is, "Scissors" prononced "Skissors", it would be better if we spelt it, "sissors". Just simple little changes like that is all we need.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> No where in the World is, "Scissors" prononced "Skissors", it would be better if we spelt it, "sissors". Just simple little changes like that is all we need.



TBH, there is much greater tolerance for spelling mistakes (or unconventional spelling, if you'd rather) than there used to be, so some of the changes you're wishing for might come about over time in a natural way. 

Scissors is a bloody awkward word, though. 'Sissors' looks like the second sound should be s rather than z. But then, if you write sizors it looks far too similar to 'sizers.' I guess context would usually make it clear which you meant, but a written language that only makes any sense in specific contexts is rather limited. 

Tons of accents don't say 'gon,' so maybe that one won't change either. I bet some will do, though.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 3, 2009)

Actually with scissors the second sound is a 'z', but it needs to be doubled because the 'i' sound is the short version:

sizzers


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2009)

That's not how I say "scissors"


----------



## Gmart (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> That's not how I say "scissors"



Really, good for you - but dictionary.com has this as the pronunciation:

[siz-erz]

So we are both 'wrong' - I should have put a 'z' on the end instead of the 's':

sizzerz


----------



## scifisam (Aug 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Really, good for you - but dictionary.com has this as the pronunciation:
> 
> [siz-erz]
> 
> ...



He probably means that he doesn't pronounce the R. Dictionary.com is based on American Mid-western accents - it's not saying 'this is how you should pronounce this word.' Kabbes can't possibly be 'wrong' about he personally pronounces a word.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 3, 2009)

scifisam said:


> He probably means that he doesn't pronounce the R. Dictionary.com is based on American Mid-western accents - it's not saying 'this is how you should pronounce this word.' Kabbes can't possibly be 'wrong' about he personally pronounces a word.



Err... why do you think I put 'wrong' in quotes?

And anyway how can you pronounce 'scissors' without an 'r' sound? That just doesn't make sense!

Once again - there would need to be a 'correct' spelling - but people are free to say whatever words they wish, however they wish - it is even up to them if they mangle them so much that the message fails to be communicated - but this is irrelevant for this discussion, which is asking whether it would improve literacy if the spelling system were more fonetic  Would it be easier to teach to kids? Would there be less time needed to be allocated to it, freeing up more time for other things?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2009)

The way I say it is closer to "sizzis"

And so we come back again to the problem that there is no one single phonetic spelling.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Err... why do you think I put 'wrong' in quotes?
> 
> And anyway how can you pronounce 'scissors' without an 'r' sound? That just doesn't make sense!
> 
> Once again - there would need to be a 'correct' spelling - but people are free to say whatever words they wish, however they wish - it is even up to them if they mangle them so much that the message fails to be communicated - but this is irrelevant for this discussion, which is asking whether it would improve literacy if the spelling system were more fonetic  Would it be easier to teach to kids? Would there be less time needed to be allocated to it, freeing up more time for other things?



Er, you pronounce scissors without an r sound if you're from London, the South-East in general, and various other areas of the country. How? Well, you see that r there? You don't pronounce it. Easy!

As for the rest, we've gone over it about, ooh, a million times already in the thread and you're displaying Jazzz-like weeble tendencies.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> The way I say it is closer to "sizzis"
> 
> And so we come back again to the problem that there is no one single phonetic spelling.



Well at best it would have a schwa sound at the end, which is a vowel sound. I am more concerned with the more obvious consonant issues like the 'z' in 'scissors' as I have said.

It is heartening that you seem unable to find any other problems with the system than vowel sounds and it reinforces my determination that vowel sounds would be done AFTER the consonant issues have been solved.

For a start most accent issues (like the apparent 'r' on the end of scissors) are based round vowel sounds such as schwa. It would be very difficult to lay down a phonetic law to separate tea and key and bee - and so it is not worth it - I would rather change 'phone' to fone' which is much more straightforward.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2009)

Who says that I haven't found problems other than vowel sounds?

And who says that the problems that I personally find are the only or even the key problems?

You are a bizarre man.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Who says that I haven't found problems other than vowel sounds?
> 
> And who says that the problems that I personally find are the only or even the key problems?
> 
> You are a bizarre man.



Sorry, I must have missed them - what problems are you referring to? And try not to just give another example of an accent - accents exist in countries with a more phonetic spelling system and so that is not a riposte...


----------



## THINK! (Aug 4, 2009)

scifisam said:


> TBH, there is much greater tolerance for spelling mistakes (or unconventional spelling, if you'd rather) than there used to be, so some of the changes you're wishing for might come about over time in a natural way.
> 
> Scissors is a bloody awkward word, though. 'Sissors' looks like the second sound should be s rather than z. But then, if you write sizors it looks far too similar to 'sizers.' I guess context would usually make it clear which you meant, but a written language that only makes any sense in specific contexts is rather limited.
> 
> Tons of accents don't say 'gon,' so maybe that one won't change either. I bet some will do, though.




They say "_gone_" (rhymes with "Bone") do they? Please, tell me where?



edit:
_Gon, Gon, Gon , the Red Eye Express"_ by Devo
_"Gon With the Wind"_ so it's not America. Where


----------



## THINK! (Aug 4, 2009)

Fucking Hell People! The important thing and the thing I was pointing out is, that no-one pronounces the "_C_" in "scissors".





You're Confusing yorselfs. Keep it simple.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 4, 2009)

Reform: No-one wants to go back to the £, $, 'D -Pounds, Shillings & Pence, and I am eternally gratefeul to the person who ever it was who changed it. Metric is mor or less accepted, despite its imperfections and I would never go back to old Imperialist system, never. it would hav had a chance if it was a decimal system but it not even a decimal system or a consistent system, i am also eternally grateful to the prerson who changed *"sinne" *to, "sin" and *"shoppe"* to, "shop" *Olde* to "old" and other similar changes. Did you know "Fantasy" was spelt *"Phantasy"* up-and until the last 50 years or so . do you want to go back to the old spelling?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 4, 2009)

THINK! said:


> They say "_gone_" (rhymes with "Bone") do they? Please, tell me where?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some accents say 'gan' rather than 'gon.'


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Some accents say 'gan' rather than 'gon.'



But still no-one pronounces it "gone" (rhymes with _Bone_)
Again, it is not about accents as I sed befor, "gone"  is a non-starter, a simple improovment would be to drop the last letter "e" from that word and 90% of English speakers would be spelling it correct. It's an improovment. It makes sense.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

*"Simplified Spelling"*

What hav we learn'd from this dicussion? Not to call it, "Fonetic spelling", "simplified spelling" would be better. It seems a lot of people got stuck on the accents bit, the first easy hurdle of misunderstanding, despite being supposedly intellijent people.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2009)

Who doesn't actually know how to spell "gone"?

You leap all over the place.  One moment it is about simple vowel sounds in short, everyday words that nobody gets wrong anyway.  The next moment it is about complex consonent sounds in specific cases that don't really have a useful pattern.

The whole concept is a washout anyway.  You can't direct something like this from above.  It only comes from an unspoken, unconscious drift over time.  Either people will change spellings or they won't, but either way it won't be anything to do with people like you telling them that they should do so.

(And there are still a thousand and one problems you haven't acknowledged, incidentally.  The problem of homonyms, for one.)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Who doesn't actually know how to spell "gone"?
> 
> You leap all over the place.  One moment it is about simple vowel sounds in short, everyday words that nobody gets wrong anyway.  The next moment it is about complex consonent sounds in specific cases that don't really have a useful pattern.
> 
> ...




I don't leap enywhere. You're mixing  my and Gmathews posts up. There's no inconsistencies in my posts-

Short words ar what bigger words ar con-struc-ted from, That's why we hav to get them right.

*Spelling is already directed from above*, at school and the dictionary, spelling isn't from the bottom, plus there is no room/allowance for change or improovment. Almost all major countries hav an institution that directs spelling and improovments, like the 'Academie Francais', in France. 

 I don't tell eny-one what to do, it's people like you and MM and Krabbes who ar telling people what they can and can not do, The Spelling Snobs.

We hav liv'd with Homonyms for years., I sure we can survive with them in the future.



*******************
If you spelling badly, you ar look'd down upon, treated as almost morally abhorent. There is a great deal of stigma attach'd to spelling words incorrectly, there certainly no-room for change. Our spellings ar at the cor of illiteracy in our country and they reinforce the class divide. Why should our spellings be a nostic, serving only a snobby spitful elite. Our written language should be open to all accessable to all, not a way to exclude people. Remember, the things we Humans invent ar meant to serv us, not us serv them!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2009)

Right, and our spelling serves us just fine.  Better than fine -- it provides us with useful information and context.  Hooray for that.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

If you can managed to read the above above post, then I hav proov'd my point. That would be a about all the changes we would see in our life-times. Other or greater changes would be left to other jenerations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2009)

everyone ignores the Acadamie Francais you know.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2009)

Think, you are boring now.  You keep making the same points that have been answered again and again.  Spelling is not a class issue, unless you think that the working class are inherently unable to cope with it.  Changes in English are not directly by a single body but by worldwide use.  English is a global language, of which the English themselves are a teeny tiny minority.  Anything you or I want for the language is irrelevant because it is a juggernaut.

So that's it.  I'm sticking you on ignore now, because I can't be bothered to go round this merry-go-round yet again, repeating all the same points another time.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Right, and our spelling serves us just fine.  Better than fine -- it provides us with useful information and context.  Hooray for that.



I just told you, *it fucking don't.* The stastistics I was given by the Spelling Society was that English Speaking countries (Anglo-fone countries) hav a functionary illiterarte rate of about 20% using the same criteria to measure other countries like Sweden, for instance, you get an functionary illiteracy rate of about 7-8%. Comparing similar countries like Sweden and Denmark which doesn't hav such faithful accurate spellings as their nieghbours, the Swedes, they had a higher illiteracy rate,. Prooving that spelling was at the root of illiteracy, not the education system.

The other statistic is that *50-70%* of our prison population ar functional iliterate. You consider them unimportant, not worth helping, amusing idiots.

Spelling should not be a test of memory and an Elitist club for the snobby few.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2009)

Ah, bliss.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Think, you are boring now.  You keep making the same points that have been answered again and again.  Spelling is not a class issue, unless you think that the working class are inherently unable to cope with it.  Changes in English are not directly by a single body but by worldwide use.  English is a global language, of which the English themselves are a teeny tiny minority.  Anything you or I want for the language is irrelevant because it is a juggernaut.
> 
> So that's it.  I'm sticking you on ignore now, because I can't be bothered to go round this merry-go-round yet again, repeating all the same points another time.




You haven't anser'd anything just told me you like the spellings the way they ar now becoz they favor you. You ar not interested in helping eny-one, just maintaining yor dominate academic position re: spelling. I don't giv a fuck what foriegners do, that is not a reason not take some leadership in the matter, or at least make life better for our own people, the other will catch-up with, copy us, later.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Did you know "Fantasy" was spelt *"Phantasy"* up-and until the last 50 years or so . do you want to go back to the old spelling?



yes.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone ignores the Acadamie Francais you know.



Do they, my little beloved?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2009)

les blue jeans, le walkman etc. all words that are not endorsed by the AF.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> yes.



Has the sky fallen in, the World ended? Which spelling do you prefer and you think other people prefer? It's definately "fantasy" for me.



edit: _I now realise you wer ansering the 2nd question not the First_


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> les blue jeans, le walkman etc. all words that are not endorsed by the AF.



Foriegn words introduced to their country not spellings which is what I am going on about. *SPELLINGS!*


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 5, 2009)

I like the 'ph' sound more.  It's longer than the 'f' one.

Bloody americans I bet.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The other statistic is that *50-70%* of our prison population ar functional iliterate. You consider them unimportant, not worth helping, amusing idiots.
> 
> Spelling should not be a test of memory and an Elitist club for the snobby few.



They just don't get it THINK... they don't even recognise the problem



fractionMan said:


> yes.



You see... absurd!!


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 5, 2009)

wat


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Foriegn words introduced to their country not spellings which is what I am going on about. *SPELLINGS!*



the point is setting up a similar body is going to be pointless, as we have a living language. Dictionaries are also complied BACKWARDS. So that was another shit example from you that undermined your own point.

We've been through this befor, but you just ignore it and repeat the same points and claim them 'proov'd'


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 5, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> They just don't get it THINK... they don't even recognise the problem



Except nobody's said anything like the weird interpretation THINK has of it.  Massive leaps of logic fail imo.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> the point is setting up a similar body is going to be pointless, as we have a living language. Dictionaries are also complied BACKWARDS. So that was another shit example from you that undermined your own point.
> 
> We've been through this befor, but you just ignore it and repeat the same points and claim them 'proov'd'



The inventor of the dictionary, Samuel Johnson, froze the spellings. Dictionaries ar not followers they ar part, a big part, of the Spelling dictatorship. We don't hav a living language as far as the spellings ar concern'd, they ar totally frozen, complete concrete, set-in-stone.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

DOTCOM, darling, I'v proov'd that there is a better, mor user-frendly, lojical way to spell meny of our words. That's what I hav proov'd. It is really quite simple.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I just told you, *it fucking don't.* The stastistics I was given by the Spelling Society was that English Speaking countries (Anglo-fone countries) hav a functionary illiterarte rate of about 20% using the same criteria to measure other countries like Sweden, for instance, you get an functionary illiteracy rate of about 7-8%. Comparing similar countries like Sweden and Denmark which doesn't hav such faithful accurate spellings as their nieghbours, the Swedes, they had a higher illiteracy rate,. Prooving that spelling was at the root of illiteracy, not the education system.


Point of order:
a "functionary" is a bureaucrat, the word you should have used in "functional".


> The other statistic is that *50-70%* of our prison population ar functional iliterate. You consider them unimportant, not worth helping, amusing idiots.


Given that kabbes hasn't stated what you're claiming, i.e. *"You consider them unimportant, not worth helping, amusing idiots"*, that's a rather bald illustration of you lying, don't you think?


> Spelling should not be a test of memory and an Elitist club for the snobby few.


*ALL* spelling is a "test of memory", you dick.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Except nobody's said anything like the weird interpretation THINK has of it.  Massive leaps of logic fail imo.



What massiv leaps of lojic? just that "Have" would be mor comprehensible is it was spelt "Hav", "Gone" spelt "Gon", "Give" spelt "GIV". so and so forth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> les blue jeans, le walkman etc. all words that are not endorsed by the AF.



Yes, but that's because they're pretentious knobbers, whereas THINK! is......oh.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Point of order:
> a "functionary" is a bureaucrat, the word you should have used in "functional".
> 
> 
> ...



YOu should be able to work out how words should be spelt lojically, lego brick by lego brick,, bilding up to the complete word, that's lojic, not memory.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, but that's because they're pretentious knobbers, whereas THINK! is......oh.



Violent Panda you ar the most useless debator I'v ever come across, yor posts ar crap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The inventor of the dictionary, Samuel Johnson, froze the spellings. Dictionaries ar not followers they ar part, a big part, of the Spelling dictatorship. We don't hav a living language as far as the spellings ar concern'd, they ar totally frozen, complete concrete, set-in-stone.



Samuel Johnson didn't "invent" the dictionary, you ahistoric muppet, he compiled the first *publicly-published* dictionary (by commission). Something he had the skills to do because of his noted abilities as a lexicographer.
As a brief perusal of Johnson's (or indeed *any*) dictionary would show you, dictionaries do indeed, as DotCommunist stated, "follow" the language. As they are documenting *words currently in use*, their spelling and pronunciation, they can't do anything *but* follow, so if pronunciation changes "in the wild", so too does the listed pronunciation in the dictionary, after a few editions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What massiv leaps of lojic? just that "Have" would be mor comprehensible is it was spelt "Hav", "Gone" spelt "Gon", "Give" spelt "GIV". so and so forth.



Except that if you were spelling "phonetically", you wouldn't render "gone" as "gon", you'd render it as "gonn" to emphasise the "hard" ending.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Except nobody's said anything like the weird interpretation THINK has of it.  Massive leaps of logic fail imo.



What fucking weird interpretation?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that if you were spelling "phonetically", you wouldn't render "gone" as "gon", you'd render it as "gonn" to emphasise the "hard" ending.



But it wouldn't be spelt, "Gone".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The inventor of the dictionary, Samuel Johnson, froze the spellings. Dictionaries ar not followers they ar part, a big part, of the Spelling dictatorship. We don't hav a living language as far as the spellings ar concern'd, they ar totally frozen, complete concrete, set-in-stone.



well that's bullshit tbh, as shown by your own example of the evolution of phantasy into fantasy. I think the original spelling gives some etymological clues as to it's origins (phantasms etc., I would assume)

So there we see how words are not 'frozen' but instead are revised as the usages change and the meaning shifts or takes on other contextual applications.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> YOu should be able to work out how words should be spelt lojically, lego brick by lego brick,, bilding up to the complete word, that's lojic, not memory.


What are words composed of?
Letters.
Where do letters and their rules and meanings reside? In your memory.
Logic, if followed, says that we should use the signification system most familiar to us, i.e. the one that has "evolved" alongside our usage, not that we should throw everything away and start again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Violent Panda you ar the most useless debator I'v ever come across, yor posts ar crap.



Ah, the _ad hominem_ "argument", last refuge of the terminally clueless!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> But it wouldn't be spelt, "Gone".



And yet it is, because the vast majority of people (although not yourself & GMart, obviously) understand the basics of their language, and of those that don't, only a minute amount aren't helped by standard "remedial" tutoring.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> well that's bullshit tbh, as shown by your own example of the evolution of phantasy into fantasy. I think the original spelling gives some etymological clues as to it's origins (phantasms etc., I would assume)
> 
> So there we see how words are not 'frozen' but instead are revised as the usages change and the meaning shifts or takes on other contextual applications.



Precisely. All a dictionary is, at base, is a list of past usages, never quite "up-to-date" with the shifting meanings placed on words by people, and not, as I'm sure GMart and THINK! fondly wish to believe, placed by an elite, but by the majority of users (the changing use{s} and meaning{s} of the word "bare" being a great example).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet it is, because the vast majority of people (although not yourself & GMart, obviously) understand the basics of their language, and of those that don't, only a minute amount aren't helped by standard "remedial" tutoring.



I understand the basics of my language and my alfabet, that's why I know "Gone" should be spelt "*GON*".


and, for example, i take a word from yor post:

1. *Minute*  [min-it]  
	the sixtieth part ( 1/60 ) of an hour; sixty seconds.

2. *Minute*  [my-noot]  
	extremely small, as in size, amount, extent, or degree: minute differences.


How does that make any sense? It doesn't, it's shit.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet it is, because the vast majority of people (although not yourself & GMart, obviously) understand the basics of their language, and of those that don't, only a minute amount aren't helped by standard "remedial" tutoring.



I think Gmathews command of the English language is quite good, yet he can see the value of a small bit of spelling reform. You, VP, just get up-set at everything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I understand the basics of my language and my alfabet, that's why I know "Gone" should be spelt "*GON*".


What you "know" is subjective, unsupported by much in the way of logically-reasoned argument.


> and, for example, i take a word from yor post:
> 
> 1. *Minute*  [min-it]
> the sixtieth part ( 1/60 ) of an hour; sixty seconds.
> ...


No, it makes perfect sense, it's an example of the changing meaning of words.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I think Gmathews command of the English language is quite good, yet he can see the value of a small bit of spelling reform. You, VP, just get up-set at everything.



If by "up-set"[sic] you mean that I disagree with people who display wilful stupidity, then such people "upset" me, but they hardly comprise "everything".

So, perhaps instead of making arbitrary character judgements based on the fact that someone disagrees with you, or making _ad hominem_ arguments, you could actually provide some substantive support for some of the claims you make re: "phonetic spelling", hmmm?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

Come on, VP, yor arguments ar piss poor, you just sound *upset* again and attempting to sound intellectual. Fonetic spelling? I'v call'd it, "simplified spelling".  Claims I'v made? "Gone" would better, easier to learn and make mor sense if it was spelt, "Gon".?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> the point is setting up a similar body is going to be pointless, as we have a living language. Dictionaries are also complied BACKWARDS. So that was another shit example from you that undermined your own point.
> 
> We've been through this* befor*, but you just ignore it and repeat the same points and claim them 'proov'd'



I like the way you spelt, "befor", with no "e" on the end , that's very sensible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Come on, VP, yor arguments ar piss poor...


No, my arguments are logical.  


> ....you just sound *upset* again...


Ah, so now you're claiming to be able to determine emotional state from written language?
Do you want another shovel, or do you reckon you've dug yourself in deeply enough with the one you've got?


> ...and attempting to sound intellectual.


And here he goes with another _ad hominem_ argument.
Why would I want to "attempt to sound intellectual"? It's not as if the arguments you've presented so far have needed anything more than clear language to demolish them.
Play the ball, not the man.
If you can.


> Fonetic spelling? I'v call'd it, "simplified spelling".  Claims I'v made? "Gone" would better, easier to learn and make mor sense if it was spelt, "Gon".?


So you keep saying, but you haven't explained *how* it would, or how you'd cause the necessary *massive* shift in the education system, how you'd minimise the side-effects of changing the written structure of the language on the economy or even bothered thinking how this "simplified language" would affect people with English as a second language.
All you keep doing is repeating a few pat phrases over and over again, and glamourising that act by calling it an "argument".


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Surely it is obvious that 'gone' should rhyme with 'cone'? And that the fact that it doesn't could cause confusion with children or foreigners learning the language. It is reasonable to suggest that those who learn the language would prefer the actual pronunciation to be given by the spelling rather than some bizarre history story...

And why would it be such a massive change? The Germans did it a few years ago, so why couldn't we?

One wonders why changing 'close' as 'cloze' would cause such a problem, and I would suggest that it wouldn't - I reckon that we could rise to the challenge.

What intrigues me is why you are ignoring the principle here. Sure you reckon that there would be no political will - and I would agree - but in principle the changes suggested would improve verbal communication. No longer would foreigners pronounce words as spelt and fail to be understood. Foreigners and children would have fewer spelling rules to learn, and so it would waste less time learning it by rote. English as an international language would grow, and improve in its effectiveness.


----------



## newme (Aug 6, 2009)

ok.... i edited this, posted and then viewed it. Come back to the thread and half of it was missing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I currently live in South Korea where their language is completely phonetic, ie their spelling is exactly how their words sound.
> 
> It struck me that this could be done in English. At the moment each child is expected to remember by memory how to spell thousands of words, and the dyslexics have a greater difficulty with this than others.
> 
> ...



Eye think that the purpus of comyunicayshun is too get messiges across to uthurs and tha best wie tu doo thet is withe sum sart of stenderdeyesede tipe of ting tat ivrybuddy kin unndurstend.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Eye think that the purpus of comyunicayshun is too get messiges across to uthurs and tha best wie tu doo thet is withe sum sart of stenderdeyesede tipe of ting tat ivrybuddy kin unndurstend.



Let me save Gmarthews the effort of writing a response:

You are a typical conservative exaggerating the effects of phonetic English. Nobody actually talks like that. If we wrote English in the way that real people talk, then children, the working class and learner of English would find it easier to learn. I've said this 200 times. Why do you people still not admit it's true? Is it so hard to adapt? Why do want to keep poor people down, Johnny?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Eye think that the purpus of comyunicayshun is too get messiges across to uthurs and tha best wie tu doo thet is withe sum sart of stenderdeyesede tipe of ting tat ivrybuddy kin unndurstend.



Sure - one conclusion of the conversation so far has been that letting everyone spell the way they talk would hinder communication worldwide, and so (reluctantly) we reckon that a 'correct' way of spelling - or set of standards has to exist - so for example the OED could change a few spellings every year - starting with the more obvious 'fone', 'ajenda' ones.

Others here throw doubt on whether this would help the children and foreigners - tho I fail to see why - while others sidestep this and just refuse to countenance any change at all.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Sure - one conclusion of the conversation so far has been that letting everyone spell the way they talk would hinder communication worldwide, and so (reluctantly) we reckon that a 'correct' way of spelling - or set of standards has to exist - so for example the OED could change a few spellings every year - starting with the more obvious 'fone', 'ajenda' ones.
> 
> Others here throw doubt on whether this would help the children and foreigners - tho I fail to see why - while others sidestep this and just refuse to countenance any change at all.



One thing about phonetic spelling, is that people who speak the same language, but in different countries, areas etc, will have different ways to pronounce the same words. That being the case, whose phonetic spelling should be in the OED?

My phonetic spelling for brother, would be something like 'bruthur'

Yours might be more like 'bruvva'.

Which is right?

Easier to keep it as 'brother', so that we can all recognize the word, then pronounce it as we will.


----------



## albionism (Aug 6, 2009)

But what English speaking accent would we use?
Would " I know" be spelt "Ah nur" or " I no" ?


----------



## newme (Aug 6, 2009)

lol u want everyone in the entire world that speaks english, which includes many children and foreigners, to change basically the entire language, for no actual benefit, yes that wouldnt be a massive completely pointless mistake at all......


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> One thing about phonetic spelling, is that people who speak the same language, but in different countries, areas etc, will have different ways to pronounce the same words. That being the case, whose phonetic spelling should be in the OED?
> 
> My phonetic spelling for brother, would be something like 'bruthur'
> 
> ...



'Brother' would not need to change - better to use another example which has an obvious problem which might cause a misunderstanding between two foreigners (say). So imagine 'phone' - which might easily be pronounced 'pon' and thus a failure of communication.

I appreciate that we have different accents - as do other countries with more phonetic languages, but I don't see why this would mean that changing 'phone' to 'fone' would be a bad idea?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2009)

albionism said:


> But what English speaking accent would we use?
> Would " I know" be spelt "Ah nur" or " I no" ?



this point has been repeatedly ignored by Gmarthews and THINK!, in thier frankly insulting quest to prove that phonetic spelling would emancipate the poor thicko proles who cannot understand the basic written form. According to them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'Brother' would not need to change - better to use another example which has an obvious problem which might cause a misunderstanding between two foreigners (say). So imagine 'phone' - which might easily be pronounced 'pon' and thus a failure of communication.
> 
> I appreciate that we have different accents - as do other countries with more phonetic languages, but I don't see why this would mean that changing 'phone' to 'fone' would be a bad idea?



I'm not sure how the issue of 'need to change' arises. Either you're for phoneticization of the spelling, or you're not. 

If you say bruvva, you would want the word changed to make it reflect the way it's pronounced - for you, at least.

Bruvva doesn't have a th in it, any more than fone has a ph in it.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> this point has been repeatedly ignored by Gmarthews and THINK!, in thier frankly insulting quest to prove that phonetic spelling would emancipate the poor thicko proles who cannot understand the basic written form. According to them.



I have repeatedly stated that vowel changes are too complicated to deal with - and yet the opposition seem unable to find examples which are not vowel sounds - which says a lot.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm not sure how the issue of 'need to change' arises. Either you're for phoneticization of the spelling, or you're not.
> 
> If you say bruvva, you would want the word changed to make it reflect the way it's pronounced - for you, at least.
> 
> Bruvva doesn't have a th in it, any more than fone has a ph in it.



Meanwhile Johnny - there is a need for a 'correct' spelling, do you agree with that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Meanwhile Johnny - there is a need for a 'correct' spelling, do you agree with that?



There is a need to facilitate communication in the  best way. This will of necessity result in changes with time, as common usage changes. But imo, an attempt to phoneticize, would be counterproductive. It would be an artificial tinkering with a system that appears to be functioning, and that is self-correcting as the need arises.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I have repeatedly stated that vowel changes are too complicated to deal with - and yet the opposition seem unable to find examples which are not vowel sounds - which says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile Johnny - there is a need for a 'correct' spelling, do you agree with that?



What - unable to find examples of consonant changes _except in the very post that you're quoting?_

What's your own accent, Gmarthews?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I have repeatedly stated that vowel changes are too complicated to deal with - and yet the opposition seem unable to find examples which are not vowel sounds - which says a lot.



Bru*vv*a vs bro*th*er.

Those aren't vowels.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

scifisam said:


> What - unable to find examples of consonant changes _except in the very post that you're quoting?_
> 
> What's your own accent, Gmarthews?



Clutching at straws aren't you - how many examples do you want - this thread has thrown up loads so far...

Meanwhile my accent is NOT relevant because I am not talking about accents. *You *seem to think that finding an accent that would be difficult to spell would somehow help your argument for no change - but I am suggesting keeping the current system and just slowly changing the worst excesses. So to use another example from this thread 'scissors' is pronounced 'sizzerz' and so why not spell it like that? 

Sure you could find people who might pronounce it slightly differently, but so what? they will all agree that the main consonants - the 's' and 'z' sounds are there - constant for the whole of the English speaking world...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Bru*vv*a vs bro*th*er.
> 
> Those aren't vowels.



Dot Communist was talking about 'I know' phonetically.

'brother' does not need to change its spelling, as it is spelt as it is said according to the 'correct' pronunciation - tho you could argue for 'bruther' I suppose.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Dot Communist was talking about 'I know' phonetically.
> 
> 'brother' does not need to change its spelling, as it is spelt as it is said according to the 'correct' pronunciation - tho you could argue for 'bruther' I suppose.



That's the issue though: what is this supposed 'correct' pronunciation?

Is the Boston v the New York v the London v the Manchester v the Auckland pronunciation the correct one?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2009)

OK. Gmarthews, you're not worth talking to. You are the worst kind of moron - one who believes that he's really intelligent. However, the topics you write about are the ones I like debating, so I always get tempted into talking to you. You're going on ignore. 

This post is not to make some bullying 'I don't like you' point. It's here so that it doesn't look like I'm not responding to Gmarthews because I suddenly realised he was right, probably on the same day that I had a lobotomy, signed up to Scientology and took out an account with Ocean Finance.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Also, that's just one word. There are many many that it applies to.


Law.

I pronounce it something like 'lah'.

I've heard people from the British Isles say something like 'lohr', or 'lore'.

Again, that's dealing with consonants as well as vowels.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

scifisam said:


> OK. Gmarthews, you're not worth talking to. You are the worst kind of moron - one who believes that he's really intelligent. However, the topics you write about are the ones I like debating, so I always get tempted into talking to you. You're going on ignore. .



Er, isn't this a bit of an over-freakout?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Er, isn't this a bit of an over-freakout?



No, a freak-out would be to call him dozens of bleepable names and suggest that his mother was all sorts of bleepable things. (I'm not even going to fill in the bleeps because I'd have to be really throat-rippingly angry to do that). 

When someone constantly (this is, like, the tenth thread now) talks bollocks about one of your favourite subjects, ignoring them is eminently sensible.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 6, 2009)

scifisam said:


> No, a freak-out would be to call him dozens of bleepable names and suggest that his mother was all sorts of bleepable things. (I'm not even going to fill in the bleeps because I'd have to be really throat-rippingly angry to do that).
> 
> When someone constantly (this is, like, the tenth thread now) talks bollocks about one of your favourite subjects, ignoring them is eminently sensible.





One of the things about going on vacation from the boards as I did, is you forget all your built-up animosities, and also, which others have animosities amongst themselves.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> One of the things about going on vacation from the boards as I did, is you forget all your built-up animosities, and also, which others have animosities amongst themselves.



True. 

But, you know, sometimes the best way to avoid animosities building up is to ignore someone. 

If someone is doing the online equivalent of barging into a crowd at a party and shouting loudly about some subject that you're invested in, and what they're shouting is just wrongwrongwrong but they're shouting so loudly that everyone starts arguing back at them, then the ignore button is the way to go. It would occasionally be handy in offline life, actually.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 6, 2009)

Yeah, abolish our rich linguistic heritage.  Fantastic.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

If scifisam wishes to put me on ignore becoz we disagree then fine. I am NOT barging into a party shouting my head off - I am simply on a thread discussing the merits of change.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> That's the issue though: what is this supposed 'correct' pronunciation?
> 
> Is the Boston v the New York v the London v the Manchester v the Auckland pronunciation the correct one?



That decision has already been made. The OED has each and every word with a 'correct' pronunciation. 

I am sorry if people here are unhappy with their decision, but I am not really concerned about this. It is necessary (as I have been persuaded on this very thread) to have a 'correct' spelling system - and so my idea is to try and move towards a more phonetic system to help with literacy for children and to simplify the teaching of English everywhere.

Again I am moved to point out that there are already differences between US and UK English with 'colour' and 'color' and 'organize' and 'organise' - so I don't see why this change would be such a problem. 

Upsidedownwalrus and others think that the history in the words is important in some way, but I still fail to see what *practical *importance they are referring to...



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Also, that's just one word. There are many many that it applies to.
> 
> 
> Law.
> ...



I agree that this would seem a difficult one so... the only variations are 'lah' and 'lore' I think - both are vowel sounds with the 'w' as (silent) superfluous - I have never heard anyone actually pronounce the 'w' on the end and so I agree that it should be just the 'l' sound with the vowel sound on the end - which vowel sound, who knows? Let's change 'fone' or 'cloze' first?

'Bruvva' is a good example of a consonant problem, after all if the argument towards a spelling system which is more phonetic is to make it easier for children to spell then it is failing - however no system is going to be perfect and this is not a reason to accept the atrophy which has set in around our spelling system. There will always have to be a 'correct' spelling that people learn, and this would be one of them.

Think, is it really necessary for all students of English to learn that 'ph' is pronounced as 'f', when we could quite easily just use the 'f'?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, my arguments are logical.
> 
> Ah, so now you're claiming to be able to determine emotional state from written language?
> Do you want another shovel, or do you reckon you've dug yourself in deeply enough with the one you've got?
> ...



"*Massive* shift?" What? knocking off a letter at the end of a word. We ar not implementing a new alfabet, just simplifying some spellings. We already liv with "variant spelling" American words, and 

Weetabix
Brycreem
Tuf Rite 
Kwik Fit

You don/t hav to adopt the new spellings they will be just exist along side for about 70 years, ie. yor life time, a transistion period like we had with metric and Imperial.

I keep repeating myself becoz you (plural) kept repeating yorself, making the same assertions and got stuck in some Regional accents quick-sand and didn't moov on. 

As for People with English as a second language they would, probably, just follow along. Why ar they so important? If I spoke Gjerman, would they consult me about their fairly recent spelling reform/changes? It's their language, their country they can do what they want to, if  I learnt Gjerman is it becoz I wanted to or becoz I wanted to take over? They don't hav to consult me. I think I hav already described  how the spelling reform would happen. Yes, I hav post 49. my first post on this thread, I think.




THINK! said:


> Spelling reform would happen gradually, as in other countries, not all at once, over night, a few words here, a few letters chopped off there and both spellings, the new improoved and the Traditional, would be acceptable, and the moritorium would about 70 years.
> for example it could go something like this:
> 
> (The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign)
> ...


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Eye think that the purpus of comyunicayshun is too get messiges across to uthurs and tha best wie tu doo thet is withe sum sart of stenderdeyesede tipe of ting tat ivrybuddy kin unndurstend.



Johnny, WRONG! "I", would not be spelt, "eye", "ting" and "tat" isn't spelling reform "kin" doesn't sound like "can" etc. 
Spelling reform would standardise and it would make many words easier to learn, spell.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

albionism said:


> but what english speaking accent would we use?
> Would " i know" be spelt "ah nur" or " i no" ?




fucking hell! POST447. Perhaps you hav join'd late and couldn't be bother'd to read the whole thread, which is understandable.



THINK! said:


> It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents! It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:
> 
> 
> Save
> ...



Another one.



THINK! said:


> It is *NOT* about spellings based on a accent, it is about implementing the alfabetical rules that we wer taught as a kid, lojical simplified spelling. example:
> 
> take gone
> 
> ...


 and I think ar quite a few mor.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> So it's about learning how to transliterate a prestige dialect then.



NO, just implementing alfabetical rules. Do I hav to repeat this _ad nauseum_?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> One thing about phonetic spelling, is that people who speak the same language, but in different countries, areas etc, will have different ways to pronounce the same words. That being the case, whose phonetic spelling should be in the OED?
> 
> My phonetic spelling for brother, would be something like 'bruthur'
> 
> ...



No-one promounces it "Bro-ther" so "Bruther" would probably do.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Why 'bru-ther'? - it sounds like a cup of tea extension rather than reflect the sound of the word to most.

Every post you make shows your theory to be ever more arbitrary and ill thought out.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> That's the issue though: what is this supposed 'correct' pronunciation?
> 
> Is the Boston v the New York v the London v the Manchester v the Auckland pronunciation the correct one?



Same with you, Johnny, as I hav written for Albonism. See above^ somewhere.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Yeah, abolish our rich linguistic heritage.  Fantastic.



Nope, just changing some spellings. How is that abolishing "our rich linguistic history"? What is going to stop you reading old books? You can read them in either the old spelling or the New spellings. This is not a Year Zero scenario.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

So your answer to 'help' the world's most successful language, one that's built up organically over many centuries, is to insist on some arbitrary, formalised phonetic rules? Haven't you considered that previous attempts to tailor 'official'  vocabulary and usage across the globe (eg in France) have failed dismally?

What makes your forced and arbitrary scheme any more of a goer that won't be disregarded by the majority of free willed individuals?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

newme said:


> lol u want everyone in the entire world that speaks english, which includes many children and foreigners, to change basically the entire language, for no actual benefit, yes that wouldnt be a massive completely pointless mistake at all......



Children don't know how many words ar spelt, they would welcome "Spelling Reform", a couple of lojical changes, they won't believ the way words used to be spelt and that there wer people actually resistant to change when they grow-up. Foriegners would, also, welcome spelling reform, English is a humilating minefield for many. Getting larf'd at and having their prononciation and spelling corrected by Bullying pedantics like the ones on this forum.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Why 'bru-ther'? - it sounds like a cup of tea extension rather than reflect the sound of the word to most.
> 
> Every post you make shows your theory to be ever more arbitrary and ill thought out.



If you take the phonetic spelling from the OED, the sound in the middle of 'brother' is usually spelt with a 'u', as in 'bruther' - for learners of the language having an 'o' in the middle might make them pronounce it wrong, leading to a possible misunderstanding:

Q: Do you have a brother (rhyming with loath-er)
A: I don't know what that is, is it a tool for DIY?
etc


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Wouldn't taking phonetic spelling from a bunchy of Oxford types be doomed to failure when applied to the wider populace?

Phonetic spelling in fusty dictionaries is often based around received  pronunciation, not everyday speech.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Wouldn't taking phonetic spelling from a bunchy of Oxford types be doomed to failure when applied to the wider populace?
> 
> Phonetic spelling in fusty dictionaries is often based around received  pronunciation, not everyday speech.



A bit of a curious reason for no change there...

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a 'correct' spelling?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Yes. I'm saying that swapping one set of 'correct' spellings that have built up through generations with a forced, new arbitrary system would be asinine and unhelpful.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> So your answer to 'help' the world's most successful language, one that's built up organically over many centuries, is to insist on some arbitrary, formalised phonetic rules? Haven't you considered that previous attempts to tailor 'official'  vocabulary and usage across the globe (eg in France) have failed dismally?
> 
> What makes your forced and arbitrary scheme any more of a goer that won't be disregarded by the majority of free willed individuals?



arbitrary? surely, that's what our spellings ar now. English is only the "World's most successful language" becoz of Commerce and Imperialism, and that one of the former colonies, America, became very successful in its own right. not becoz it is a fantastic and superior language.

Many langauges hav under-gon spelling reform, some even going further than that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_reform and it's not about vocabulary, it's about *spelling*.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

If you read most of those Wikipedia examples it shows failure in their attempts to control language and spelling. And none of those examples can adequately compare with the spread and widespread usage of English across the globe.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Surely it is obvious that 'gone' should rhyme with 'cone'?


I thought you weren't interested in vowel sounds?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Also, that's just one word. There are many many that it applies to.
> 
> 
> Law.
> ...




Lor.simple. rhymes with "or" as does "bor",  and
"mor", "dor" "flor" "jor" "cor" "gor" Hor" sor" stor" "Wor", "por", "nor" "yor" "shor" "spor" "explor"


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> is it really necessary for all students of English to learn that 'ph' is pronounced as 'f', when we could quite easily just use the 'f'?



What's your problem with "ph" being pronounced similarly (if not necessarily identically) to "f"?  Is it inconsistent?  Are there a whole subset of words with "ph" in them that are NOT pronounced in this way?  If not, why do they even enter into your phonetic problem list?  Surely it is actually one of the better phenomes, given that it is consistently pronounced in the same way in every word?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Upsidedownwalrus and others think that the history in the words is important in some way, but I still fail to see what *practical *importance they are referring to...


The *practical *importance is that you can guess what a word means even if you have never seen it before because it shares etymological roots with other words.  Changing spellings would kill this dead in the water.  The *practical *importance of knowing what words mean is significantly bigger than the *practical *importance of some arbitrary spelling rules based on one particular person's belief of how words should be pronounced at a particular point in time.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Yes. I'm saying that swapping one set of 'correct' spellings that have built up through generations with a forced, new arbitrary system would be asinine and unhelpful.



I think you're missing the point - we _*have *_to have a 'correct' spelling - so why not make it close to the way it is said. There are many words which are spelt nothing like how they are said, which creates barriers to learning.

If you reason for staying the same is just because it's tradition, then fine, but at least accept that there is no need for the 'b' in debt and it is a waste of valuable school education time to teach it.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

As Kabbes suggests, the 'b' in debt provides etymological links to related words - eg debit and the latin word 'debere' - to owe iirc.

You'd strip that etymology away and create new barriers to learning with new arbitrary and forced spellings.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

And you know what the real nail in the coffin is of phonetic spelling?  The final reason that it is and always will be doomed?

English is a mongrel language.  It exists as a hodgepodge of other languages.  _This process is still ongoing_.  We still are constantly co-opting foreign words into our own jargon and lexography.  It's an organic process.

If you insist on a phonetic spelling system then _every time a word is co-opted into our own language, some third party would have to decide officially how it should be spelt_.  This is clearly the biggest nonsense imaginable.  Instead we have the eminently more sensible approach by which we start by using the original spelling of the language it came from and then both pronounciation and spelling gradually evolve over time as the users of the word adapt it into their own wordsets.

As it ever was, so it ever will be.  It's the joy of having a language that is used the world over.  It's the joy of having a culture that absorbs and reflects other cultures.  And amen to that.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I thought you weren't interested in vowel sounds?



It's a fair cop guv'nor - I forgot myself 



kabbes said:


> What's your problem with "ph" being pronounced similarly (if not necessarily identically) to "f"?  Is it inconsistent?  Are there a whole subset of words with "ph" in them that are NOT pronounced in this way?  If not, why do they even enter into your phonetic problem list?  Surely it is actually one of the better phenomes, given that it is consistently pronounced in the same way in every word?



But why waste valuable education time explaining that it is pronounced as 'f'? There's no point - you may as well just spell it with an 'f'.



kabbes said:


> The *practical *importance is that you can guess what a word means even if you have never seen it before because it shares etymological roots with other words.  Changing spellings would kill this dead in the water.  The *practical *importance of knowing what words mean is significantly bigger than the *practical *importance of some arbitrary spelling rules based on one particular person's belief of how words should be pronounced at a particular point in time.



Why would sharing etymological roots help children learning literacy or foreigners learning English? It wouldn't - etymology is an academic pursuit. I challenge you to give an example where your 'practical' reason actually helps.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> As Kabbes suggest, the 'b' in debt provides etymological links to related words - eg debit and the latin word 'debere' - to owe iirc.
> 
> You'd strip that etymology away and create new barriers to learning with new arbitrary and forced spellings.


Exactly.  With an arbtrary pronounciation based spelling, you'd have to learn great long lists of words as individual and unique items rather than just understanding the basic root of a word and taking it from there.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Wouldn't taking phonetic spelling from a bunchy of Oxford types be doomed to failure when applied to the wider populace?
> 
> Phonetic spelling in fusty dictionaries is often based around received  pronunciation, not everyday speech.



Not really. the pronounciation table in dictionaries use a "one sound, one symbol" principle, which is what spelling is meant to be about anyway. Out of curiosity do foriegn languages' dictionaries hav a pronounciation key in their dictionaries, or is it becoz their spellings much mor closely to their  pronounciations that they don't need them?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

If the process is still ongoing, why is the spelling system atrophied?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Why would sharing etymological roots help children learning literacy or foreigners learning English? It wouldn't - etymology is an academic pursuit. I challenge you to give an example where your 'practical' reason actually helps.


You've already provided your own example.

Personally, I found learning French CONSIDERABLY easier as a result of noticing that a lot of the words were just the same as English words, only pronounced differently.  I'm pretty sure that works the other way round too.

Etymology is the exact opposite of a purely academic pursuit.  It help us all every day as it provides us with patterns, which are much easier to learn than lots of unique standalone items.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Exactly.  With an arbtrary pronounciation based spelling, you'd have to learn great long lists of words as individual and unique items rather than just understanding the basic root of a word and taking it from there.



People don't learn English like this - they learn sitting on their mum's knee, sounding out the words. Etymology is just an academic pursuit.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> If the process is still ongoing, why is the spelling system atrophied?


It hasn't atrophied.  

You're talking about established words that people have already come to a consensus on.  Well -- if the consensus already exists, it's stupidity indeed to shake it all up again.

It's the democracy of a billion users.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Not really. the pronounciation table in dictionaries use a "one sound, one symbol" principle, which is what spelling is meant to be about anyway. Out of curiosity do foriegn languages' dictionaries hav a pronounciation key in their dictionaries, or is it becoz their spellings much mor closely to their  pronounciations that they don't need them?



Yes, but who defined those 'one sounds' though - academics or the average joe on the street.

Foreign language dictionaries often have the same problems with their pronunciation keys fwiw. Compare vowel sounds between Portuguese and Brazilian portuguese for example, or even between Rio and Bahia.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> People don't learn English like this - they learn sitting on their mum's knee, sounding out the words. Etymology is just an academic pursuit.


What -- foreign speakers learn English on their mum's knee?

You can't get your story straight.  Who exactly are you trying to help here?

Besides, you might learn a certain amount of the English language by the age of five but you learn much more of it after that age.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> People don't learn English like this - they learn sitting on their mum's knee, sounding out the words. Etymology is just an academic pursuit.



Bollocks. I learnt loads of words as a nipper by guessing and 'feeling' their origins. Learning goes beyond mum's knee.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Personally, I'm still learning new words all the time.  But they tend to be much longer and more complicated words and I am *very* grateful for the fact that they haven't been arbitrarily manipulated for the ease of spelling and at the cost of providing a clue as to their meaning.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

I would rather improve literacy levels rather than maintaining the current interest in learning other languages.

For balance tho I recognise the point. When I learnt french there were a few words which were similar. However it is not quite that black and white - for example:

'to suggest' in french is 'suggérer' - and both should have a 'j' in them in stead of the 'g'.

Many languages are not phonetic, and French suffers from the same problem as English.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I would rather improve literacy levels rather than maintaining the current interest in learning other languages.



What does this gibberish actually mean. Is it not possible to do both?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Bollocks. I learnt loads of words as a nipper by guessing and 'feeling' their origins. Learning goes beyond mum's knee.



Sure it does, but sounding out the word 'debt' and being told you are wrong to pronounce the 'b' is just a pointless exercise.

And I doubt if you had anything to do with their origins when you learnt to read - that is just wishful thinking on your behalf.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> What does this gibberish actually mean. Is it not possible to do both?



The suggestion that we keep the current spelling system unchanged becoz it would help us learn other languages, but I am suggesting that we _should _change the current spelling system - and so no, we can't have both.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I am *very* grateful for the fact that they haven't been arbitrarily manipulated for the ease of spelling and at the cost of providing a clue as to their meaning.



You can't guess the meaning of words thru their spelling - that guess would not always be correct - and even if it were sometimes correct, my priority is helping literacy, not helping you to explore the history of the English language - that is a personal interest for you. Why should a good idea for improving literacy levels be stopped just because you want to go and explore a bit ov history?

Are there not enough books on this subject for you to read already?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Literacy means understanding what words mean when you read them, marthews.  It doesn't necessarily mean understanding how to spell them.

Nobody gets it in the neck because they pronounce the "b" in debt.  You're just making this up as you go along.


----------



## newme (Aug 6, 2009)

lol definitely making it up as he goes along, frankly making a piss poor job of it aswel.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Literacy means understanding what words mean when you read them, marthews.  It doesn't necessarily mean understanding how to spell them.



Literacy means reading and writing which both have an aspect of spelling - but if you feel this is a good point against then fair enough.



kabbes said:


> Nobody gets it in the neck because they pronounce the "b" in debt.  You're just making this up as you go along.



If you think that the 'b' in debt needs to be there then fine, you would prefer to keep things as they are - but I think that words should be spelt as they are said - it would be easier for children and foreigners and I have given ample examples to support my case. I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

You might not agree, but I am not alone in this btw - just put 'spelling reform' into google and see what comes up - you might not think it is an issue, but many others do.

If I hadn't seen Korea then I would agree with you all so no offence eh? I am happy that at least THINK! sees the merit in the idea.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

You're right in as much as you say that we can agree to disagree.  The problem for you is that in order to enact any change, you have to persuade a majority of people NOT to disagree.  I, on the other hand, can just enjoy the status quo.

You don't seem to be having much success in persuading people.


----------



## zog (Aug 6, 2009)

Pingu said:


> ITA anyone?
> 
> http://www.itafoundation.org/ita.htm
> 
> ...



I learnt to read and write using ITA. flew it. was the first in the class to move on to propper english. it all fell apart then couldn't hack the transition and it set me back years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Surely it is obvious that 'gone' should rhyme with 'cone'? And that the fact that it doesn't could cause confusion with children or foreigners learning the language. It is reasonable to suggest that those who learn the language would prefer the actual pronunciation to be given by the spelling rather than some bizarre history story...


It's up to you to *demonstrate* this "obviousness" that you keep making claim to then, isn't it?


> And why would it be such a massive change? The Germans did it a few years ago, so why couldn't we?


_Hochsdeutsch_  (i.e. "standard German") has oddities of pronunciation regardless of the spelling, and has words with double meanings just like English has.


> One wonders why changing 'close' as 'cloze' would cause such a problem, and I would suggest that it wouldn't - I reckon that we could rise to the challenge.
> 
> What intrigues me is why you are ignoring the principle here. Sure you reckon that there would be no political will - and I would agree - but in principle the changes suggested would improve verbal communication. No longer would foreigners pronounce words as spelt and fail to be understood. Foreigners and children would have fewer spelling rules to learn, and so it would waste less time learning it by rote. English as an international language would grow, and improve in its effectiveness.



Explain how the effectiveness of the English language would be improved, please. Fewer declarations, more demonstrations if you don't mind!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*Massive* shift?" What? knocking off a letter at the end of a word. We ar not implementing a new alfabet, just simplifying some spellings. We already liv with "variant spelling" American words, and
> 
> Weetabix
> Brycreem
> ...


You miss the point.
*If* you change the basis for education in the English language then you have two ways you can go:
1) Allow piecemeal change where every educator in the land uses the phonetic spellings that seem easiest/most convenient o them.
*OR*
2) Codify an entire new system of "phonetic" spellings and roll it out across the UK, pretty much replacing the current codified system with another codified system, with all the accompanying issues.


> I keep repeating myself becoz you (plural) kept repeating yorself, making the same assertions and got stuck in some Regional accents quick-sand and didn't moov on.
> 
> As for People with English as a second language they would, probably, just follow along. Why ar they so important?


Erm...trade, by any chance? If English is, as GMart insists, such an important "international language", then altering the basis of the way our language is spelt is extremely contentious in terms of how it would effect, for example, written contracts.


> If I spoke Gjerman, would they consult me about their fairly recent spelling reform/changes? It's their language, their country they can do what they want to, if  I learnt Gjerman is it becoz I wanted to or becoz I wanted to take over? They don't hav to consult me. I think I hav already described  how the spelling reform would happen. Yes, I hav post 49. my first post on this thread, I think.


Blathering on about "ooh, it could be done over _x_ number of years" is just that: Blather. All it does is put across your uninformed opinion, it doesn't actually propose any worthwhile and/or *realistic* method.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Children don't know how many words ar spelt, they would welcome "Spelling Reform"...


If, as you claim, children don't know how many words are spelt, then logically they'd have *no reason whatsoever* to welcome "spelling reform", would they? 


> a couple of lojical changes, they won't believ the way words used to be spelt and that there wer people actually resistant to change when they grow-up. Foriegners would, also, welcome spelling reform, English is a humilating minefield for many. Getting larf'd at and having their prononciation and spelling corrected by Bullying pedantics.



Fantasy from a fantasist whose own argument has bit him on the arse.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

I do like the idea of simplying 'laughed' by using an apostrophe to shorten it to 'larf'd' though. There are good simple rules about apostrophes and absolutely everyone understands and uses them correctly now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I thought you weren't interested in vowel sounds?



One wonders whether he pronounces "scone" to rhyme with "cone" or "con".


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Explain how the effectiveness of the English language would be improved, please. Fewer declarations, more demonstrations if you don't mind!



No offense VP, but i've given so many examples that if you don't get it now that is your problem not mine. It is not a difficult idea to get a grip on - the idea that we should spell as we speak - so 'fone' instead of 'phone' - if you cannot understand that this would negate the need to learn the rule that 'ph' is pronounced as an 'f' - then I am surprised.

Furthermore this is just one example of the vast number of little rules English has. When they add them all up we are talking about a large amount of education time.

Still, if you don't think it is important, then fair enough.

As for the German orthography reform of 1996 - if you refuse to consider it relevant, then again that is your freedom.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No offense VP, but i've given so many examples that if you don't get it now that is your problem not mine. It is not a difficult idea to get a grip on - the idea that we should spell as we speak - so 'fone' instead of 'phone'



I don't say fone, i say phone though. Am i not in the 'we'?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Good luck reprinting and rewriting the vast amount of material that would become incomprehensible overnight.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I do like the idea of simplying 'laughed' by using an apostrophe to shorten it to 'larf'd' though. There are good simple rules about apostrophes and absolutely everyone understands and uses them correctly now.



'laughed' is a good example of what I am suggesting - 'larfed' would be much more logical.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

It's not pronounced "larfed" though.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Good luck reprinting and rewriting the vast amount of material that would become incomprehensible overnight.



The find and replace facility of my Word 2007 copy would indeed be busy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Indeed, there's no r in it for a start.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It's not pronounced "larfed" though.



It is in the OED... Or are you arguing against the idea of a 'correct' spelling regime?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The find and replace facility of my Word 2007 copy would indeed be busy.



Because that what all the worlds eng lit  pubs were produced using.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is in the OED... Or are you arguing against the idea of a 'correct' spelling regime?



Oh so we all have to chage how we pronouce words according to the OED def *as well*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I do like the idea of simplying 'laughed' by using an apostrophe to shorten it to 'larf'd' though. There are good simple rules about apostrophes and absolutely everyone understands and uses them correctly now.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but using an apostrophe in such a context would indicate that the word was to be pronounced "larf-ed", i.e. two syllables _a la_ Shakespeare, rather than the current single-syllable compressed pronunciation,  would it not? 
I thought that THINK!'s system was supposed to make things easier?


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Oh so we all have to chage how we pronouce words according to the OED def *as well*



Yep, rather than the level playing field we have at the moment, the poor retarded working class children that Gmarthews wants to help so much will have to memorise standard pronunciations as well as the new set of spellings.

Does anyone else thing that Gmarthews and THICK! are actually the same person?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No offense VP, but i've given so many examples that if you don't get it now that is your problem not mine. It is not a difficult idea to get a grip on - the idea that we should spell as we speak - so 'fone' instead of 'phone' - if you cannot understand that this would negate the need to learn the rule that 'ph' is pronounced as an 'f' - then I am surprised.


I didn't ask for examples, I asked forexplanations and demonstrations.


> Furthermore this is just one example of the vast number of little rules English has. When they add them all up we are talking about a large amount of education time.
> 
> Still, if you don't think it is important, then fair enough.
> 
> As for the German orthography reform of 1996 - if you refuse to consider it relevant, then again that is your freedom.


Interesting that you've pretty much missed the point of the 1996 reforms. 
The orthographic reforms were deemed necessary primarily because of re-unification and the perceived need to "regularise" spellings in written German, not to "phoneticise" them, hence you *still* have words that defy "phonetic" rules. What the _rechtschreibreform_ actually did was put in place a system that, due to the diverse nature of German education systems in the previous 5 decades, penalises those who were educated before the law was signed into legislation if they "lapse" into non-approved spelling.
Is that what you're after? 

It's also interesting to note that many of the signatories to the _rechtschreibreform_ never fully implemented it. Austria still mostly elides _umlauts_ from their written language, and Switzerland still uses the _eszett_ "inappropriately", among other "offences".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I don't say fone, i say phone though. Am i not in the 'we'?



Thing is, to me the abbreviation "phone" tells a story. The word implies communication, whereas "fone" doesn't give you (or any speaker of a Romance tongue who's trying to find a telephone) the same etymological clue.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> Does anyone else thing that Gmarthews and THICK! are actually the same person?



Blimey! How much typing do you think I can do? 

I've made my case over and over - people here who are still demanding more should just re-read the thread. I have addressed these points and no one has here suggested why we can't change 'phone' to 'fone' - or any of my other examples - I am bored of repeating myself - if you don't get it then fair enough...


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

While we're at it, we need to rename our numbers.

_Eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen_ don't fit the same pattern as _four_teen, _six_teen, _seven_teen, _eight_een and _nine_teen.  And none of the teens follow the pattern of 20 upwards - xty-_one_, xty_two_ and so on.

Further, the decimals are inconsistent.  _Four_ty, _six_ty, _seven_ty, _eight_y and _nine_ty are fine, but _twenty, thirty and fifty_ don't fit.

After that, we can resculpt Britain because the geography's too irregular and thus confusing.  Chemical elements should be renamed with a string of alphanumerics that accurately describe their relationship with each other.  We should replace all housing with totally utilitarian designs, only copulate for the purposes of reproduction, and burn everything that is artistic or beauty.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

The German reform is just an example of the ability to change - in reposte to those who are against change.

There seems to be a divide here between those who consider the etymological root of the word to be more important than spelling the word as it sounds, and those who believe the inverse.

I understand your position and I hope you understand mine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> *The German reform is just an example of the ability to change - in reposte to those who are against change.*
> 
> There seems to be a divide here between those who consider the etymological root of the word to be more important than spelling the word as it sounds, and those who believe the inverse.
> 
> I understand your position and I hope you understand mine.



 Riposte. It's french.


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I understand your position and I hope you understand mine.



Ye.  But yor stil ron.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> While we're at it, we need to rename our numbers.



It is not a black and white thing - there is grey area where there is some reform. Isn't this a slippery slope fallacy, AKA the thin edge of the wedge. IE bollocks...


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is not a black and white thing - there is grey area where there is some reform. Isn't this a slippery slope fallacy, AKA the thin edge of the wedge. IE bollocks...



You do know that Hitler was a fan of spelling reform right?


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I've made my case over and over - people here who are still demanding more should just re-read the thread. I have addressed these points and no one has here suggested why we can't change 'phone' to 'fone' - or any of my other examples - I am bored of repeating myself - if you don't get it then fair enough...



You haven't addressed _any_ of the points though. You just keep going 'but it would be easier...'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The German reform is just an example of the ability to change - in reposte to those who are against change.


Except that if it's an example at all, it's a very poor one. It *didn't* have the intended and legislated effect. What it *in fact* did (and still does) was /is get a lot of people who are filling out official forms, applying for jobs etc, discounted because they "lapse" into the language they were taught rather than using the language as legislated.
Oh, and if you're going to use foreign words, please spell them correctly, it's "r*i*poste". 


> There seems to be a divide here between those who consider the etymological root of the word to be more important than spelling the word as it sounds, and those who believe the inverse.


I haven't seen anyone on this thread state what you claim. What I *have* seen is people stating that etymology is important _per se_, not that it is "more important than". Stop inventing false dichotomies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> You do know that Hitler was a fan of spelling reform right?



And especially a fan of capitalisation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> You haven't addressed _any_ of the points though. You just keep going 'but it would be easier...'.



Ah, you've noticed that too? Glad it's not just me (and everyone else, of course)!


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> You do know that Hitler was a fan of spelling reform right?



Why is that relevant he was a vegetarian as well - are you going to trot that out as a reasonable argument against being a vegetarian?



maomao said:


> You haven't addressed _any_ of the points though. You just keep going 'but it would be easier...'.



Yes, it would be easier for those involved not to have to teach a vast array of different conflicting rules such as: 'ph' and (in some cases) 'gh' are pronounced as an 'f'.

What point do you think i've ignored? (cue the opportunity for you to tell me to read your posts while failing to number which ones I apparently missed...)

As I say it is really down to whether you consider the etymological root of the word to be more important than spelling the word as it sounds, rather than the inverse as I do. 

This is not a false dichotomy (another useless 'h' in there). Why do you think it is VP? Describe a position which is not one of these two? Believing both as equally the same importance would seem a strange position analogous to sitting on the fence while not believing either to be important begs the question why you are here at all.

Maybe I should start a poll on this - then you could all win democratically and sit around feeling righteous while going on about how closed minded I am?


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

I was taking the piss darling.

Which probably puts your comprehension skills in an appropriate light.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> What point do you think i've ignored? (cue the opportunity for you to tell me to read your posts while failing to number which ones I apparently missed...)



1. Changes in sounds due to accents are not evenly distributed. For instance I don't distinguish the vowel sound in 'poor' from the one in 'paw'. A spelling reform that dealt with vowel sounds would make it necessary for children who grow up speaking non-standard dialects to learn standard pronunciations as well as standard spellings neither of which would be relevant to the language we speak.

2. Spelling reform based on sound would create a prestige dialect of English. This is the case in all countries who have a standard sound based spelling system including Korea. Your previous answer to this 'ever heard of the Queen's English' was nothing more than gibberish. The current 'prestige pronunciation' of UK English is actually known as Recieved Pronunciation. Very few people actually speak it outside the BBC (certainly not the Queen) and speaking in a regional accent is not a barrier to getting a job in most sectors. This is not the case in Korea.

3. Our current system of spelling preserves morphemes, or 'units of meaning'. A pair of words like 'electric' and 'electricity' is a beautiful illustration of this. Under your system where 'c's are unecessary the connection between the two words is invisible to the English as a second language learner. This is less important with basic vocabulary and much more important with advanced vocabulary. 

4. It's prettier. Having some f sounds spelled as 'f' and some spelled as 'ph' is nice and doesn't take a huge amount of effort to learn and conveys some of the history of the word.

5. Spelling reform would isolate UK English from US English. Foreign students would stop coming to the UK to learn English as the English that they learned would be unusable outside the UK.

6. Legal documents/contracts/invoices/reciepts all require clear language that is universally agreed upon. Spelling reform wouldn't make this impossible but the examples in your writing certainly make it very difficult.

Of course I've just wasted half a fucking hour because you'll just turn up, deny that any of those points are at all important and tell us all that it would be much easier if we changed all the 'ph's to 'f's.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> You haven't addressed _any_ of the points though. You just keep going 'but it would be easier...'.



This is my issue. Gmarthews seems to be arguing from a position of blind faith rather than anything approaching linguistic insight or relevant precedent.  The less said about THINK the better really.

I fear you may be wasting all that detail maomao.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I fear you may be wasting all that detail maomao.



It was a 50 minute wait for pizza tonight. I had time.


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> It was a 50 minute wait for pizza tonight.



Was it _still_ really disappointing once you'd got past the first slice?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

*These are all points you've made already:*



maomao said:


> 1. Changes in sounds due to accents are not evenly distributed. For instance I don't distinguish the vowel sound in 'poor' from the one in 'paw'. A spelling reform that dealt with vowel sounds would make it necessary for children who grow up speaking non-standard dialects to learn standard pronunciations as well as standard spellings neither of which would be relevant to the language we speak.



Once again I am forced to point out that I have no interest in addressing vowel sounds - so why are you yet again bringing it up? My focus is on consonant changes such as spelling 'phone' as fone'



maomao said:


> 2. Spelling reform based on sound would create a prestige dialect of English. This is the case in all countries who have a standard sound based spelling system including Korea. Your previous answer to this 'ever heard of the Queen's English' was nothing more than gibberish. The current 'prestige pronunciation' of UK English is actually known as Recieved Pronunciation. Very few people actually speak it outside the BBC (certainly not the Queen) and speaking in a regional accent is not a barrier to getting a job in most sectors. This is not the case in Korea.



I am surprised at such a sweeping generalisation on the end there - there are accents in Korea and I would guess that there is discrimination based on it, but I don't see the relevance.

Still Received Pronunciation is also known as Queen's English and I think we agree that there needs to be a 'correct' form of spelling for the reasons repeated ad nauseum so far... so there is already a prestige dialect and again relevance? People are already discriminated because of it, but that is another issue and it is not likely that changing the spelling of 'phone' to 'fone' would exacerbate it.



maomao said:


> 3. Our current system of spelling preserves morphemes, or 'units of meaning'. A pair of words like 'electric' and 'electricity' is a beautiful illustration of this. Under your system where 'c's are necessary the connection between the two words is invisible to the English as a second language learner. This is less important with basic vocabulary and much more important with advanced vocabulary.



So it would be impossible or more difficult to note the similarity between electrisity and electric. That's absurd.



maomao said:


> 4. It's prettier. Having some f sounds spelled as 'f' and some spelled as 'ph' is nice and doesn't take a huge amount of effort to learn and conveys some of the history of the word.



Fine, you think the current system is prettier, at least that is a clear argument.



maomao said:


> 5. Spelling reform would isolate UK English from US English. Foreign students would stop coming to the UK to learn English as the English that they learned would be unusable outside the UK.



There are already differences between US and UK English, and we seem to manage to create words every year and absorb them with little difficulty. 



maomao said:


> 6. Legal documents/contracts/invoices/reciepts all require clear language that is universally agreed upon. Spelling reform wouldn't make this impossible but the examples in your writing certainly make it very difficult.



So you are suggesting that if the spelling of 'close' were to be changed to 'cloze' then the usage of this word in legal documents would be difficult. I can't imagine this would be that difficult - 

Q: What's that word?
A: Oh! it's the alternate spelling of 'close'

Comprehension would still be fine - People aren't thick you know.



maomao said:


> Of course I've just wasted half a fucking hour because you'll just turn up, deny that any of those points are at all important and tell us all that it would be much easier if we changed all the 'ph's to 'f's.



You and me both - and still you'll probably repeat it yet again, why? becoz people who disagree with you can't have understood what you said eh?

Except I DO understand what you and others here say - I just disagree, and rather than accept that, they call me thick or claim that I have failed to read/understand etc.

If you DID turn around and accepted that changing all the 'ph' and 'gh' into 'f', would make it easier for the children learning and for foreigners then that would be a start - it is what the US call a no brainer - Not needing to learn a rule is easier than needing to learn a rule - and in this case there are stacks of bizarre rules which make English more difficult to learn.

However, you don't care so much about that because you think that maintaining the etymology in the word is more important; I just have a different set of principles - my priority is to make English easier to learn for children and foreigners (and dyslexics as well) - not to help people to discuss the roots of the words round a nice bottle of chablis.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

I give up. You're a self important fucking imbecile who is incapable of having an argument and you're now on my ignore list.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> However, you don't care so much about that because you think that maintaining the etymology in the word is more important; I just have a different set of principles - my priority is to make English easier to learn for children and foreigners (and dyslexics as well) - not to help people to discuss the roots of the words round a nice bottle of chablis.



This is a snidey load of self-aggrandising bollocks.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> I give up. You're a self important fucking imbecile who is incapable of having an argument and you're now on my ignore list.



Is this the reaction when you disagree with everyone?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> This is a snidey load of self-aggrandising bollocks.



we are back to patrician gmat who seems to think only the m/c can appreciate language and it's him who must rescue the poor from exclusionary bourgoise written english.

Yeah, it's the same bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Come back when you do english better g-mart.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> This is a snidey load of self-aggrandising bollocks.



Are people not allowed to have different views to you?

I don't see how it makes me better in some way (self-aggrandising) - I deliberately said that we have _different _principles.

So everyone is joined in their mutual abuse of the one who disagrees.

Have none of you heard of agreeing to disagree? Everyone doesn't have to think the same you know!


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Is it worth arguing with someone who talks of 'no brainers' when there's little truth or logic to your claim, let alone widespread agreement?

It's like arguing with a child frankly. You keep on presenting the same nonsense as unarguable despite all evidence to the contrary. On one hand we've maomao, a person clearly interested and informed on linguistics and languages. And then there's you.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Is it worth arguing with someone who talks of 'no brainers' when there's little truth or logic to your claim, let alone widespread agreement?
> 
> It's like arguing with a child frankly. You keep on presenting the same nonsense as unarguable despite all evidence to the contrary. On one hand we've maomao, a person clearly interested and informed on linguistics and languages. And then there's you.



But there IS no evidence to the contrary - and you only think that Maomao is informed becoz she agrees with you.

And some things ARE unarguable - like we need food to exist - I wouldn't need to produce evidence, it is just obvious - in the same way as it is obvious that people would have fewer difficulties learning to read and write if there were fewer rules to learn.

I assure you that I find your position just as irritating - How (I wonder) can they not see the logic of my position?

The difference is that I don't suddenly start calling people names just becoz they disagree with me.

And you, sir, are supporting the one who decides to abuse rather than walk away from a thread - No one is forcing anyone to read or respond here...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

It's nature!!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> I give up. You're a self important fucking imbecile who is incapable of having an argument and you're now on my ignore list.



Keep him on for reading fun, he's great value when you don't have to respond.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> - How (I wonder) can they not see the logic of my position?
> 
> The difference is that I don't suddenly start calling people names just becoz they disagree with me.



Fuck me, you're a guileless twat. There isn't logic in your position, there are assertions only. I can accept your viewpoint, just not the conceited belief that it's a 'no brainer.'

I think you're a bit delusional myself. And then you've the fucking cheek to accuse others of insulting you (_he done it first teacher_) after projecting nonsensical viewpoints onto others, implying that they're some kind of vino-drinking ponces who are only interested in etymology above all else. 

You're a muppet on a mission. But don't con yourself that you've right, logic or polite debate on your side.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Fuck me, you're a guileless twat. There isn't logic in your position, there are assertions only. I can accept your viewpoint, just not the conceited belief that it's a 'no brainer.'
> 
> I think you're a bit delusional myself. And then you've the fucking cheek to accuse others of insulting you (_he done it first teacher_) after projecting nonsensical viewpoints onto others, implying that they're some kind of vino-drinking ponces who are only interested in etymology above all else.
> 
> You're a muppet on a mission. But don't con yourself that you've right, logic or polite debate on your side.



The very existence of other languages which are more phonetic than English and yet still manage to have accents (and entymology) suggests that you are mistaken. Your priorities may be different to mine, but it is not me who is doing the insulting or the self-delusion.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

Why doesn't  that work the other way then? The existence of a succesful language that is less phonetic than others etc


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

Listen petal.  A conversation is meant to be a two-way exchange of ideas.

You, sweet thing, have a transmit function, but no receiver.

Hence folks are now telling you to get bent.

Your MO's been quite apparant from the onset, so why they bothered in the first place is beyond me tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

English  - history's greatest failure.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Here is a list of 268 words containing the phoneme 'phon':http://www.morewords.com/contains/phon/

In the vast majority of these words the phoneme phon retains it's meaning of relating to sound or voices. If we were to change all these 'ph's to f's a valuable clue for the language learner in all of these words would be forever lost. It may make things _slightly_ easier for readers under the age of 8 or learners of basic English who probably only have to use 2 or 3 of these. It would however make learning far harder for the learner of advanced English who would either be denied this clue or forced to the mistaken conclusion that the 71 words on this list http://www.morewords.com/contains/fon/ have something to do with sound.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 6, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Why doesn't  that work the other way then? The existence of a succesful language that is less phonetic than others etc



Yep, because if I had to pick a culture and language that'd be particularly relevant to England it'd be Korea and Korean for sure.

The phrase barking simpleton with a logic failure spring to mind for some reason.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> Listen petal.  A conversation is meant to be a two-way exchange of ideas.
> 
> You, sweet thing, have a transmit function, but no receiver.
> 
> ...



Well thank you for the lack of abuse. 

Are you saying that I should have agreed with them when I didn't agree? 

I just don't find their arguments convincing becoz I have lived in Korea and have seen at first hand the simplicity of having a more phonetic spelling system. 

I am not arguing that we should have a completely phonetic system, or that we should even address the inconsistencies of the vowel sounds - I have consistently argued for the adjustment of consonant sounds. There is even an organisation set up called The Spelling Society which is an international organisation, based in the United Kingdom founded in 1908. So my views are not illogical - we just disagree - so why the abuse?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

I will not be addressing the points made by Maomao as she has me on ignore.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

You didn't address them when he wasn't on ignore.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Yep, because if I had to pick a culture and language that'd be particularly relevant to England it'd be Korea and Korean for sure.
> 
> The phrase barking simpleton with a logic failure spring to mind for some reason.



There are lots of languages in Europe which are more phonetic - such as Italian and Spanish.

More abuse just makes your arguments less convincing.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

It doesn't effect the strength of the argument at all prof.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I will not be addressing the points made by Maomao as she has me on ignore.



Lol. I decided to stick to my rule of not putting anyone on ignore no matter how idiotic and frustrating their argument. The real reason you won't answer my last point is because you can't. Etymology is not just a subject for after dinner conversation, it's an important tool in language learning. I'm guessing you've never been involved in advanced language learning as a teacher or student. I've done both. 

And I'm a boy.


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Well thank you for the lack of abuse.
> 
> Are you saying that I should have agreed with them when I didn't agree?
> 
> ...



Leaving aside the many practical issues for a second, you're ignoring everything about language other than its spelling.  Language is a fuck of a lot more than that.

I'm not getting into a discussion about it with you though.  You've demonstrated your inability to step outside your mission repeatedly on this thread.  Not a fruitful environment.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> Language is a fuck of a lot more than that.



It is indeed - and is currently in all the countries that I have mentioned.

I am free to disagree as are they - I could argue that they have been just as unable to step outside their mission repeatedly on this thread.

So it cuts both ways - arguing with them is also not a fruitful environment - so why do they reduce themselves to abuse rather than just unsubscribing and walking away?


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So it cuts both ways - arguing with them is also not a fruitful environment - so why do they reduce themselves to abuse rather than just unsubscribing and walking away?



Because there's something uniquely frustrating about the way you write posts which create the appearance of engaging in a civilised argument but actually ignore every point put against you. Now please answer my last but one post contrasting words containg 'phon' with words containing 'fon'.


----------



## Corax (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is indeed - and is currently in all the countries that I have mentioned.
> 
> I am free to disagree as are they - I could argue that they have been just as unable to step outside their mission repeatedly on this thread.
> 
> So it cuts both ways - arguing with them is also not a fruitful environment - so why do they reduce themselves to abuse rather than just unsubscribing and walking away?





Corax said:


> I'm not getting into a discussion about it with you though.  You've demonstrated your inability to step outside your mission repeatedly on this thread.  Not a fruitful environment.



.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol. I decided to stick to my rule of not putting anyone on ignore no matter how idiotic and frustrating their argument. The real reason you won't answer my last point is because you can't. Etymology is not just a subject for after dinner conversation, it's an important tool in language learning. I'm guessing you've never been involved in advanced language learning as a teacher or student. I've done both.
> 
> And I'm a boy.



Good for you - and in your great tradition I will do so when I feel that you have addressed my issues 

Meanwhile I have several years of successful teaching of English behind me - so you can't quite use that line. Indeed etymology can be used in the advanced classes later - so what? My priority is the lower levels, not the higher ones. I'm sure they would be able to understand the movement towards a more phonetic system indeed many countries would applaud it.

Oh! and I looked at that list and yes I would change ALL of them. Why not?

And Corax - why do you recognise my intransigence and yet refuse to see theirs.

And 268 words with 'phon' in them might seem a lot, but we manage to absorb thousands of new words every year without blinking. I think change can be embraced - we could always go back if people started to die


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> Here is a list of 268 words containing the phoneme 'phon':http://www.morewords.com/contains/phon/
> 
> In the vast majority of these words the phoneme phon retains it's meaning of relating to sound or voices. If we were to change all these 'ph's to f's a valuable clue for the language learner in all of these words would be forever lost. It may make things _slightly_ easier for readers under the age of 8 or learners of basic English who probably only have to use 2 or 3 of these. It would however make learning far harder for the learner of advanced English who would either be denied this clue or forced to the mistaken conclusion that the 71 words on this list http://www.morewords.com/contains/fon/ have something to do with sound.



A fantastic post.  And that, frankly, should be that.  It's a complete argument-killer.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Oh! and I looked at that list and yes I would change ALL of them. Why not?



Because the spelling used is incredibly useful in indicating meaning for language learners and native English speakers alike (I certainly don't know all the words in that list. You've made a very small gain by replacing two letters with one and introduced a whole new level of confusion.


> And 268 words with 'phon' in them might seem a lot, but we manage to absorb thousands of new words every year without blinking.



Not after the age of 11 we don't. The vast majority of new words learned as an adult aren't completely fresh words but rather new arrangements of phonemes to express fresh concepts. I can't remember the last time I learned a wholly new word at least part of which I didn't already recognise. Even apparently completely new coinages such as 'ipod' are in fact combinations of phonemes that we already understand.Your system is demonstrably _more_ difficult than the one you seek to replace but again you just deny it. Are you claiming that adults learning new items of vocabulary learn them all as individual items with no reference to vocabulary already recognised? Because that's just not true.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

kabbes said:


> A fantastic post.  And that, frankly, should be that.  It's a complete argument-killer.



Only coz you agree - I think mine have been cast iron argument killers too...

So allow me:



> the phoneme phon retains it's meaning of relating to sound or voices



And so this would change to:



> the phoneme 'fon' means relating to sound or voices and used to be spelt 'phon'.



No problem, while once again this shows that we divide between those who believe etymology is more important than improving the understanding of children, foreigners and dyslexics on the one hand and those who believe the opposite.

Change is not necessarily something to rationalise against. There are many examples of change in the past when the majority were against change because they thought the world would fall apart and didn't trust people to be able to change...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

> Change is not necessarily something to rationalise against



Lern english


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No problem, while once again this shows that we divide between those who believe etymology is more important than improving the understanding of children, foreigners and dyslexics on the one hand and those who believe the opposite.



So the words _fondant, fontanelle_ and _fondle_ relate to sounds and voices do they?



> Change is not necessarily something to rationalise against. There are many examples of change in the past when the majority were against change because they thought the world would fall apart and didn't trust people to be able to change...



I'm starting to think this is a deliberate troll. Surely no-one could be quite so fucking self important?

Could you please present evidence that spelling reform would specifically help dyslexics? My understanding of that disorder is that it involves something quite different. I've already proved that retaining the spellings of morphemes in their original form can be an advantage to advanced language learners (native speakers or otherwise, specifically including 'children and foreigners).


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

maomao said:


> So the words fondant, fontanelle and fondle relate to sounds and voices do they?



Nope, etymology would become less consistent of course. Do you think you could still teach it? I suspect so.



maomao said:


> Because the spelling used is incredibly useful in indicating meaning for language learners and native English speakers alike (I certainly don't know all the words in that list. You've made a very small gain by replacing two letters with one and introduced a whole new level of confusion.



This is just getting stupid - I see things differently to you - I think that etymology, though of some use for higher students, pales into insignificance when compared with the gains that a more phonetic system would give. 

I don't think we are going to agree - you feel that etymology is more important than phonetic spelling and so countenance no change - I see the gains of phonetic spelling as more important than the consistency of etymology for the advanced class.

We understand each others position and disagree - we have different priorities so why continue? You have shown yourself to be closed to changing your position and so have I ( we have both had ample chance to present our cases). People can disagree with different opinions you know...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And so this would change to:


Would you like a chance to reread the thing you are supposed to be replying to?  Or should I say, actually read for the first time the thing you are supposed to be replying?  Because the answer to your idea is already in the post you are quoting.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This is just getting stupid - I see things differently to you - I think that etymology, though of some use for higher students, pales into insignificance when compared with the gains that a more phonetic system would give.



You think that removing the "ph" combination -- which is consistently pronounced the same way across the language -- is a bigger deal than removing a massive hint to understanding what unknown words mean?

You are a complete nutter.  Nobody -- _nobody_ has a problem with knowing how to pronounce "ph" for more than about five minutes after they find out how to pronounce it.  Whereas knowing what words mean is the fundamentals of communication.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 6, 2009)

Kabbes I simply disagree with you all - I just don't believe that the change would:



> make learning far harder for the learner of advanced English



By definition the advanced classes have students in them who would be able to deal with such a change. It is the principle of making a language simpler rather than letting it atrophy - but I am repeating myself (as is everyone).

Enough - I have bashed my head against this brick wall enough. I am allowed to disagree and yet the posters here seem reluctant to stop the personal abuse. I respect your opinions but I have not found them to be persuasive, tho I see your points clearly. I simply don't put as much importance on etymology as you do here. I thus respectively withdraw.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

wifdraw surely?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2009)

OK, well godspeed and good luck with persuading the several billion people that use the English language that they should all change all their body of written language and learn a brand new way to spell, dictated to by some tiny community that has nothing to do with their lives.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Kabbes I simply disagree with you all - I just don't believe that the change would:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'As I leave I shall call the facts I failed to refute opinions and as a parting shot I shall pretend etymology alone was the only flaw in my genius idea'

There's been about 3-4 major issues raised and perhaps half a dozen lesser issues that entirely scuppered your idea for phonetic spelling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's nature!!



It's a veritable fucking running theme for people with poor arguments, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The very existence of other languages which are more phonetic than English and yet still manage to have accents (and entymology) suggests that you are mistaken.


Suggestion is merely supposition without evidence.
I'll ask again, please explain your theisis. Not piecemeal as though it were self-evident established fact, but as though you were explaining it to students. 


> Your priorities may be different to mine, but it is not me who is doing the insulting or the self-delusion.


That, surely, is entirely a matter of perspective?


----------



## Shevek (Aug 6, 2009)

I like all the quirks of the English language


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a veritable fucking running theme for people with poor arguments, isn't it?



...and the same people crop up using it time after time as well


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Well thank you for the lack of abuse.
> 
> Are you saying that I should have agreed with them when I didn't agree?
> 
> ...



There was also a national society set up for the propagation of Esperanto in the same era. That doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I will not be addressing the points made by Maomao as she has me on ignore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> ...and the same people crop up using it time after time as well



The scum also rises.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

*Etymology*

Etymology

97% of people in this country don't know what "etymology" is, 98% don't know how to spell it, (I didn't), and 99% don't giv a FUCK about it. Etymology is just about the weakest reason not to hav spelling reform. If etymology is so important we would still back with the hieroglyphs, which our alfabet is derived from. Most of our words ar derived and not in the original form, if they wer so many of them would be different scripts/alfabets, all Greek words, Russian words, Jugganaut, Candy, pyjamas, algebra etc. all in different scripts. and i would love if you know what the  etymology of simple every day words like "Have", "gone", "give",  ar without looking them up. and as GM has so eloquently put it, 

*"Spelling is about literacy* not *history"*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2009)

I love people who pull statistics out of their arse.


Have, gone and give are all short single syllable words and that suggests to me that they would be from norse roots. Couldn't be more precise than that without looking up, but they don't look or sound frenchy or latinate to me.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

One out of every five English-speaking adults world wide is functionally illiterate, i.e. can not fill out a job application.

the same number are marginally literate. They have difficulty reading a newspaper article or writing a simple letter, making a complaint or asking for information.

65% of unemploted adults have minimal or no literacy skills.


60% of prisoners ar illiterate and 80% 0of all juvenile offenders hav reading problems.

The Us Deptartment of Labor estimates theat illiteracy costs business and taxpayers $25 milion a year through workplace accidents and lost prouctivity


Most modern languages update their spellings when they begin to make learning to read and write too difficult. These countries hav higher litearcy rates than do any of the Engilish speaking ones.

Richard Feyman, Nobel Prize winner in physics 1965 sed:

"All the time you hear the question, "why can't Johnny read?" the anser is: becoz of the spelling

When professors of English complain to nme that the students who come to the universities, after all those years of study, still cannot spell "friend", I say to them that something's the matter with the way you spell, "Friend".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

Many eminent figures throughout history hav thought the English spelling was in dire need of improovment, including:

*the Great Charles Darwin,
George Bernard Shaw,
Lord Tennyson,
Mark Twain,
Adrwew Carnegie 
and Theodore Roosevelt *

Benjamin Frankilin was also amomng them. Franklin casll'd for for spelling reform becoz he beleiv'd that the health of democracy depended on having a literartre people.

Many of the improovments to English spelling can be made to siut all of the hundreds of versions of English pronouciations.

Changing the spellings does not change the language. The earlier versions of "_early, earn, learn, believe w_ell" wer " _erly, ern, lern beleeve, wel_", but sounded just the same as they do now


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Literacy means understanding what words mean when you read them, marthews.  It doesn't necessarily mean understanding how to spell them.
> 
> Nobody gets it in the neck because they pronounce the "b" in debt.  You're just making this up as you go along.



First, you hav to able to read them to recognise the word, if you know their meaning that comes after.

Nobody gets it in the neck because they pronounce the "b" in debt. but they do if they spell it without the "b".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> If, as you claim, children don't know how many words are spelt, then logically they'd have *no reason whatsoever* to welcome "spelling reform", would they?
> 
> 
> Fantasy from a fantasist whose own argument has bit him on the arse.



Fantasy used to be spelt "Phantasy", why didn't you use that version? You learnt the new one and ar amazed they used to spell it the old stupid way just like a kid would. Yor first bit is just stupid.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I do like the idea of simplying 'laughed' by using an apostrophe to shorten it to 'larf'd' though. There are good simple rules about apostrophes and absolutely everyone understands and uses them correctly now.



No they don't. We hav the Green Grocers apostrophes', "Tomato's, Potato's"
becoz many people don't know that it should hav an "e" in between the "o" and the "s" and "Tomatos Potatos" just looks wrong to them looks like it should be prononucesd, "To-mat-Toss", so they put in the apostrophes.

"*Laugh*" should be spelt "*Larf*" if we follow alfabetical rules, the post-tense of "Laugh" is "Laughed" which looks like it should be prononced "laugh-ed" not "laugh'd" the apostrophe donotes the missing "e" of the "ed"
 part of the word, thus you hav "larf'd", the past tense of "larf"


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Good luck reprinting and rewriting the vast amount of material that would become incomprehensible overnight.



Why would it become incomprehensible *overnight*? Would all books with the old spellings be burnt, *overnite*, would every one immediiately change to the new spellings overnite? would everyone immediately forget how to read the old spellings, overnite? and would all books be written with the new spellings, overnite?


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*Laugh*" should be spelt "*Larf*" if we follow alfabetical rules, the post-tense of "Laugh" is "Laughed" which looks like it should be prononced "laugh-ed" not "laugh'd" the apostrophe donotes the missing "e" of the "ed"
> part of the word, thus you hav "larf'd", the past tense of "larf"



No it shouldn't. An 'r' after a vowel indicates that there is an 'r' pronounced in rhotic dialects of English. I've never heard anyone pronounce an 'r' in laugh.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

"*ph*"




butchersapron said:


> I don't say fone, i say phone though. Am i not in the 'we'?




"*ph*" is the most useless, pointless invention in our spelling. Absolutely nowhere is "ph" prononced in anyway different to a "f", check yor dictionaries, all "ph" words ar spelt with an "f" in the prononciation guide.

and you say Tho" not "Though" even *though* it is spelt that way.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

*"ough"*

"*ough"*

cough (cof)
rough (ruf)
though (tho)
borough (bura)
through (thru)
hough (hock)
chough (chuff)
Slough (the town)
slough (sluff)
plough (plow)
hiccough (hiccup)

*do you think kids enjoy learning this shit?*


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

and I'm sure there ar mor.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I love people who pull statistics out of their arse.
> 
> 
> Have, gone and give are all short single syllable words and that suggests to me that they would be from norse roots. Couldn't be more precise than that without looking up, but they don't look or sound frenchy or latinate to me.



I know you love me.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*ough"*
> 
> cough (cof)
> rough (ruf)
> ...



Not forgetting hiccough (pronounced hiccup). I loved it personally and so did most of my classmates at a very average working class school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Etymology
> 
> 97% of people in this country don't know what "etymology" is, 98% don't know how to spell it, (I didn't), and 99% don't giv a FUCK about it. Etymology is just about the weakest reason not to hav spelling reform. If etymology is so important we would still back with the hieroglyphs, which our alfabet is derived from. Most of our words ar derived and not in the original form, if they wer so many of them would be different scripts/alfabets,


Irrational bollocks. Etymology has bugger-all to do with alphabet, and everything to do with the root of, and history of a word. That exists *independent* of the language it is written in.


> all Greek words, Russian words, Jugganaut, Candy, pyjamas, algebra etc. all in different scripts. and i would love if you know what the  etymology of simple every day words like "Have", "gone", "give",  ar without looking them up. and as GM has so eloquently put it,


I can tell you the etymology of "have" right off the top of my head, it's from _Old/Middle English_, from hab(b)an (to possess), very similar to the current German _haben_, which means the same thing. It's not bloody rocket science, even less so once you understand just how many words in English are "loan words" or the evolution of "loan words".


> *"Spelling is about literacy* not *history"*


It's about both.
Without the etymology words have no rooted meaning. Orwell made this particular point over 50 years ago when he wrote "1984" and invented "newspeak".
If you ignore etymology then all you have a language that is infinitely interpretable, and that can mean anything an author wants it to mean, rather than having a fixed and confirmable (through reference to etymology)  meaning.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*ph*"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"ph" is a slightly longer sound than "f" imo


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2009)

Yep, as i said earlier, i say phone, not fone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Fantasy used to be spelt "Phantasy", why didn't you use that version? You learnt the new one and ar amazed they used to spell it the old stupid way just like a kid would.


Well, I know both spellings, and have since I read Algernon Blackwood's "Tales of the Uncanny and Supernatural" as a 10 year old, 37 years ago., so please don't make assumptions about me based on your inability to avoid making _ad hominem_ arguments and your ignorance, there's a good chap.


> Yor first bit is just stupid.


No, my "first bit" is entirely logically consistent to your point, and that's why you're being abusive: You can't face up to the uselessness and illogicality of your own so-called "argument".


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> "ph" is a slightly longer sound than "f" imo



Sorry, but that's just not true. Individual speakers might have an affectation of this sort but the English language only has one 'f'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2009)

Not mentally.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 7, 2009)

I certainly don't say 'fon'


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you ignore etymology then all you have a language that is infinitely interpretable, and that can mean anything an author wants it to mean, rather than having a fixed and confirmable (through reference to etymology)  meaning.



The point about etymology also being that words are not just individual symbols relating to individual meanings but most are in fact collections of morphemes. It isn't all that useful knowing where the word have comes from actually but it is incredibly useful to know that words with a 'phon' in them probably relate to sound and when you see the 'debt' sequence in longer words such as debtee, debtor and indebted you can work out the meaning without reaching for a dictionary.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Not mentally.



You read a lot. You're probably attaching the spelling to the sound. That's natural. the sound is the same as f though. What other difference does it have apart from being longer?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> You read a lot. You're probably attaching the spelling to the sound. That's natural. the sound is the same as f though. What other difference does it have apart from being longer?



None, i'm not actually being serious. Tbh i was just testing if g-man still had me on ignore last night.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2009)

Unless I am going mad, the "ph" in phone comes from the Greek letter phi, which would be transliterated as "f" just as correctly as "ph".  So there shouldn't be an inherent difference in the sound.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> None, i'm not actually being serious. Tbh i was just testing if g-man still had me on ignore last night.



It's ok, lots of people do think they pronounce things differently because of how they're spelled.


----------



## Leica (Aug 7, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Unless I am going mad, the "ph" in phone comes from the Greek letter phi, which would be transliterated as "f" just as correctly as "ph".  So there shouldn't be an inherent difference in the sound.



Once upon a time the sound was different. Ancient (archaic and classical) greek pronunciation of the phoneme represented by the letter "phi" was aspirated -- spelling contains this historical information.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

Leica said:


> Once upon a time the sound was different. Ancient (archaic and classical) greek pronunciation of the phoneme represented by the letter "phi" was aspirated -- spelling contains this historical information.



'f' is a fricative, aspiration doesn't come into it.


----------



## Leica (Aug 7, 2009)

Yes, but I'm not talking about "f". I'm saying that the ancient greek sound represented by the (greek) letter "phi" was an aspirated sound (not "f").


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2009)

You're right. It was an an aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive. That's a lot of work for one little letter lol.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> The point about etymology also being that words are not just individual symbols relating to individual meanings but most are in fact collections of morphemes. It isn't all that useful knowing where the word have comes from actually but it is incredibly useful to know that words with a 'phon' in them probably relate to sound and when you see the 'debt' sequence in longer words such as debtee, debtor and indebted you can work out the meaning without reaching for a dictionary.


<smug>
I do believe I mentioned the point about "phon" and other similar components giving essential hints to meaning a couple of pages ago. </smug>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> 'f' is a fricative, aspiration doesn't come into it.



You mean to say that "f" can't dream of improving itself? 

(((((f)))))


----------



## Corax (Aug 7, 2009)

Can we burn Gmarthews now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

Corax said:


> Can we burn Gmarthews now?



Why?

Surely burning him would be favouring him with too much attention, and allowing him the sort of intellectual martyrdom he aspires to?


----------



## Corax (Aug 8, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why?
> 
> Surely burning him would be favouring him with too much attention, and allowing him the sort of intellectual martyrdom he aspires to?



And anyway, what would we burn him on?

A pyre?
A pire?
A pier?
A peyer?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

*"or"*

we all know the little word "*or*", and know how to prononce it, now put some other letters in front of it, and you get:

*bor* (bore)                               
*bor* (boar)
*bort *(bought)
*brort *(brought)
*cor* (core)
*cor* (corp)
*chor* (chore)
*clor *(claw) 
*dor* (door)
*dror* (draw)
*dror* (drawer)
*for *( prefix-fore) 
*Hornt* (haunt)
*hornch* (haunch)
*horthorn* (hawthorn)
*horlage* (haulage)
*horlt* (halt)
*hork* (hawk)
*forlt* (fault)
*forlter* (falter)
*flor* (floor)
*fort *(fought)
*gor* (gore)
*hor *(whore)
*hor *(hoar)
*jor* (jaw)
*lor* (law)
*lor* (lore)
*or* (awe)
*or* (ore)
*mor* (mor)
*por* (poor)
*por* (pore)
*ror* (roar)
*ror* (raw)
*sor* (soar)
*sor* (sore)
*sor* (saw, past-tense of see)
*sor* (saw tool)
*scor* (score)
*shor* (shore)
*stor* (store)
*spor* (spore)
*swor* (swore)
*stror* (straw)
*sort *(sought)
*thwort *(thwart)
*thort *(thought)
*tort* (taught)
*yor* (your)
*wor* (war)
*wor* (wore)



*worm *(warm)

*worter *(water)


sometimes;
*dorter *(daughter)
*slorter* (slaughter)
*orlter* (altar)
*orlter* (alter)

probably: 
*quorter* (quarter)

_(sometime some of these words ar pronounce slightly differently)._

*so simple!*


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> "ph" is a slightly longer sound than "f" imo



I'm sorry, fractionMan, check out the pronounciation guide in yor dictionaries and you wil see there is no difference. "ph" is just an "f", any difference is just imagin'd, easily done, its just a feeling.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *"or"*
> 
> we all know the word "or", know how to prononce it, now put some other letters in front of it, and you get:
> 
> ...



Well it's not actually. There's at least 2 different sounds there for the majority of English speakers and 3 for some (notably all Scottish people).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Not forgetting hiccough (pronounced hiccup). I loved it personally and so did most of my classmates at a very average working class school.



No-one at my school like it, at a very average W/C school. Why do you like it? it seems pointlessly diificult to me now and hopelessly stupid to me as a kid, i never appreciated it.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well it's not actually. There's at least 2 different sounds there for the majority of English speakers and 3 for some (notably all Scottish people).



MaoMao, check out the pronounciation key in yor dictionaries and you will find they ar correct.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

I'v added three mor "pore", and "lore". and "your" of course.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> MaoMao, check out the pronounciation key in yor dictionaries and you will find they ar correct.



I've got a degree in linguistics including phonology, why don't you check your fucking dictionary? You're confusing three sounds pronounced the same in the South East of England but not in the majority of English dialects.

Aw as in raw - long o
Or as in or - short o followed by an audible 'r' in all rhotic dialects of English
Oor as in door - either a long o followed by an 'r' or a diphthong long o to schwa, distinguished in 'proper' English but not estuary English.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well it's not actually. There's at least 2 different sounds there for the majority of English speakers and 3 for some (notably all Scottish people).



which words?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Remember, we spell the words using current spellings and there ar some differencies in pronounciations that would still continue after any spelling reform/changes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

Your system doesn't work because you can't THINK! outside your own little world and your own little dialect.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

*hard "g", soft "g"?*


What's the point of the hard "g", soft "g"?
 A soft "*g*" is just a "*j*". ajenda, jeneration etc.

and what is the point of 
hard "*c*" and soft "*c*"? the soft "*c*" is just an "s" as in ac*s*ent


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What's the point of the hard "g", soft "g"?
> A soft "*g*" is just a "*j*". ajenda, jeneration etc.
> 
> and what is the point of
> hard "*c*" and soft "*c*"? the soft "*c*" is just an "s" as in ac*s*ent



I'll answer that when you get back to me on my last point.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Ther ar *44 *sounds in the English language and only *26* letters to represent them (and some of them duplicated, "k" and "c" etc.), that was the first problem, if our ansestors had bother'd to invent the other 18 or so letters we wouldn't hav these problems. Vowels ar, particular;y under-represented, 5 vowels and about 16 vowels sounds. The solution was to combines letters to represent the unrepresented sounds, a solution used by many languages, but ours ar so inconsistent. Take the "ee" sound:

"*ee*" as in "*see*"

*read 
reed
me
key
ski
quay
deceive
believe
these
people*

"*e*" as in "bed"

*said
says
many
head
friend
heifer
leopard
bury*


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Your system doesn't work because you can't THINK! outside your own little world and your own little dialect.



Is that a point, maomao, seems mor like an insult. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.



and What is my acsent?


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

So your just going to keep printing up more ill thought out posts without answering my criticisms of previous ones? That's really not the way to behave on a bulletin board.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Is that a point, maomao, seems mor like an insult. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.
> 
> 
> 
> and What is my acsent?



Well, I was referring to post 431. And you speak some breed of estuary English, the only dialect that doesn't distinguish those three sounds.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao, at least you can confirm there is no difference between "ph" and "f" for all the other posters, with yor degree. 

You seem to be obsess'd by acsent particularly, evil Southerners doing do and oppressing Northern people and their acsents. Acsents exist now with our current spellings and they would continue after any spelling reform/change.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> So your just going to keep printing up more ill thought out posts without answering my criticisms of previous ones? That's really not the way to behave on a bulletin board.



What critisms? point out the posts and i'll hav a look  but there ar so meny posts each morning when i go on the computer that it is hard to anser them all, and I also want to post my own stuff as well as anser points made by others.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> maomao, at least you can confirm there is no difference between "ph" and "f" for all the other posters, with yor degree.



I think those posters were taking the piss out of you.



> You seem to be obsess'd by acsent particularly, evil Southerners doing do and oppressing Northern people and their acsents. Acsents exist now with our current spellings and they would continue after any spelling reform/change.



Yes, standardising spelling to reflect a particular accent would suggest that there is a 'correct' way to talk and increase discrimination, and workload, for speakers of non-standard dialects.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What critisms? point out he posts and i'll hav a look  but there ar so meny posts each morning when i go on the computer that it is hard to anser them all, and I also want to post my own stuff as well as anser points made by others.



I gave you the fucking post number already.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well, I was referring to post 431. And you speak some breed of estuary English, the only dialect that doesn't distinguish those three sounds.



I was brought-up in Enfield and London then spent some time in South Africa. I hav a slight speech impediment which, with me looking foriegn, makes most people think I am foriegn, I am severely dyslexic, but hav an IQ of 137, this combination confusses people all the time. I found spelling difficult at school and could never work out if i was thick ( I couldn't spell or write or express myself particular well) or intelligent, i always got things and knew things that the others didn't. I got into spelling reform when i was about 14 when i realise reading the dictionary that "of", should be spelt "ov" and started using it all the time, and that it was the spellings that wer wrong and not me, it was revelation, an ephiphany. and you? Your commitment to the present spellings, where from?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> I gave you the fucking post number already.



I was writing that whilst you posted.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> I think those posters were taking the piss out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, standardising spelling to reflect a particular accent would suggest that there is a 'correct' way to talk and increase discrimination, and workload, for speakers of non-standard dialects.



But, surely many of the examples I hav given, hav nothing to do with acsents just a better way of spelling those particular words?

"Hav", for example.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> I've got a degree in linguistics including phonology, why don't you check your fucking dictionary? You're confusing three sounds pronounced the same in the South East of England but not in the majority of English dialects.
> 
> Aw as in raw - long o
> Or as in or - short o followed by an audible 'r' in all rhotic dialects of English
> Oor as in door - either a long o followed by an 'r' or a diphthong long o to schwa, distinguished in 'proper' English but not estuary English.



the dictionary next to me sez, "raw" is the same as "ror"
same with "or" and "door" all hav the same ending, so does my dictionary at home.


If we could get over the "acsents" thing, would you be ever interested in changing eny of the spelling s of our words? Take "acsent" for example, there is no cultural domination thing going on there, just a mor sensible way of spelling the word, would that be acseptable to you?


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I was brought-up in Enfield and London then spent some time in South Africa. I hav a slight speech impediment which, with me looking foriegn, makes most people think I am foriegn, I am severely dyslexic, but hav an IQ of 137, this combination confusses people all the time. I found spelling difficult at school and could never work out if i was thick ( I couldn't spell or write or express myself particular well) or intelligent, i always got things and knew things that the others didn't. I got into spelling reform when i was about 14 when i realise reading the dictionary that "of", should be spelt "ov" and started using it all the time, and that it was the spellings that wer wrong and not me, it was revelation, an ephiphany. and you? Your commitment to the present spellings, where from?



I'm from Edmonton, so about the same, just a little less posh.

Is spelling reform the only thing that can help your dyslexia? Does spelling things by sound suddenly make it much easier to read? My understanding of dyslexia, and the way the mind works when reading suggest it's going to be little help if any. The good news is that literacy isn't everything and dyslexic brains are very good at a lot of things that typical brains aren't.

My attachment to the current system of spelling comes from learning a language (Chinese) where meaning is much better preserved than sound in the writing system and appreciating how this helps me deal with words that I haven't come across before. My experience as an English teacher lets me know that this is true for advanced learners of English. Words aren't individual units encapsulating meanings in isolation from other words, they are usually units of information joined together. Preserving the spelling of units of information within words helps readers, native or otherwise understand what those words mean without having to dig out a dictionary every time. It's interesting that even in Korean, academics and especially the legal profession continues to use Chinese characters to express some ideas because the meaning is considered more static than the constantly changing modern language, less chance of being misinterpreted.

As for the way you present your argument; posting up lists of words, only referenced to your own dialect, without bothering to research whether these words are pronounced the same universally and then going on to stick up more lists without replying to criticisms of the last list is not a polite or civilised way to debate. It makes you look a bit stupid as well as arrogant. Unfortunately if you want to take part in a debate online you are ultimately going to have to read and understand other people's posts before you jump in with your own ideas.

For anyone who thinks I've spent too much time on this I'd just like to point out that I'm at work, as well as bored,  and the time I've wasted is therefore not my own.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> the dictionary next to me sez, "raw" is the same as "ror"
> same with "or" and "door" all hav the same ending, so does my sdictionary at home.



Raw and roar are pronounced the same in RP but not in most dialects of English. The ending of door should really be different and if you check any of the larger Oxford dictionaries I think you'll find it is,


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Shevek said:


> I like all the quirks of the English language



There would still be quirks ever after years of spelling reforms.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

kabbes said:


> OK, well godspeed and good luck with persuading the several billion people that use the English language that they should all change all their body of written language and *learn* a brand new way *to spell, dictated to by some tiny community that has nothing to do with their lives*.



As it now.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> No it shouldn't. An 'r' after a vowel indicates that there is an 'r' pronounced in rhotic dialects of English. I've never heard anyone pronounce an 'r' in laugh.



but you hav got to admit" *larf*" maybe wrong, (my dictionary sez, "Lahf") but it's a fucking lot closer that "*Laugh*", which is indecipherable.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

*Etymology*

why do we spell, "*ninja*" and "*karaoke*" this way and not  in the original script, if Etymology is so important?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Not forgetting hiccough (pronounced hiccup). I loved it personally and so did most of my classmates at a very average working class school.



Thank you, I'll add that to my list.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> I'm from Edmonton, so about the same, just a little less posh.
> 
> Is spelling reform the only thing that can help your dyslexia? Does spelling things by sound suddenly make it much easier to read? My understanding of dyslexia, and the way the mind works when reading suggest it's going to be little help if any. The good news is that literacy isn't everything and dyslexic brains are very good at a lot of things that typical brains aren't.
> 
> ...



Enfield Brimsdown, posh? It was an industral wasteland when i liv'd there. My local play ground was a derelict factory call'd "Stones", and playing on the railway lines. A little anecdote, from then, playing such dangerous areas as them, I couldn't read the word, "*Danger*". I got as far as "dan" like the name and the rest was a mystery, but even that is no help, as the word is something like, "*Dane-jer*", which is particular important for a mischivous little boy who played in such dangerous places. 
Don't be embarass'd about how much time you spend on this subject, you being a school-teacher etc, this subject is obviously one of interest to you.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

Lol, ok, not posh. We call Brimsdown 'deliverance country'







And I'm not a teacher anymore.


----------



## Corax (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> It makes you look a bit stupid as well as arrogant. Unfortunately if you want to take part in a debate online you are ultimately going to have to read and understand other people's posts before you jump in with your own ideas.



As WouldBe is to homeopathy, so THINK! and GMarthews are to spelling.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol, ok, not posh. We call Brimsdown 'deliverance country'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that tru? Fuck, we must hav been bad. I think i knew that kid, he was in our school, I sure, a couple of years older than me.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Corax said:


> As WouldBe is to homeopathy, so THINK! and GMarthews are to spelling.



Radical reformers, liberators, the William Wilberforces of spelling, the Charles Darwins of now!


----------



## tarannau (Aug 8, 2009)

Pish. You're more like the General Custer or Henry Morris of today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

Corax said:


> And anyway, what would we burn him on?
> 
> A pyre?
> A pire?
> ...



A Pie-er.

Which, as an aside, was a name given to nonces way back when, during the era of the *P*aedophile *I*nformation *E*xchange.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *"or"*
> 
> we all know the little word "*or*", know how to prononce it, now put some other letters in front of it, and you get:
> 
> ...



To quote the inimitable Steve Jones:
"what a fucking rotter".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Etymology*
> 
> why do we spell, "*ninja*" and "*karaoke*" this way and not  in the original script, if Etymology is so important?



I believe it's called transliteration*, and the words themselves are borrowed to express concepts that don't (or didn't) exist in english culture/history and hence the words have no etymology to speak of. Like Giesha. I suppose the closest we have to Giesha is Courtesan, but even that is not accurate.



*I may be wrong on the precise name for how japanese characters are expressed in a western alphabet


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Futher, to your post, maomao, actually, spelling reform would a great benefit to me and a great liberation. Spelling still matters and people ar treated badly, ridiculed on this site for instance, becoz of it, It's a great handicap. and futher Dyslexia is not a blessing in disguise, it's a great burden, makes so much of your life more diffficult. The Lists? I trying to create that 'ephiphany' moment I experinced when I was 14. I did hav a slight one befor, probably around when i was 8, when, in a comic I saw "*English*" spelt "*Inglish*" and it made sense to me, I tried it out at school but my spelling was corrected, but, if think about it, it should be spelt with an "I". I do do a little research to check my posts, checking the prononucation guide, as i did last night at home and this morning in the dictionary here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

Ingsoc

you really should read 1984 THINK!, it's an eye-opener as to what spelling/language reformists are actually seeking to do (control).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I was brought-up in Enfield and London then spent some time in South Africa. I hav a slight speech impediment which, with me looking foriegn, makes most people think I am foriegn, I am severely dyslexic, but hav an IQ of 137, this combination confusses people all the time. I found spelling difficult at school and could never work out if i was thick ( I couldn't spell or write or express myself particular well) or intelligent, i always got things and knew things that the others didn't. I got into spelling reform when i was about 14 when i realise reading the dictionary that "of", should be spelt "ov" and started using it all the time, and that it was the spellings that wer wrong and not me, it was revelation, an ephiphany. and you? Your commitment to the present spellings, where from?



So basically your entire thesis is based on your sociopathic need to believe it's the system, rather than you, that has malfunctioned?

That is FUCKED UP.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Ingsoc
> 
> you really should read 1984 THINK!, it's an eye-opener as to what spelling/language reformists are actually seeking to do (control).



Don't be a tosser. The present spellings ar mor oppressiv, they ar nostic. Creating mor words is the opposit to what you ar suggesting. I'v read it loads of times, DickHead.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

and the meaning completely passed you by.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

Did you know yor Beloved Soviet Union had spelling Reform quite soon after the "*Revolution*"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe it's called transliteration*, and the words themselves are borrowed to express concepts that don't (or didn't) exist in english culture/history and hence the words have no etymology to speak of. Like Giesha. I suppose the closest we have to Giesha is Courtesan, but even that is not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> *I may be wrong on the precise name for how japanese characters are expressed in a western alphabet



Transliteration is fine. 
When I call THINK! a "_schlemiel_", I'm transliterating the Hebrew-scripted Yiddish language into the Roman alphabet to make it comprehensible to those who only use the Roman alphabet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Ingsoc
> 
> you really should read 1984 THINK!, it's an eye-opener as to what spelling/language reformists are actually seeking to do (control).



Third recommendation in less than 20 pages, but the chances he'll read it are slim.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> and the meaning completely passed you by.



In "1984", words wer reduced to an minmum, not increased, and I don't remember any spelling reform. Besides, "1984" was a dig at Left-wing ie, *yor*, Politics.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 8, 2009)

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. THINK! keeps referring to dictionary defined pronunciations, and (as with GMarthews) seems to consider the only important aspect of a word is the dictionary definition. Which is why the whole etymology, pronunciation aspect of the discussion completely passes them by. Both are expecting language to be completely and precisely defined lexicographically. The rest of us see language as something that is much more amorphous and malleable.

I'm afraid we are in the majority. Massively so. Not just when it comes to English, but with most (if not all) languages. Were normal languages precisely defined in the way that programming languages are then the spelling reform idea would have a lot of merit. However in a world where the vast majority of people use language as a flexible tool containing subtext and emotional implications, it's a non-starter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Don't be a tosser. The present spellings ar mor oppressiv, they ar nostic. Creating mor words is the opposit to what you ar suggesting. I'v read it loads of times, DickHead.



Then read it again, and this time try to *understand* it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Did you know yor Beloved Soviet Union had spelling Reform quite soon after the "*Revolution*"?



blessed are the works of uncle joe


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In "1984", words wer reduced to an minmum, not increased, and I don't remember any spelling reform. Besides, "1984" was a dig at Left-wing ie, *yor*, Politics.



no, you really didn't get it at all.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Did you know yor Beloved Soviet Union had spelling Reform quite soon after the "*Revolution*"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Did you know yor Beloved Soviet Union had spelling Reform quite soon after the "*Revolution*"?



Actually, it went quite a bit further than "spelling reform".
Now, seeing as you've brought up this fine example, can you explain *why* the language reforms happened (without checking on wikipedia or google)?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically your entire thesis is based on your sociopathic need to believe it's the system, rather than you, that has malfunctioned?
> 
> That is FUCKED UP.



After *150* years of State education in this country, illitracy rates hav barely fallen. It's not the education system that is at fault, it's the "*spellings*".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 8, 2009)

"Richard Feyman, Nobel Prize winner in physics 1965 sed:

"All the time you hear the question, *"why can't Johnny read?" *the anser is: becoz of the spelling

When professors of English complain to nme that the students who come to the universities, after all those years of study, still cannot spell "*friend*", I say to them that something's the matter with the way you spell, "*Friend*".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2009)

physicists in anal desire to have everything in neat order shocka!


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Actually, it went quite a bit further than "spelling reform".
> Now, seeing as you've brought up this fine example, can you explain *why* the language reforms happened (without checking on wikipedia or google)?



Russian, spelling reform or no, is very difficult to pronounce because of it's stress system. Knowing cyrillic will give you the sounds in the word but not tell you how to say the word. It also preserves the original qualities of unstressed vowels so that certain etymologies remain clear. (this is from memory of one year of Russian studied over 15 years ago, no wikipedia used)

It also has some irregular spellings, the regular suffix spelled (or rather transliterated) as 'ego' is pronounced 'eva'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In "1984", words wer reduced to an minmum, not increased, and I don't remember any spelling reform. Besides, "1984" was a dig at Left-wing ie, *yor*, Politics.



You must have read a different edition, perhaps one from planet Muppet, to everyone else. "Newspeak" was (as has already been explained twice on this thread, IIRC) about progressively de-contextualising the language through the mechanisms of phoneticisation and re-application. To claim it "reduced words to a minimum" when Orwell gave us shining examples of how it did the opposite ("doubleplusgood", anyone?) flies in the face of what Orwell himself said about the themes of the story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Russian, spelling reform or no, is very difficult to pronounce because of it's stress system. Knowing cyrillic will give you the sounds in the word but not tell you how to say the word. It also preserves the original qualities of unstressed vowels so that certain etymologies remain clear. (this is from memory of one year of Russian studied over 15 years ago, no wikipedia used)
> 
> It also has some irregular spellings, the regular suffix spelled (or rather transliterated) as 'ego' is pronounced 'eva'.



I know. part of my maternal line is from the Ukraine. Trying to get my head round the language nearly drove me batty, so I gave up. 
The point I'm trying to make to the inappropriately-named one is that a large impetus toward reform came from the fact that much of the language was antiquated, and that a degree of reform was necessary to "put us in the 20th century". Add to that the fact that different parts of th former Russian empire used slightly different versions of Russian (including, IIRC, slightly different alphabets), and one can see why reform might have been appropriate to them in a way THINK!'s ideas about reform aren't to us. We've had a standardised alphabet for 1500 years or more. They've had one for less than a hundred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> After *150* years of State education in this country, illitracy rates hav barely fallen. It's no the education system that is at fault, it's the "*spellings*".



A few things, because you're either being disingenuous, or you're actively lying:

1) We've had *full-time* state education for around a hundred years, and the post Factories Act state education wasn't about instilling literacy, it was about keeping children who'd previously worked in factories off the streets.

2) Figures for literacy rates, up until the inter-war period, were drawn almost exclusively from urban schools, because rural schools, which allowed children time off to help with sowing, weeding, harvest etc, had much poorer rates that didn't reflect well on the govt of the day, so literacy rates up until 80 years ago are basically pish. 

3) The yardstick for literacy has changed several times just in the 20th century, which adds another adjusting factor to any comparison between rates then and now.

4) Yes, the education system *is* at fault. but *not* because they use spellings that you don't "get", they're at fault for not noticing your problems and doing something more than they did about them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "Richard Feyman, Nobel Prize winner in physics 1965 sed:
> 
> "All the time you hear the question, *"why can't Johnny read?" *the anser is: becoz of the spelling
> 
> When professors of English complain to nme that the students who come to the universities, after all those years of study, still cannot spell "*friend*", I say to them that something's the matter with the way you spell, "*Friend*".



If you're going to quote him, at least get his name right, for fuck's sake.


----------



## Corax (Aug 8, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically your entire thesis is based on your sociopathic need to believe it's the system, rather than you, that has malfunctioned?
> 
> That is FUCKED UP.


Yep.  ^That^



THINK! said:


> In "1984", words wer reduced to an minmum, not increased, and I don't remember any spelling reform. Besides, "1984" was a dig at Left-wing ie, *yor*, Politics.



Er.... no.  No, it wasn't.  Isn't, in fact.  Unless it's suddenly stopped existing.  You find words tricky huh?

*visage-hand*


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 8, 2009)

Fucks sake not this again lol!


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> To quote the inimitable Steve Jones:
> "what a fucking rotter".



What the fuck is this meant to mean? It not even a attempt at being witty, there's no "or" sound in "rotter".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I know. part of my maternal line is from the Ukraine. Trying to get my head round the language nearly drove me batty, so I gave up.
> The point I'm trying to make to the inappropriately-named one is that a large impetus toward reform came from t*he fact that much of the language was antiquated, and that a degree of reform was necessary to "put us in the 20th century".* Add to that the fact that different parts of th former Russian empire used slightly different versions of Russian (including, IIRC, slightly different alphabets), and one can see why reform might have been appropriate to them in a way THINK!'s ideas about reform aren't to us. We've had a standardised alphabet for 1500 years or more. They've had one for less than a hundred.



_*"a degree of reform was necessary to "put us in the 20th century*_". I'll change that to the 21st century and you hav our situation now, today, in our country.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

*or* (awe)
*or* (ore)

 another two to add to my list. I think i'll find mor each time I come on here.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *or* (awe)
> *or* (ore)
> 
> another two to add to my list. I think i'll find mor each time I come on here.



Except they're only the same in our dialect. My mother pronounces those two words quite differently and takes the piss out of me for thinking they're the same. THINK! beyond the end of your nose please.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *or* (awe)
> *or* (ore)
> 
> another two to add to my list. I think i'll find mor each time I come on here.



They're not pronounced the same FFS.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

Corax said:


> They're not pronounced the same FFS.



You're west country aren't you? One's got an 'r' in it and one hasn't right?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

Corax said:


> They're not pronounced the same FFS.



In my dictionaries they ar. Even so, you ar still getting away from the point, these spellings ar a better versions than the present ones, much closer to the pronunciations and they ar consistent, which is one of the problems with the present spellings.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> You're west country aren't you? One's got an 'r' in it and one hasn't right?



My accent's the result of nomadism, but the second bit's right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In my dictionaries they ar. Even so, you ar still getting away from the point, these spellings ar a better versions than the present ones, much closer to the pronunciations and they ar consistent, which is one of the problems with the present spellings.



your dictionaries speak out loud to you do they? You loon.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In my dictionaries they ar. Even so, you ar still getting away from the point, these spellings ar a better versions than the present ones, much closer to the pronunciations and they ar consistent, which is one of the problems with the present spellings.



For fuck's fucking sake. Your dictionary gives you the RP pronunciation only. They are the same in RP. They're not the same for the majority of English speakers in the world who pronounce their 'r's.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In my dictionaries they ar. Even so, you ar still getting away from the point, these spellings ar a better versions than the present ones, much closer to the pronunciations and they ar consistent, which is one of the problems with the present spellings.



I don't give a fuck what your dictionaries say.  You only THINK! they're pronounced the same because you're barely literate.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

Corax said:


> I don't give a fuck what your dictionaries say.  You only THINK! they're pronounced the same because you're barely literate.



I do honestly think it's bad form to insult an admitted dyslexic as 'barely literate'.


----------



## Culdee (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The point I'm trying to make to the inappropriately-named one is that a large impetus toward reform came from the fact that much of the language was antiquated, and that a degree of reform was necessary to "put us in the 20th century".


I assume from the quotation marks your point is that weeding out antiquated letters was a (relatively) quick and easy way to make a show of moving into the brave new world, rather than any form of practical necessity? 

As for the new 'Sovspeak' (as a point separate from spelling reform), I don't know that you'd get many arguing that the compoundisation of things was anything other than a brutalisation of the pre-revolutionary language, and one that modern Russian is still suffering hugely from aesthetically speaking. Even today one of the highest complements you can give to a good speaker/writer is to call his Russian 'pre-revolutionary' ie free from jargon-packed stodge.

Anyway, getting off the point a bit.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> For fuck's fucking sake. Your dictionary gives you the RP pronunciation only. They are the same in RP. They're not the same for the majority of English speakers in the world who pronounce their 'r's.



So, the other spellings don't reflect how all these other peeple pronounce the word either. This an improovment.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> So, the other spellings don't reflect how all these other peeple pronounce the word either. This an improovment.



Yes they do. 3 homophones in RP English Awe/Or/Ore. Two have an 'r' in them to show that they are pronounced differently by people who pronounce their 'r's and one's got an e chucked on the end to show that it's a different word. Simple, and it works for everyone.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm guessing that "*daughter*" is probably in the "*or*" list as well. "*dorter*" something like that. 

But I'll giv an example of the problem, even as I was writing this post, I had to stop and think, how is "guess", spelt? becoz I went to spell it "gess" than I thought , that's right its got a "u' in it for some unnecessary reason. another example is each time I go to write "believe" I don't know if it is "ie" or "ei" i hav to check and, when writing these posts etc., I always hav another tab on *Dictionary*, so I can check spellings. 


Plus:
Take yor word "*believe*"  take the "l-i-e" and you hav "lie" (rhymes with "by" "try" "my" etc.) add a "v" to the end and you hav "*liev*" (live). And take yor *Heteronym* (I think its call'd, maomao will correct me if I am wrong), "*LIVE*" (liv) "*LIVE*" (live). what's the point of that, you hav an easy solution, if you just change *LIVE* ( _as in "*I live here*"_) to "*LIV*".


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

You're just making shit up without acknowledging other people again. Thread over. We can get you your own board where you can talk nonsense to yourself all day.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically your entire thesis is based on your sociopathic need to believe it's the system, rather than you, that has malfunctioned?
> 
> That is FUCKED UP.



No violentpaddy, mm and I wer giving our Bio's so we try to work out why we see the same subject so differently. How about you, what's yor Bio?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> You're just making shit up without acknowledging other people again. Thread over. We can get you your own board where you can talk nonsense to yourself all day.



Fuck me, Maomao! I can't anser everything at once. Remember there is only one of me on this side of the argument.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> You're just making shit up without acknowledging other people again. Thread over. We can get you your own board where you can talk nonsense to yourself all day.



What bits, shit?


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What bits, shit?



Well, you're side of the argument is meant to be for spelling reform. Actually going through spellings that you think should be reformed while not engaging in argument just makes you look like an idiot. _Especially_ as you don't know enough about the various dialects of English to be able to do it properly.

Here's some links, not complete by any means, but they're a start:

http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_accents_of_English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_vowel_shift (noting that this shift does not apply to Northern English accents)

Changing spelling to reflect your Estuary English may help you but it would leave a lot more people who don't speak Estuary English even more fucked than you are now. Please stop making shit up until you actually understand the subject you are dealing with.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're going to quote him, at least get his name right, for fuck's sake.



Ah, yes i did spell his name wrong, Trust you to go into an an excited frenzy over a lipography.  (_VP goes off to see what lipography means_)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> your dictionaries speak out loud to you do they? You loon.



They hav a pronunciation key.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> They hav a pronunciation key.



just the one, or many keys devoted to the incredibly diverse range of accented english?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What the fuck is this meant to mean? It not even a attempt at being witty, there's no "or" sound in "rotter".


It's meant to mean that you're a fucking rotter, a no-mark, a 2-bob cunt-sack with no more right to be alive than a pickled goat-cock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> _*"a degree of reform was necessary to "put us in the 20th century*_". I'll change that to the 21st century and you hav our situation now, today, in our country.



Bollocks.
How many alphabet variants do we have in the English language? None. The Russian empire/early Soviet Union had *at least* 3.
How many actual variants of the English language were there, even when we had an empire? One. The Russian empire/early Soviet Union had at least half a dozen. Ukrainians and Siberians could only partially comprehend each others' spoken and written Russian.

You shoot yourself in the foot every time you make a grand pronouncement without any substantiation. DO you have a fetish for humiliating yourself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Ah, yes i did spell his name wrong, Trust you to go into an an excited frenzy over a lipography.  (_VP goes off to see what lipography means_)



I worked as a sub-editor once upon a time, and most people I knew called words that are misspelled or omit a letter a "typo" unless they were being pretentious, because "lipography" pertains more to a missed word than a missed letter.
You love making assumptions and snide remarks, but that's all you've got.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bollocks.
> How many alphabet variants do we have in the English language? None. The Russian empire/early Soviet Union had *at least* 3.
> How many actual variants of the English language were there, even when we had an empire? One. The Russian empire/early Soviet Union had at least half a dozen. Ukrainians and Siberians could only partially comprehend each others' spoken and written Russian.
> 
> You shoot yourself in the foot every time you make a grand pronouncement without any substantiation. DO you have a fetish for humiliating yourself?



in fairness, some people have had to watch The Wire with subtitles cos they don't get Baltimorese variant ebonics and IRL I have encountered people unable to comprehend jamaican patois even though it was clear as day to me.

That is spoken accents and english variants however, nowt to do with the written form.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> I do honestly think it's bad form to insult an admitted dyslexic as 'barely literate'.



It's sod all to do with dxsleyia.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> How many actual variants of the English language were there, even when we had an empire? One.



Rabbie Burns wadna agree.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> just the one, or many keys devoted to the incredibly diverse range of accented english?



Just one.

accents isn't the problem with Inglish spellings, it's consistency. I'v given you loads of examples and you still go on about the dead subject of accents. If you want to know about accents talk to maomao, who has a degree in the subject, not to me, I'v been try to high-lite the inconsistencies in Inglish spelling and the problems they bring by given you examples, all you'v, with yor cohort violentpaddy, done is make irrelevant snide remarks. Wel done.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 10, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That's such a load of bollocks it's unbelievable.



What's, "such a load of Bollocks", about it? They ar stuff i heard directly from Masha Bell, Spelling Society.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 10, 2009)

*wor* (wore) past tense of wear. Adding that to the list.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *wor* (wore) past tense of wear. Adding that to the list.



Your list that doesn't distinguish between words that sound different for the majority of English speakers you mean?

Did you read any of those links.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Your list that doesn't distinguish between words that sound different for the majority of English speakers you mean?
> 
> Did you read any of those links.



Yes, that's why I'v started writing, "sometimes". But they ar not as important as trying to point out the inconsistencies in Inglish spelling. I don't hav or claim to hav invented a system to write all Inglish words in, I'm just trying to show how spellings look to the bottom half of of spellers. It would hav been better if our ansestors had got it right in the first place, or we be allow'd to hav some flexibility in spelling and not hav to write a word a certain way, becoz some person hundreds of years ago, wrote it that way. All i'm asking let us change at least one word, let us *change one word a year, just one word a year.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2009)

THINK! said:


> No violentpaddy, mm and I wer giving our Bio's so we try to work out why we see the same subject so differently. How about you, what's yor Bio?



Don't fuck about with my user-name, there's a good half-wit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Rabbie Burns wadna agree.



Rab didn't speak English.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rab didn't speak English.



you mean didnae


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rab didn't speak English.



My point was that Lallands was a competing dialect of English with it's own spelling standards. It's 90% mutually intelligible so it's a bit odd arguing that it 'wasn't English'.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean didnae



Didna. It's only 'didnae' in Oor Wullie


----------



## THINK! (Aug 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> I'm from Edmonton, so about the same, just a little less posh.
> 
> Is spelling reform the only thing that can help your dyslexia? Does spelling things by sound suddenly make it much easier to read? My understanding of dyslexia, and the way the mind works when reading suggest it's going to be little help if any.



What I am good at and bad at: Don't know if this is entirely due to dyslexia, but, some  ar typical;. I am visually dominant person. Flags, maps ar easy for me, clothes wer of always an interest to me and i was designing my own out-fits at 5. As a kid i could name all the flags of the World with a just a couple of mistakes, describe most of them if ask'd (which is harder) you could giv a me a out-line of of a country and I could probably name it, especially if it was all the countries of the World all to scale, giv it to me up-side down, what ever and i would be able to put it together in seconds, I remember once  I could name mor countries in Africa than these Nigerian guy i was working with, he got quite annoy'd. The way i do it was to see a map of Africa then start somewhere, South Africa say,  and then travel over the map and name the countries next to them, I don't hav a list i my head. Ii was good at art at school and one a school prize once. One of the reasons I didn't go to Goldsmiths was becoz I was told there was a lot of paper work, so I went to a lesser Uni. I was into New Romantics and Punk befor that, loved the outfits, everything I'v done has been about visual things. design'd two fonts (typefaces) "Teenage Girl" and "Substitute" everything I'v done in my life has been visual. Things I can't do typical of dyslexics: can't tell left from right, short-term memory loss, (working memory) and this one i think is important, *can't tune a guitar*, I can hear there i s difference, but it s too quick for me to register if it should be lower or higher.

You like Chinese characters so do I . I had a Japanese girl-frend and she started teaching me some, kanji, I think they wer call'd. They wer interesting becoz they wer exactly the same meaning in both Japanese and Chinese, a bit like pictographs, like male and female toilets symbols, and you didn' hav to remember how to pronounce them. the same the World over, and like the recycle symbols and woshing symbols, international, but you can't bild a language on symbols, pictographs, just use them to supplement  the alfabetical written language.  

An example of where the present spellings go wrong is, i was reading a book when i came across the word "*contagious*", I thought fuck, what is that?, I knew in my memory that it meant something like "contaminate" or "infection" but I just couldn't pronounce it, . I got the "con" bit, but got stuck on the "tag" bit, and just kept saying *"contag", "contag", "contag"*, if it had been spelt say, "con.tay jus"  I would hav got it straight away. Over to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> My point was that Lallands was a competing dialect of English with it's own spelling standards. It's 90% mutually intelligible so it's a bit odd arguing that it 'wasn't English'.



I'm a Scot-phobe.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> It's sod all to do with dxsleyia.





THINK! said:


> If you want to know about accents talk to maomao, who has a degree in the subject, not to me, I'v been try to high-lite the inconsistencies in Inglish spelling and the problems they bring by given you examples, all you'v, with yor cohort violentpaddy, done is make irrelevant snide remarks.



See.  That, above, is not a sentence written by someone with an adequate grasp on the English language.  My literacy comment was not dxsleyiaxiaist.


----------



## lontok2005 (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm not at all in favour of the kind of spelling reform being proposed here, but if we were to undertake it (if we could ever, ever agree on which accent to base it on, that is, and we were happy to render eventually obsolete all printed material that preceded the reform, and we didn't mind ignoring the fact that many small 'grammatical' words in the language (such as 'has', 'was', 'can' and 'of') change their pronunciation anyway depending on whether they are stressed or unstressed in a phrase, and we weren't bothered about losing the rich etymological history contained in the current spelling... etc. etc.) then it would make no sense to continue having a 26-letter spelling system for a language that has 44 sounds. It would make more sense either to add a system of accents to the letters we have (ç ê ü ğ ñ etc), or, better still, use the International Phonetic Alphabet (we could then indicate stress as well) which already exists as a perfectly good system. No point reinventing the phonemic wheel.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

Mor words to add to the "*or*" list:

*Hornt* (haunt)
*hornch* (haunch)
*horthorn* (hawthorn)
*horlage* (haulage)
*horlt* (halt)
*hork* (hawk)
*forlt* (fault)
*forlter* (falter)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

_*Yor Diphthongs Ar Wrong!*_


"*ee*" as in "*see*"

*read 
reed
me
key
ski
quay
deceive
believe
these
people*

"*e*" as in "bed"

*said
says
many
head
friend
heifer
leopard
bury*


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

Corax said:


> See.  That, above, is not a sentence written by someone with an adequate grasp on the English language.  My literacy comment was not dxsleyiaxiaist.



Then you don't understand dyslexia.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

lontok2005 said:


> I'm not at all in favour of the kind of spelling reform being proposed here, but if we were to undertake it (if we could ever, ever agree on which accent to base it on, that is, and we were happy to render eventually obsolete all printed material that preceded the reform, and we didn't mind ignoring the fact that many small 'grammatical' words in the language (such as 'has', 'was', 'can' and 'of') change their pronunciation anyway depending on whether they are stressed or unstressed in a phrase, and we weren't bothered about losing the rich etymological history contained in the current spelling... etc. etc.) then it would make no sense to continue having a 26-letter spelling system for a language that has 44 sounds. It would make more sense either to add a system of accents to the letters we have (ç ê ü ğ ñ etc), or, better still, use the International Phonetic Alphabet (we could then indicate stress as well) which already exists as a perfectly good system. No point reinventing the phonemic wheel.




Acsent base is a very very minor problem, not a massiv problem. You'v probably not read the whole thread, and who could blame you, but I'll giv the following examples as I hav done for the others:



THINK! said:


> It's Not About Reflecting Regional Accents. It's about using the alfabet rules you wer given as a child and implementing them. For example:
> 
> 
> Save
> ...


re: the bit about adopting IPA: my analogy is you'v got a house and the roof is leaking you don't knock the whole house down: you put a tile in to stop the roof leaking. You can also add extentions to yor house, convert the loft, add solar panels, knock the dividing wall down between the living room and the dinning room etc. so an so-forth, it's for yor comfort, and needs and technology change over time. I wonder how many houses still hav an out-side loo or no central heating. IPA symbols could be added to our already existing alfabet, they probably wil. Good post.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

*IVLIVS*

Which brings me to my next point:


The last letter to be added to our alfabet was 700 years ago, when the letter *"j"*  it was seperated from from *"i", *prior to that the Latin formula was used. I think the* "u" *and *"v"* wer sepaerated at about the same time. So, *"JULIUS"* (as in Caesar) used to be spelt *"IVLIVS"*.

*Seven Hundred years?* and we havn't managed to invent eny mor new letters, I would hav expected for one to be invented about 150-200 years, hopefully some new vowel letters.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 11, 2009)

*Another list of examples:*

*"A"s that should be "O"s: *

*wotch* (watch) 
*wosh* (wash)
*swon* (swan)
*swop* (swap)
*swob* (swab)
*wod* (wad)
*thwort *(thwart)
*worm* (warm)


----------



## lontok2005 (Aug 11, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Acsent  You'v probably not read the whole thread, and who could blame you



Actually, I read pretty much the whole thread  I'm on holiday and woke up through jetlag with little else to do but log on to urban. Also, as an English teacher, and with a third of my degree in linguistics, it is something I care  about a lot, and so for me this kind of thread makes interesting reading. 

There are some areas of spelling that you could reasonably reform which would work for most accents, such as 'have' into 'hav', or 'give' into 'giv', but what really would be the point of reforming the most common words that few people have trouble with anyway? 

And if you're going to attempt to phonemise English, let's at least be consistent about it. 



> Acsent base is a very very minor problem, not a massiv problem. You'v probably not read the whole thread, and who could blame you, but I'll giv the following examples as I hav done for the others:



For example -and just one example - in your post you have changed 'accent' in 'acsent' but then you have 'haven't as 'havn't'. Why not acknowledge the fact that the second vowel in both words is the selfsame schwa (the final unstressed vowel sound in a word like 'butter') and have 'acsnt' instead, which is at least consistent with 'havn't'; and then why not do away with the apostrophe altogether (a la Bernard Shaw) and have 'acsnt' and 'havnt', which you will agree contain the same two vowel sounds? But then, taking your post as an example, you would have to have 'minr' for 'minor', 'problm' for 'problem', 'probbly' for 'probably', 'th' for 'the', 'exampls' for 'examples', 'fr' for 'for' and 'othrs' for 'others', because if you don't do that, then it renders any vowel that stands for a schwa sound pointless at best, inconsistent at least and confusing at worst.

Also, I disagree tht acsnt iza minr problm. It's only minor so long as yours is the accent the writing system is based on. I'm from East London, so can we please have all the 'th's in 'three' and 'think' and 'thorough' changed to 'f's, to give what I naturally say - 'free', 'fink' and 'forough'? Ah, but then you'd have to change the spelling of your username, wouldn't you? 

The spelling system of English is indeed riddled with irregularities, but actually, by and large, those irregularities tend to be in the highest frequency words (such as 'have' and 'give') and therefore the words children and second langauge learners are least likely to have trouble with - exactly because they occur so frequently. Outside of the core vocabulary, there are actually a fair number of rules to the spelling system, which, though not necessarily logical, are fairly consistent. One such is the rule you highlight, that the addition of an 'e' on the end of a monosyllabic word changes the central vowel in a regular way (eg. 'tim' > 'time', 'slim' > 'slime', 'dim' > 'dime'; 'slop' > 'slope', 'cop' > 'cope', 'mop' > 'mope'; and 'tap' > 'tape', 'rap' > 'rape', 'nap' > 'nape'). This might be illogical (add an extra, unpronounced 'e' in order to alter the pronunciation of an earlier vowel!!), but there are historical linguistic reasons why this is so, and the current manifest illogic does not diminish the fact that the rule is so consistent that I can invent words and be assured you will pronounce them as I intend; 'plim' > 'plime', 'glop' > 'glope' and 'brap' > 'brape' , to give three examples off the top of my head.

So the idea that English spelling is entirely haphazard is not really true. There are other examples, such as the doubling of final consonants when monosyllabic words ending in one vowel and one consonant become bisyllabic ('big' > 'bigger', 'snap' > 'snappy', 'shop' > 'shopping'), which does not occur when there are two vowels preceding the final consonant ('neat' > 'neater', 'cloud' > 'cloudy', 'snoop' > 'snooping'). Again, these have no inherent phonemic logic, but orthographically they are so consistent that without anyone's say-so we all began to write 'blog' and 'blogging' but 'email' and 'emailing'. If you are going to attempt to reform English spelling, it probably helps to understand the current system.

By all means change 'quay' to 'ki' (or 'ci', going by your 'accent' to 'acsent' example) and 'leopard' to 'lepd' (going by my schwa examples), but is that really going to make much difference to literacy rates?

This post is wandering now, but the other thing I'd like to say before turning in for the night is that one of the strengths to be gained from having the spelling system we do is that it allows English speakers the world over, regardless of their own accent, to read the same language. Just think, for example, of a novel such as Irving Welsh's 'Trainspotting', which is written in a 'phonemic' rendering of the Scottish dialect. It's a great book, but hard work if you're not familiar with the Edinburgh accent, no matter how accurate that rendering might be. A phonemic transliteration of the entire language would mean that with any piece of text, no matter how long, no matter how short, no matter how literate, no matter how mundane, there would be a great many people struggling to make sense of it.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2009)

*Walk away if you wish to agree to disagree - don't lower yourselves to insults please*

Good posts Lontok - and good points well made.

The 'e' at the end of four letter words makes the vowel sound longer in the same way as the doubling in other forms makes it shorter (eg hoping or hopping). These are key aspects of English spelling and I see no reason to halt this. I am not propounding a straight, black/white change to a phonetic spelling - I am merely suggesting that we acsept the idea of change. The examples I have given are all little consonant tweaks which would help to make our language better.

The key is whether one acsepts the idea of change. Why shouldn't we change the spelling? No one has any problems reading US English online and tho reading Trainspotting was hard at times (what did 'ken' mean ffs), it was only hard because I wasn't used to it - after a bit it got easier.

And 'haven't' is a contraction and so I would leave it as 'havn't' - I appreciate that that sounds like a cop out, but whatever system we move towards would be inconsistent, as is our system now - it would be up to us to devise a system which is more consistent while maintaining the 'e' on the end and the doubling etc. This is not a black and white issue - in fact it is lack of trust of the people to be able to take on change which is the problem. I am suggesting that people would be able to take on change much easier than people here think...

Just pointing out possible problems (such as which vowel combination would represent the schwa) is easy - I could point out many possible areas of possible problems, but crucially this doesn't mean that change as an ideal can be rejected. 



THINK! said:


> Fuck me, Maomao! I can't anser everything at once. Remember there is only one of me on this side of the argument.



Sorry to leave you to it - I got bored of the insults...

Our position is not as stupid as they would have us believe - as I said earlier there is a society for spelling reform which has been in existence since 1908 so their insults are just desperation on their part.

However to continue being the balanced side, considering both sides, they are right to say that etymology would suffer from the spelling reform they we propound - the example we were using was 'phon' and Maomao kindly listed a vast list of words which had 'phon' in the word stating:



> In the vast majority of these words the phoneme phon retains it's meaning of relating to sound or voices.



Which means that there are exceptions (such as phoney), but the reform that we are asking for _would _create a world where there would be many more inconsistencies, (eg moving from 90% to 80% ish) and for me this is a cheap price to pay. Most dyslexics and students of ESOL I hav suggested this to, seem to think that it would make an identifiable difference to their lives, not to mention the other advantages previously mentioned. I could also see English spreading even further if it were improoved like this...

OK, so let's take an example: etymologically 'phoney' comes from the word 'fawney' a gilt brass ring used by swindlers - but are they going to ignore this inconvenient piece of information? Would they be happy at changing the spelling of 'phoney' to 'foney'? I suspect not because their position is based on *the rejection of change fundamentally*. If they _did_ acsept it, then it would turn into a discussion about the degree of change needed.

All discussions come down to the different priorities that the individual haz. So in this case:

the help that a more phonetic spelling system would give and 
keeping the etymology more consistent

Which is more important? 

If the latter, then roll up and join VP, Maomao and others, 
if the former then welcome to the side which is not reduced to personal insults 

Bear in mind that these are not stupid people, despite their insults. They are probably aware that 'jenuis' is easier to teach than 'genius' so maybe they are just abusing us for their own amusement... They know that English has a large number of these rules to learn when you are learning to read, and even tho they seem reluctant to admit it - they probably recognise that they could be simplified and are therefore trolling us...

Note how they refuse to stop going on about accents - it is obvious that we need to have an arbitrary 'correct' spelling system, we have already discussed this at length (heck they persuaded me ) it is RP. This might be 'unfair' to different accents but this is not relevant to this discussion. If they want to discuss that then let them start their own thread about it (please)...


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2009)

Gmarthews - why do Koreans still rely on Chinese characters for dictionary definitions and legal documents? Do you actually speak Korean?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2009)

Maomao - I didn't mention Korean once in that whole post - so if you wish to start a thread on it, fine but don't be so rude as to derail this thread onto another subject you would prefer/feel safer on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2009)

So your previous examples of Korean as a successful phonetic writing form are swiftly abandoned?


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Maomao - I didn't mention Korean once in that whole post - so if you wish to start a thread on it, fine but don't be so rude as to derail this thread onto another subject you would prefer/feel safer on.



Well, don't be so rude as to continue a debate without answering questions you've been asked several times. Your reply to my 6 points last time was pathetic to say the least. THINK! is a bit unorganised, doesn't understand that his experience of dyslexia isn't everyone's experience of dyslexia and has difficulty communicating in a debate but you're just an arrogant fucking imbecile who needs a kick in the fucking teeth.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> So your previous examples of Korean as a successful phonetic writing form are swiftly abandoned?



No, that is just a fact - Korean is a good example of a more phonetic spelling system than we have - I envisage a movement towards a more phonetic system for English and that is what I wrote about in the post above, I prefer to comment on what has been said more recently - if you wish to go back then that is your choice, but it is a simple, past point that there are many other languages which are more phonetic than English.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No, that is just a fact - Korean is a good example of a more phonetic spelling system than we have - I envisage a movement towards a more phonetic system for English and that is what I wrote about in the post above, I prefer to comment on what has been said more recently - if you wish to go back then that is your choice, but it is a simple, past point that there are many other languages which are more phonetic than English.



And dyslexia is practically unknown in China. We should obviously adopt a logographic system.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well, don't be so rude as to continue a debate without answering questions you've been asked several times. Your reply to my 6 points last time was pathetic to say the least. THINK! is a bit unorganised, doesn't understand that his experience of dyslexia isn't everyone's experience of dyslexia and has difficulty communicating in a debate but you're just an arrogant fucking imbecile who needs a kick in the fucking teeth.



And your insults show your inability to follow the discussion. I suggest you walk away rather than reducing yourself to such insults - you are just embarrassing yourself.

I hav consistently addressed your issues - you simply put the consistency of etymology above the benefits of spelling reform - your constant repetitions are just boring now.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I hav consistently addressed your issues - you simply put the consistency of etymology above the benefits of spelling reform - your constant repetitions are just boring now.



No you fucking haven't, you declared yourself the winner and walked away. You haven't answered a single one of my questions about the Korean language and have at no point indicated your actual knowledge of that tongue. Your suggestion that etymology was of no import because 'advanced learners were better able to deal with such problems' was nothing short of laughable. You're a turd brained fuckpig and you can suck my fucking cock quite frankly. You would be doing the world a favour if you went and fucked yourself with the largest sharpest knife in your kitchen as soon as you've finished reading this post.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2009)

I'd like to state that etymology _does _have importance, it is just that I consider it to be secondary to the benefits I think that spelling reform would bring.

I have consistently commented at length on the feedback given here, heck I would usually put any abusive, unreasonable posters like this on ignore with BA. 

As I said, I hav consistently addressed your issues - you simply put the consistency of etymology above the benefits of spelling reform. You are entitled to your view - go in peace.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> As I said, I hav consistently addressed your issues



No, you haven't.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2009)

maomao said:


> No you fucking haven't, you declared yourself the winner and walked away. You haven't answered a single one of my questions about the Korean language and have at no point indicated your actual knowledge of that tongue. Your suggestion that etymology was of no import because 'advanced learners were better able to deal with such problems' was nothing short of laughable. You're a turd brained fuckpig and you can suck my fucking cock quite frankly. You would be doing the world a favour if you went and fucked yourself with the largest sharpest knife in your kitchen as soon as you've finished reading this post.





maomao said:


> No, you haven't.



Yes I have - #541 is pretty comprehensive. The fact of the matter is that we disagree and you just can't take that. I have no problems with your position: that etymological consistency is more important than the help that a more phonetic system would bring - in fact you seem to dout that spelling reform would help to any degree...

That is your freedom

But this quote above makes it clear you are unable to agree to disagree preferring to insult insult insult.

And that is just downright dodgy - this subject is interesting to some here but you need to work out a better way to tolerate different opinions - at the moment you come across as unable to accept differences in opinion which you don't agree with.

All I can say to that is that I hope you are as young as you seem - there are enough old, authoritarian fascists in the world already telling everyone what that should think while persecuting anyone else who thinks differently.

If you are unable to get a grip on yourself, and address the issues of #541 one by one - then walk away - accept that you disagree with someone and that that is just the way life is - imagine how boring it would be if we all agreed 




Your insults don't entitle you to such a friendly response - but maybe you were just drunk - so let's take a subject which we are more likely to agree on:

I believe that cannabis should be legalised because I trust people in general to make their own decisions when it comes down to their own bodies - but I understand that other people disagree becoz they feel that the risks of legalisation, are too great and are more important than the personal freedom issue I give preeminence to.

so we have the risks of cannabis and
people's personal freedom to choose what they do to their own bodies

which is more important? (Substitute in alcohol for cannabis if it makes it more straightforward).

The former and you are with the government and the prohibitionists, the latter and you are with me.

But *either *position is tenable - and no disagreement could justify the insults above. That just shows your fear of the other person's position.

This is why agreeing to disagree is so important. If you just want to abuse people for your own amusement, then that puts you in the camp of BA and if this is really the case, then I will put you on ignore with them.

No offence, but life is too short to read that kind of filth - try rereading '541 and rejoin the conversation - I look forward to your constructive criticism


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2009)

It's not 'agreeing to disagree' when you dismiss people's arguments with made up facts, emotive nonsense and statistics you've pulled straight from your arse. The cannabis analogy is ironic 'cause your posts are the intellectual equivalent of soap bar, camel shit masquerading as something it's not. Your best option here is still to follow my kitchen knife advice above, it won't hurt for long and the world will be an immeasurably better place afterwards.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2009)

Are you really suggesting that G-mart actually kills himself?  Because if so then his journey to the dark side of trollery truly is complete.  That's a truly epic piece of winding up.


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Are you really suggesting that G-mart actually kills himself?  Because if so then his journey to the dark side of trollery truly is complete.  That's a truly epic piece of winding up.



No, I'm just trying to be as offensive as he is dishonest.  If I'm going to be reduced to abuse I might as well be thorough.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2009)

Well it's a good effort then.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

mor words to add to the "*or*" list:

*sort *(sought)
*bort *(bought)
*brort *(brought)
*fort *(fought)
*thwort *(thwart)
*worm *(warm)
*thort *(thought)
*worter *(water)


The last two ar significant, becoz all my life I hav never been sure how to pronounce "water" becoz of the way it is spelled, now I hav seen this, it all becomes clear and it now has a stable place in my brain, a fix'd place, it doesn't drift. The spelling of "thought" was about as far as I got as a kid, if it had been spelt, "thort", (so fucking easy) I would hav gon on to mor words, a higher level befor I found my ceiling.

mor words to add to *"A"'s that should be "o"'s*, List:

*swob* (swab)
*wod* (wad)
*thwort *(thwart) _again_


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

lontok2005 said:


> There are some areas of spelling that you could reasonably reform which would work for most accents, such as 'have' into 'hav', or 'give' into 'giv', but what really would be the point of reforming the most common words that few people have trouble with anyway?




Smaller words *ar* the bilding blocks of l*ar*ger words, that's one of the reasons to get them right, another is, simply, *they should be spelt correctly in the first place*. These words ar the easiests to pick-up, they make sense and ar extremely familar and you pick them up in no time.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

lontok2005 said:


> And if you're going to attempt to phonemise English, let's at least be consistent about it.
> 
> For example -and just one example - in your post you have changed 'accent' in 'acsent' but then you have 'haven't as 'havn't'. Why not acknowledge the fact that the second vowel in both words is the selfsame schwa (the final unstressed vowel sound in a word like 'butter') and have 'acsnt' instead, which is at least consistent with 'havn't'; and then why not do away with the apostrophe altogether (a la Bernard Shaw) and have 'acsnt' and 'havnt', which you will agree contain the same two vowel sounds? But then, taking your post as an example, you would have to have 'minr' for 'minor', 'problm' for 'problem', 'probbly' for 'probably', 'th' for 'the', 'exampls' for 'examples', 'fr' for 'for' and 'othrs' for 'others', because if you don't do that, then it renders any vowel that stands for a schwa sound pointless at best, inconsistent at least and confusing at worst.
> 
> .



There is a version of spelling reform that does exactly what you hav done, I believ, call'd, "*cutspel*". I personly would prefer all the "schwa's" to be put in, like "prism", "jizm", "schism"  becomes, priz-em, jizem schizem.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Words this thread brings to mind:

*bolox* (bollocks)
*styoopid* (stupid)
*krap* (crap)
*shitt* (shit)
*naro-miynded* (narrow-minded)
*poyntlesl* (pointless)
*grate big piyl ov wank that refyuzez too rekogniyz enythin owtsiyd ov the OP's narro ajender* (great big pile of wank that refuses to recognise anything outside of the OP's narrow agenda)
*meerly demonstrativ ov the OP's ignoranss and utta lak ov intelekchul sofistikashon* (merely demonstrative of the OP's ignorance and utter lack of intellectual sophistication)
*fayssparm* (facepalm)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Words this thread brings to mind:
> 
> *bolox* (bollocks)
> *styoopid* (stupid)
> ...



Eh? I wrote those lists, not the OP Face*/*palm


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Eh? I wrote those lists, not the OP



Whatever, you're one and the same in your misguided fervour to vandalise the english language.

Happily, it will never, ever, ever, ever happen.  I've not seen any discussion of the practicalities of your idea on this thread yet.  Even if you won your theoretical argument, it's completely pointless as it's totally unrealistic to suggest it could ever be implemented.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh come on, you can't help but believe that THINK's 'let's change word a year to make things easier' would be a roaring success and entirely practical. That way, after the human species has become extinct, we'd be about 20% towards enforcing some confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system to work alongside our usual vocabulary.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign*



Corax said:


> Whatever, you're one and the same in your misguided fervour to vandalise the english language.
> 
> Happily, it will never, ever, ever, ever happen.  I've not seen any discussion of the practicalities of your idea on this thread yet.  Even if you won your theoretical argument, it's completely pointless as it's totally unrealistic to suggest it could ever be implemented.



Why? it's been done in other countries. and would done at such a slow pace you wouldn't see too many changes in a life-time. It *wouldn't* be  done all at once, but a series of stages, starting with the simple stuff first.
Spelling reform would happen gradually, as in other countries, not all at once, over night, but a few words here, a few letters chopped-off there and both spellings, the new improoved and the Traditional Recieved, would be acceptable, and the moritorium would about 70 years.
for example it could go something like this:

*(The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign)* The first stage could be to cut the unnecessary final "*e*"



*ar* (are)
*ax* (axe)
*giv* (give) 
*gon* (gone)
*hav* (have)
*achiev* (achieve)
*themselvs*  (themselves) 
*servs* (serves)
*leavs* (leaves)


plus groups of words that end in the suffix, "*tive*", as in:

*activ, 
relativ* etc. 

*opposit, 
doctrin,
composit
examin, 
famin, 
infinit, 
definit and 
believ.* None of those new words ar difficult to read.
and 
*disciplin*

then twenty years later another type of change.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Oh come on, you can't help but believe that THINK's 'let's change word a year to make things easier' would be a roaring success and entirely practical. That way, after the human species has become extinct, we'd be about 20% towards enforcing some *confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system* to work alongside our usual vocabulary.



We already hav a *"confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system".*


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Oh come on, you can't help but believe that THINK's 'let's change word a year to make things easier' would be a roaring success and entirely practical. That way, after the human species has become extinct, we'd be about 20% towards enforcing some confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system to work alongside our usual vocabulary.



Everything printed would become obsolete just a year after printing it!  At least publishing houses would be happy.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Oh come on, you can't help but believe that THINK's 'let's change word a year to make things easier' would be a roaring success and entirely practical. That way, after the human species has become extinct, we'd be about 20% towards enforcing some confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system to work alongside our usual vocabulary.



But you don't even giv us that chance, just one fucking word, to demonstrate our point and how easy it would be impliment! Let us change just one fucking word.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We already hav a *"confused and ugly arbitrary spelling system".*



Yes, but it's one that's built up organically, often by common consent. It's certainly not uglier than the brutalized, foreshortened word formats you propose either. You basically want to force change upon people bit by bit, using some horrible received pronunciation approach that flattens accents and hundreds of years of proud history. To control everyone, asking them to put on a voice akin to the queen sucking on plums, so that some new form of spelling correctness vaguely works.

It's a load of sweating betty swollocks to be honest.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> But you don't even giv us that chance, just one fucking word, to demonstrate our point and how easy it would be impliment! Let us change just one fucking word.



Who the fuck is us? And why the shit should you have control over the language?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Everything printed would become obsolete just a year after printing it!  At least publishing houses would be happy.



kabbes, you obviously havn't read/(red?) what i hav written. There would be only a few changes. Nobody has to destroy their books. Nobody suddenly stops knowing how to read the old spellings, you don't hav to adopt the new spelling if you don't want to. Publishinhg Houses would make their own decisions


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

I wanted to demonstrate what the changes would look like, but my frend doesn't appear to hav a Word Processor on his computer. If you wer use the* "Find and Replace"* facility, and just apply the *Unnecessary Final "E" change*, I'm sure it would look virtually the same and still be totally readable:


extract from, *"the Beach"*


"the first I heard of the beach was in Bangkok, on the Ko Sahn Road. The Ko Sahn Road was backpacker land. Almost all of the buildings had been converted to guest houses, there were long-distance telephone booths with air-con, the cafes showed brand-new Hollywood films on video, and you couldn't walk ten feet without passing a bootleg tape stall. The main function of the street was as a decompression chamber for all those about to leave Thailand; a halfway house between the East and the West. 

I'd landed at Bangkok in the late afternoon, and by the time I got to Ko Sahn it was dark. My taxi driver winked and told me that at one end of the street was a police station, so I asked him to drop me off at the other end. I wasn't planning on a crime, but I wanted to oblige his conspiratorial charm. Not that it made much difference at which end one stayed because the police obviously weren't active. I caught the smell of grass as soon as I got out of the cab, and half the travelers weaving past me were stoned. 

The driver left me outside a guest house with an eating area open to the street. As I studied it, checking the clientele to gauge what kind of place it was, a thin man at the table nearest me leaned over and touched my arm. I glanced down. He was, I guessed, one of those heroin hippies that float around India and Thailand. He'd probably come to Asia ten years ago and turned an occasional dabble into addiction. His skin was old, though I'd have believed he was in his thirties. The way he was looking at me, I had the feeling I was being sized up as someone to rip off. 

"What?" I said warily. 

He pulled an expression of surprise and held up the palms of his hands. Then he curled his finger and thumb into the O-shaped perfection sign and pointed into the guest house. 

"It's a good place?" 

He nodded. 

I looked again at the people around the tables. They were mostly young and friendly looking, some watching TV and some chattering over their dinner. 

"Okay." I smiled at him in case he wasn't a heroin addict but just a friendly mute. "I'm sold." 

He returned the smile and turned back to the video screen. 

Quarter of an hour later I was settling into a room that was a little larger than a double bed. I can be accurate about it because there was a double bed in the room, and on four sides there was a foot of space. My bag could just slide into the gap. 

One wall was concrete -- the side of the building. The others were Formica and bare. They moved when I touched them. I had the feeling that if I leaned against one it would fall over and maybe hit another, and all the walls of the neighboring rooms would collapse like dominoes. Just short of the ceiling, the walls stopped, and across the space was a strip of mosquito netting. The netting almost upheld the illusion of being in a confined, personal area, until I lay down on my bed. As soon as I relaxed, I began to hear the cockroaches scuttling around in other rooms. 

At my head end I had a French couple in their late teens -- a beautiful, slim girl with a suitably handsome boy attached. They'd been leaving their room as I got to mine and we exchanged nods as we passed in the corridor. The other end was empty. Through the netting I could see that the light was off, and anyway, if it had been occupied I would have heard the person breathing. It was the last room on the corridor, so I presumed it faced the street and had a window. 

On the ceiling was a fan, strong enough on full setting to stir the air. For a while I did nothing but lie on the bed and look up at it. It was calming, following the revolutions, and with the mixture of heat and soft breeze, I felt I could drift to sleep. That suited me. West to east is the worst for jet lag, and I wanted to fall into the right sleeping pattern on the first night. 

I switched off the light. Enough of a warm glow from the corridor outside came through for me to still see the fan. Soon I was asleep. 

Once or twice I was aware of people in the corridor, and I thought I heard the French couple coming back, then leaving again. But the noises never woke me fully and I was always able to slip back into the dream I'd been having before. Until I hard the man's footsteps. They had no rhythm or weight and dragged on the floor. 

A muttered stream of English swearwords floated into my room as he jiggled the padlock on his door. Then there was a loud sigh, the lock opened with a click, and his light came on. The mosquito netting cast a patterned shadow on my ceiling. 

Frowning, I looked at my watch. It was two in the morning -- late afternoon, English time. I wondered if I might get back to sleep. 

The man slumped onto his bed, giving the wall between us an alarming shake. He coughed awhile, then I heard the crackle of a joint being rolled. Soon there was blue smoke caught in the light, rolling through the netting. 

Aside from the occasional deep exhalation, he was silent. I drifted back to sleep, almost. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bitch," said a voice. I opened my eyes. 

"Fucking bitch. We're both as good as ..." 

The voice paused for a coughing fit. 

"Dead." 

I was wide awake now, so I sat up in bed. 

"Cancer in the corals, blue water, my bitch. Fucking Christ, did me in," the man continued. 

He had an accent but at first my sleep-fogged head couldn't place it. 

"Bitch" he continued. 

A Scottish accent. Beach. 

There was a scrabbling sound on the wall. For a moment I thought he might be trying to push it over, and I had a vision of myself being sandwiched between the Formica board and the bed. Then his head appeared through the mosquito netting, silhouetted, facing me. 

"Hey," he said. 

I didn't move. I was sure he couldn't see into my room. 

"Hey. I know you're listening. In there, you know you're awake." 

He lifted up a finger and gave the netting an exploratory poke. It popped away from where it was stapled to the Formica. His head struck through. 

"Here." 

A glowing red object sailed though the darkness, landing on the bed in a little shower of sparks. The joint he'd been smoking. I grabbed it to stop it from burning the sheets. 

"Yeah," said the man, and laughed quietly. "Got you now. I saw you take the butt." For a few seconds I couldn't get a handle on the situation. I kept thinking -- what if I actually had been asleep? The sheets might have caught fire. I might have burned to death. The panic flipped into anger, but I suppressed it. The man was way too much of a random element for me to lose my temper. I could still see only his head and that was backlit, in shadow. 

Holding up the joint, I asked, "Do you want this back?" 

"You were listening," he replied, ignoring me. "Heard me talking about the beach." 

"... You've got a loud voice." 

"Tell me what you heard." 

"I didn't hear anything." 

"... Heard nothing?" 

He paused for a moment, then pressed his face into the netting. 

"You're lying." 

"No. I was asleep. You just woke me up ... when you threw this joint at me." 

"You were listening," he hissed. 

"I don't care if you don't believe me." 

"I don't believe you." 

Well ... I don't care ... Look." I stood on the bed so our heads were at the same level, and held out the joint to the hole he'd made. "If you want this, take it. All I want is to go to sleep." 

As I lifted my hand he pulled back, moving out of the shadow. His face was flat like a boxer's, the nose busted too many times to have any form, and his lower jaw was too large for the top half of his skull. It would have been threatening if not for the body it was attached to. The large jaw tapered into a neck so thin it seemed incredible that it supported his head, and his T-shirt hung slackly on coat hanger shoulders. 

Past him I saw into his room. There was a window, as I'd assumed, but he'd taped it up with pages from a newspaper. Apart from that it was bare. 

His hand reached through the gap and plucked the butt from my fingers. 

"Okay," I said, thinking I'd gained some kind of control. "Now leave me alone." 

"No," he replied flatly. 

"... No?" 

"No." 

"Why not? What do you ... Do you want something?" 

"Yep." He grinned. "I wants lots. And that's why" -- again he pushed his face into the netting -- "I won't leave you alone."


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Yes, but it's one that's built up organically, often by common consent. It's certainly not uglier than the brutalized, foreshortened word formats you propose either. You basically want to force change upon people bit by bit, using some horrible received pronunciation approach that flattens accents and hundreds of years of proud history. To control everyone, asking them to put on a voice akin to the queen sucking on plums, so that some new form of spelling correctness vaguely works.
> 
> It's a load of sweating betty swollocks to be honest.



Common consent? No one ask'd me.

RP? your spellings ar "RS", *Recieved Spellings*, frozen in a 15th Century time Warp.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2009)

This thread consists of pages and pages with little else other than 


> This message is hidden because THINK! is on your ignore list.


It's like a piece of installation art.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Words this thread brings to mind:
> 
> *bolox* (bollocks)
> *styoopid* (stupid)
> ...



why "Krap" and not "crap"?
why does shitt hav two "T"s?
Bollocks is the plural of Bollock so just add an "s".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Yes, but it's one that's built up organically, often by common consent. It's certainly not uglier than the brutalized, foreshortened word formats you propose either. You basically want to force change upon people bit by bit, using some horrible received pronunciation approach that flattens accents and hundreds of years of proud history. To control everyone, asking them to put on a voice akin to the queen sucking on plums, so that some new form of spelling correctness vaguely works.
> 
> It's a load of sweating betty swollocks to be honest.



Where has all this, "*sucking on plums*", bollocks come from?

"axe" would be mor sensibly spelt "*ax*". What's that got to do with "sucking on plums"?

Rhymes with:

*Tax
Fax
Lax
Max*


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Yes, but it's one that's built up organically, often by common consent. It's certainly not uglier than the brutalized, foreshortened word formats you propose either. You basically want to force change upon people bit by bit, using some horrible received pronunciation approach that flattens accents and hundreds of years of proud history. To control everyone, asking them to put on a voice akin to the queen sucking on plums, so that some new form of spelling correctness vaguely works.
> 
> It's a load of sweating betty swollocks to be honest.



We already have a dominant pronunciation, so this is not really a change, and the idea that somehow these changes would force everyone to 'speak like the queen' is just bollox - accents exist in countries with a more phonetic spelling system as has been pointed out here over and over.

The idea that you seem to be fighting is that our idea might help at all.

Why are you so opposed to change to any degree seeing as it at least seems likely that it helps dyslexics and children in general learning to read?

I appreciate that it requires a paradigm shift to adopt change, which is why we are suggesting a slow change, word by word over a long period of change. Books would not suddenly become unreadable any more so than Shakespeare is now...



tarannau said:


> Who the fuck is us? And why the shit should you have control over the language?



At the moment the OED has control over the language in that it publishes every year or so and includes a list of new words such as 'chav'. So a correct spelling and pronunciation already exists.

If we acsept for a moment that these changes would help the groups mentioned and that the existing spellers would be able to deal with a world where 'thought' is spelt 'thort' - isn't it at least reasonable to consider change?

Aren't we trying to improve the world, rather than just justify its existing structures? If a step exists that can help, and the only thing standing in the way is etymology, then maybe etymology needs to change too. History doesn't stand still it is a contant dialogue.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> At the moment the OED has control over the language in that it publishes every year or so and includes a list of new words such as 'chav'.



How the fuck do you have control over a language by reflecting the use of a word that's already in widespread usage?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*Soft "G". *What the Hell is that about?

as in:

*gender
generation 
giant
gems
gent
gypsim*

One poster earlier on, complain'd that we would be loosing our "tools", there would in fact be mor tools to use. 
Take the word "*gem*", should be spelt "*jem*", if we wer to do that would leav us to hav a word  "*Gem*" (pronounced with a Hard "G") in the future. Not the most beautiful sounding word, but, still available to us.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> How the fuck do you have control over a language by reflecting the use of a word that's already in widespread usage?



Try, just for a moment to calm down. The control which I am referring to is that the OED states the pronunciation and spelling of each and every new word.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

I think, maybe, that your definition of control is skewed. People do not speak according the the OED, nor are they controlled by it.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Soft "G". *What the Hell is that about?
> 
> as in:
> 
> ...



'stingy' too - I heard someone say it with a hard 'g' sound recently and I had to question him as to what he meant - in a sting like way??

These little moments of incomprehension might seem negligible to those who are English, but put the discussion on the phone, between two speakers of other languages using English as a common language and they become a serious impediment to comprehension...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I think, maybe, that your definition of control is skewed. People do not speak according the the OED, nor are they controlled by it.



They dicide which spelling to use and which pronunciation. You might not be dictated to becoz you are (I presume) English, and becoz you have already acsepted the imposition of an inconsistent spelling system when you were learning to read.

And i'm sure you could give an example of a pronunciation different from the RP in the OED - but I would be able to find many who _did _pronounce it like that..

For example, earlier we were talking about the word 'scissors' which I pronounce 'sizzerz' and so I suggested that we spell it like that - but lots of people pointed out that they don't pronounce it like that - and that's fine, but most people do - that's why it has that pronunciation in the OED - they asked themselves which pronunciation was dominant, and then speciafied that as the 'correct' pronunciation.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*The Majic "E"*



lontok2005 said:


> The spelling system of English is indeed riddled with irregularities, ...Outside of the core vocabulary, there are actually a fair number of rules to the spelling system, which, though not necessarily logical, are fairly consistent. One such is the rule you highlight, that the addition of an 'e' on the end of a monosyllabic word changes the central vowel in a regular way (eg. 'tim' > 'time', 'slim' > 'slime', 'dim' > 'dime'; 'slop' > 'slope', 'cop' > 'cope', 'mop' > 'mope'; and 'tap' > 'tape', 'rap' > 'rape', 'nap' > 'nape'). This might be illogical (add an extra, unpronounced 'e' in order to alter the pronunciation of an earlier vowel!!), but there are historical linguistic reasons why this is so, and the current manifest illogic does not diminish the fact that the rule is so consistent that I can invent words and be assured you will pronounce them as I intend; 'plim' > 'plime', 'glop' > 'glope' and 'brap' > 'brape' , to give three examples off the top of my head.
> 
> .



The Majic "E"


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The Majic "E"



I quite like the rule that an 'e' on the end of a word makes the vowel sound longer - same as the doubling of a letter makes it smaller (hoping and hopping) - quite typically English for me, and not really a source of incomprehension IME.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I quite like the rule that an 'e' on the end of a word makes the vowel sound longer - same as the doubling of a letter makes it smaller (hoping and hopping) - quite typically English for me, and not really a source of incomprehension IME.



I'm not sure i'v got that big a problem with them either, at least they ar consistent.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm not sure i'v got that big a problem with them either, at least they ar consistent.


If your way of writing is supposed to be the future, I'll stay in the past, thanks.

What you're proposing is just laziness.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> wifdraw surely?



Why would it be, "wifdraw"? surely, it would be "withdror"?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> If your way of writing is supposed to be the future, I'll stay in the past, thanks.
> 
> What you're proposing is just laziness.



*Bollocks.* I work twice as hard as the any of the other posters on this thread to write my posts becoz I am dyslexic. If effort alone meant success, I would one the richest men in the World.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

What about all the foreign students and old people who would suddenly be guilty of spelling words the 'wrong' way?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*Moritorium*



editor said:


> What about all the foreign students and old people who would suddenly be guilty of spelling words the 'wrong' way?



You didn't read the whole thread, which is understandable. Both spellings would be valid, a moritorium for about 70 years, i.e. a average person's lifetime.

Further to the foriegn students bit. I had a Chinese-Chinese girl-frend, Ming, who was learning English from a language school, who, when I told her and demonstrated the problems of Inglish spelling, said " why didn't my teacher tell me this?", it was a real, "things ar clear now" moment. and a sense of frustration with the stupid teacher and her difficulties in mastering English.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> What about all the foreign students and old people who would suddenly be guilty of spelling words the 'wrong' way?



It would be the same as the current situation where many people pronounce words differently from RP - if people wish to spell 'thought' as 'thort' or vica versa then that would be fine - my priority is to ensure that people CAN spell things phonetically rather than telling people what they CAN'T do.

Most foreign speakers IME would be first in line for these changes because it makes learning English, and esp pronunciation, so much easier.

Spelling 'magic' with a 'j' as in 'majic' would harm no one and I suspect the world wouldn't explode


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You didn't read the whole thread, which is understandable. Both spellings would be valid, a moritorium for about 70 years, i.e. a average person's lifetime.



So we'd have a lifetime of *TWO* correct spellings?  and you think that's be _less_ confusing?

Whatever.  The fact remains that your idea is totally impractical because whatever body you set up to promote/enforce it would be *completely fucking ignored*.  Because it's a *shit idea*.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 13, 2009)

Yes, because searching for words in documents or on the Internet is really easy when everything can be spelled any way you like.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So we'd have a lifetime of *TWO* correct spellings?  and you think that's be _less_ confusing?



The 'correct' spelling would be the new way, but the old way would persist for an average lifetime as acceptable.

You seem desperate to pour scorn on the idea, but tell me, why do you think that having 'magic' spelt as 'majic' would be so confusing? We are suggesting that both spellings would be acceptable. It is exactly the same in the German Speaking countries now after the spelling reform of 1996 - many of the older generation still use the older forms, but slowly and surely the younger generation is born and grows up with the new system.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

A soft g is softer than a j FFS.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> A soft g is softer than a j FFS.



What R U on about? 

You ignore my answer... why? because you can't respond?

R U suggesting that there are two forms of the 'j' sound?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Yes, because searching for words in documents or on the Internet is really easy when everything can be spelled any way you like.



Two spellings, "*Recieved*" and "*nu*".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> A soft g is softer than a j FFS.



In yor imajination it is, becoz they ar two different letters, but I think you'll find that they ar exactly the same sound. maomao wil confirm.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So we'd have a lifetime of *TWO* correct spellings?  and you think that's be _less_ confusing?
> 
> Whatever.  The fact remains that your idea is totally impractical because whatever body you set up to promote/enforce it would be *completely fucking ignored*.  Because it's a *shit idea*.



I wouldn't ignor it, especially if the new spellings made sense to me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

once again you suggest we change the whole system to suit you. I'm not going to bother arguing with you and I suggest you write a letter to the education secretary (Ed Balls) outlining your ideas. I'll lend you a green biro if you like. However I suspect you've already got one.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So we'd have a lifetime of *TWO* correct spellings?  and you think that's be _less_ confusing?



We already live with "*color*" and "*colour*". "*Thru*" "*Tonite*" ar totally understood and exist at the same time as "through" and "tonight". variant spelling has existed probably sinz the second bloke to write enything did so. and do you think "*live*" and "*live*" arn't confusing?


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You ignore my answer... why? because you can't respond?
> 
> R U suggesting that there are two forms of the 'j' sound?





Gmarthews said:


> The 'correct' spelling would be the new way, but the old way would persist for an average lifetime as acceptable.
> 
> You seem desperate to pour scorn on the idea, but tell me, why do you think that having 'magic' spelt as 'majic' would be so confusing? We are suggesting that both spellings would be acceptable. It is exactly the same in the German Speaking countries now after the spelling reform of 1996 - many of the older generation still use the older forms, but slowly and surely the younger generation is born and grows up with the new system.



Totally unsatisfatory.  Having 2 concurent spellings would be utterly confusing to many many people.  The very people that yoy claim to be championing - the ones that struggle anyway.  It's a fucking ridiculous suggestion.

The j sound _in isolation_ may be the same, but letters do not work in isolation.  They influence the sounds around them.  mag... and maj... are not the same.  The transferance from the ah sound to the j sound is more gradual is the former than the latter, as is the transferance from the j sound to the next vowel.  Doesn't matter anyway because your concurrent spelling idea is, frankly, stupid as it defeats the purpose you are aiming to achieve.

I can't believe you've been indulged for this many pages.  You're a fundamentalist evangelical spelling nutcase and there's fuck all chance of you conceding anything to anyone, even in the face of massed disagreement.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*Word Wors*

In an out and out battle for popularity, what words would become mor popular, the mor widely used?

*Hav* or *Have*?


All the Chavs would adopt "*hav*", all the youths, all the young, all the less educated, all the mor enlighten'd would adopt "*hav*". "*Have*" would be fighting a defensiv retreat, slowly giving away mor and mor ground to the increasingly mor popular, mor widely used, "*hav*".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Word Wors*
> 
> In an out and out battle for popularity, what words would become mor popular, the mor widely used?
> 
> ...




Both you and Gmart cannot help but give away classist attitudes lurking beyond your supposed altruism.

Patronising fucks.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It would be the same as the current situation where many people pronounce words differently from RP - if people wish to spell 'thought' as 'thort' or vica versa then that would be fine - my priority is to ensure that people CAN spell things phonetically rather than telling people what they CAN'T do.
> 
> Most foreign speakers IME would be first in line for these changes because it makes learning English, and esp pronunciation, so much easier.
> 
> Spelling 'magic' with a 'j' as in 'majic' would harm no one and I suspect the world wouldn't explode


I can't even begin to tell you how stupid it would be to have two completely different 'correct' spellings for the entire English dictionary. It would confuse the fuck out of people, make English harder to learn, and achieve absolutely nothing apart from waste the vastest sums of money imaginable.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> The j sound _in isolation_ may be the same, but letters do not work in isolation.  They influence the sounds around them.  mag... and maj... are not the same.  The transferance from the ah sound to the j sound is more gradual is the former than the latter, as is the transferance from the j sound to the next vowel.



Sorry, not true. Especially the case if both spellings were being used to represent the same word, the sound wuold have to be the same. The 'g' in English is pretty consistent anyway. Soft before i and e with a silent u to harden if necessary.



> I can't believe you've been indulged for this many pages.  You're a fundamentalist evangelical spelling nutcase and there's fuck all chance of you conceding anything to anyone, even in the face of massed disagreement.



Lol. They haven't been indulged, they've been abused and ridiculed. And rightly so.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We already live with "*color*" and "*colour*


No we fucking don't.  It's spelt colour in the UK.



THINK! said:


>


rolleyes?  _You're_ the one who's attempting to change the entire language because _you_ can't handle it.  _You_ are the one that's lacking in ability.  You're just one massive rolleyes facepalm combo.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> Sorry, not true. Especially the case if both spellings were being used to represent the same word, the sound wuold have to be the same. The 'g' in English is pretty consistent anyway. Soft before i and e with a silent u to harden if necessary.



I know you're the expert, but I disagree.  There's a very subtle but distinct difference imo - this may be a result of my particular dialect/accent/upbringing perhaps.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Both you and Gmart cannot help but give away classist attitudes lurking beyond your supposed altruism.
> 
> Patronising fucks.



I'm the nearast thing to a Chav on this site. maomao may be an expert on acsents, but you'v got to admit, I'm the expert on finding spelling difficult. Remember, I hav an IQ of 137, how* difficult* do dyslexics with an average IQ (100) find our peresent spellings? and what about Dyslexics with an even lower IQ than a 100?


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm the nearast thing to a Chav on this site. maomao may be an expert on acsents, but you'v got to admit, I'm the expert on finding spelling difficult. Remember, I hav an IQ of 137, how* difficult* do dyslexics with an average IQ (100) find our peresent spellings? and what about Dyslexics with a lower IQ than a 100?



Oh fuck, you're one of those people that thinks your IQ rating means you're _smart_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm the nearast thing to a Chav on this site. maomao may be an expert on acsents, but you'v got to admit, I'm the expert on finding spelling difficult. Remember, I hav an IQ of 137, how* difficult* do dyslexics with an average IQ (100) find our peresent spellings? and what about Dyslexics with a lower IQ than a 100?



are you fuck as like


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> I can't even begin to tell you how stupid it would be to have two completely different 'correct' spellings for the entire English dictionary. It would confuse the fuck out of people, make English harder to learn, and achieve absolutely nothing apart from waste the vastest sums of money imaginable.



Entire dictionary? Only a few words would be changed in a life time. When ar we going to hav a time when both spellings of every single word would be concurrant?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> ... The 'g' in English is pretty consistent anyway. *Soft before i and e with a silent u to harden if necessary*.



But we don't want those silly rules. Keep spelling consistent.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Entire dictionary? Only a few words would be changed in an life time. When ar we going to hav a time when both spellings of every single word would be concurrant?


If it's only a "few" words, why bother?

Oh, and who's going to pick up the tab for the _truly spectacular_ cost of all this pointless exercise?


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> But we don't want those silly rules. Keep spelling consistent.



'We' being a handful of people that think that because they're fucking stupid the rest of the world should bend to their whim.

Idiots like you are fucking dangerous imo.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> But we don't want those silly rules. Keep spelling consistent.




It is consistent. 'J' also represents two sounds so you'll end up getting mixed up all over again if you change them. Change all those 'j's to 'y's? Hang on, we're really talking about more than a few words here aren't we?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Oh fuck, you're one of those people that thinks your IQ rating means you're _smart_.



I'm trying to emphasise that I'm meant to be in the top 3% IQ wise and I find English spellings difficult, what do peeple with lower or low IQ's make of our spellings? *They Fucking Hate Them!*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

I think you are inventing imaginary allies, IQ's and chinese ex-girlfriends called ming


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm trying to emphasise that I'm meant to be in the top 3% IQ wise and I find English spellings difficult, what do peeple with lower or low IQ's make of our spellings? *They Fucking Hate Them!*



No, because dyslexia (as you should well know) is not related to IQ. In fact your frequent reports that you have no problem with letters in sequence makes me think that your dyslexia is not typical.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm trying to emphasise that I'm meant to be in the top 3% IQ wise and I find English spellings difficult, what do peeple with lower or low IQ's make of our spellings? *They Fucking Hate Them!*



I think that's called projection sonny. I strongly suspect most people aren't that bothered.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> If it's only a "few" words, why bother?



We hav to be realistic about the publics' ability to absorb new spellings, so they would hav to be spaced. Why bother? Hav you read the rest of the thread?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I think you are inventing imaginary allies, IQ's and chinese ex-girlfriends called ming



He had a Japanese ex a few pages ago too. Either he's making 'em up or he has some special affinity for East Asian ladies who are not that common in Brimsdown.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I think you are inventing imaginary allies, IQ's and chinese ex-girlfriends called ming



Don't worry, she not around now, I hav only you in my heart now.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Is he ex-SAS?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

*Jealous?*



maomao said:


> He had a Japanese ex a few pages ago too. Either he's making 'em up or he has some special affinity for East Asian ladies who are not that common in Brimsdown.



Minako, Japanese met her in Greenwich Park, long term girlfrend.  Ming, Chinese met her at a bus stop short term girlfrend, both probably over seven years ago. I no longer liv in Brimsdown, as i mention in my post a long time ago. Back to spelling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Who the fuck is us?


THINK! and GMarthews, by the looks of it.


> And why the shit should you have control over the language?


Because they know best, tarranau. They know best.

BTW, you realise you'll have to "phoneticise" your name, tar-a-now?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> THINK! and GMarthews, by the looks of it.
> 
> Because they know best, tarranau. They know best.
> 
> BTW, you realise you'll have to "phoneticise" your name, tar-a-now?



The Spellings of proper nouns wouldn't change. Names would stay the same.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, because dyslexia (as you should well know) is not related to IQ. In fact your frequent reports that you have no problem with letters in sequence makes me think that your dyslexia is not typical.



Are you suggesting that if it DID help dyslexics, that it could be considered?

There is no doubt that what we (and others) are suggesting would represent a major change in attitude and would have many problems to resolve - which you could list as could I - but still the fact remains that if it DID help the bottom 10% (say) and could be proven to help, would you allow your preference on keeping etymology frozen in time, to prevent this change. It is a matter of basic philosophy - do you agree with the attempt to solve a problem identified or do you prefer to sweep it under the carpet?

There are so many slippery slope fallacies here that I don't know where to start


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> We already have a dominant pronunciation, so this is not really a change, and the idea that somehow these changes would force everyone to 'speak like the queen' is just bollox - accents exist in countries with a more phonetic spelling system as has been pointed out here over and over.
> 
> The idea that you seem to be fighting is that our idea might help at all.
> 
> ...


Are you aware of what a "paradigm shift" actually is, as codified by the person who thought up the term?
It's a shift that occurs when a certain momentum builds behind an idea or set of ideas that challenge the current consensus, which raises the question:
"Where's your momentum?"
There's no mass movement for "phoneticisation", not even among those who actually understand the mechanics of linguistics and written language. There's you and THINK! and a couple of societies that have a couple of hundred members. Hardly enough to bring about a "paradigm shift" any time soon.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The Spellings of proper nouns wouldn't change. Names would stay the same.



More of your fabulously coherant and consistent thinking.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> but still the fact remains that if it DID help the bottom 10%



Fuck the bottom 10%.  You don't need to know how to spell broom in order to use one.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> More of your fabulously coherant and consistent thinking.



Just pretty obvious.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> THINK! and GMarthews, by the looks of it.



Of course the Spelling Reform groups that have been mentioned in this thread so far, could also be included in the 'us'.

But you never let facts get in the way of abusing other posters VP, do you


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> How the fuck do you have control over a language by reflecting the use of a word that's already in widespread usage?



I believe that it is being insinuated that language is being controlled through the omission of what GMart sees as "rational" spellings of words, and through the OED "deciding" what new words and what spellings of new words end up in the OED.
The fact that the OED is *reactive* so that any word or spelling that is elided from on edition can very well crop up in the *next* edition if it is still in common usage seems to have passed him by.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Fuck the bottom 10%.  You don't need to know how to spell broom in order to use one.



Now we get to the bottom of it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Are you suggesting that if it DID help dyslexics, that it could be considered?



No, I'm suggesting that you're a fucking prick who doesn't debate honestly, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and would be better off with a large kitchen knife buried in your fucking rectum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I believe that it is being insinuated that language is being controlled through the omission of what GMart sees as "rational" spellings of words, and through the OED "deciding" what new words and what spellings of new words end up in the OED.
> The fact that the OED is *reactive* so that any word or spelling that is elided from on edition can very well crop up in the *next* edition if it is still in common usage seems to have passed him by.



The assumption that dictionaries are not compiled backwards, and are in fact usually a step behind the spoken tongue is a fairly common one tbf.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Of course the Spelling Reform groups that have been mentioned in this thread so far, could also be included in the 'us'.


I mention them in my very next post, old chap.


> But you never let facts get in the way of abusing other posters VP, do you


Please don't project your own failings onto me, there's a good fellow.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Fuck the bottom 10%.



And that is the position you are taking - you would prefer to keep etymology frozen in time, unchanging, rather than help them. Still, at least yr honest about your position unlike many here - so kudos


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Now we get to the bottom of it.



I was being nice.  A cull would be my own personal preference.  Benefit to the gene pool.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And that is the position you are taking - you would prefer to keep etymology frozen in time, unchanging, rather than help them. Still, at least yr honest about your position unlike many here - so kudos



given your own style of misrepresentation and humorous misapplication of rhetorical terms, I hardly think you are in a position to talk about honesty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Bollocks.* I work twice as hard as the any of the other posters on this thread to write my posts becoz I am dyslexic. If effort alone meant success, I would one the richest men in the World.



Oh the arrogance!! 
You're not the only dyslexic on this thread, but you *are* the only poster on this thread with a chip on his shoulder about it.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh the arrogance!!
> You're not the only dyslexic on this thread, but you *are* the only poster on this thread with a chip on his shoulder about it.



Does he also hold the record for the greatest ratio of inappropriately used  to posts?  I think we should be told.  Crispy, where are you?!!!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> What about all the foreign students and old people who would suddenly be guilty of spelling words the 'wrong' way?



GMarthews mentioned the 1996 orthographic legislation in German-speaking European countries (except Luxembourg), which introduced a single standard for spelling and punctuation.
One of the most immediate effects (which *still* causes trouble) is that if you're in one of the groups you mention and you fill out an official form, let's say a tax form or a benefit form in "Old-style" (i.e. pre-'96) German, your form gets returned or binned. That's just *one* ramification for certain groups of people of the _Rechtschreibung_ reforms.
And guess what? Austria *still* don't use umlauts, and the Swiss still use their "quaint" spellings, despite both being signatories.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, I'm suggesting that you're a fucking prick who doesn't debate honestly, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and would be better off with a large kitchen knife buried in your fucking rectum.



So your answer was 'No' - very illuminating about you - and when followed up with your usual abuse not surprising...

VP - I live in hope for the day when you use your intelligence for contributing to a discussion as opposed to abuse. You are obviously clever, so I just don't buy your pretence at not seeing the merits of what we are suggesting.

So in other words try and avoid the snide remarks which you have to hastily backtrack on later please. You might be here to wind us up, but I am here to discuss the issue and unlike you I am open to either side being right. However, so far I can see the advantages of spelling reform for the bottom 10% at a cost of shifting etymology out of its atrophy.

And Dotcommunist - trying to make everything into a class struggle just makes your position more ironic - if you had been following this debate a bit more carefully, you would be arguing *for *change rather than against. At the moment you are with Corax saying 'fuck the bottom 10% - Thatcher would be proud


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Does he also hold the record for the greatest ratio of inappropriately used  to posts?  I think we should be told.  Crispy, where are you?!!!!!



Probably not. That'd be pbman.

Although I reckon THINK! is on track to overtake the master!


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And Dotcommunist - trying to make everything into a class struggle just makes your position more ironic - if you had been following this debate a bit more carefully, you would be arguing *for *change rather than against. At the moment you are with Corax saying 'fuck the bottom 10% - Thatcher would be proud



Unlike you, DotC's not a total fuckwit and understands context.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm not 'with' anyone gmart. Nor am I relating the issues JUST through the lense of class, rather pointing out the inherent assumptions and classist nature of your positions. It's one of many things wrong with your ideas.

But hey, misrepresent, twist and lie. And then use a wink smilie for no apparent reason, you little coquette, you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm the nearast thing to a Chav on this site. maomao may be an expert on acsents, but you'v got to admit, I'm the expert on finding spelling difficult. Remember, I hav an IQ of 137, how* difficult* do dyslexics with an average IQ (100) find our peresent spellings? and what about Dyslexics with an even lower IQ than a 100?



Do some research on dyslexia.
The average IQ of a dyslexic might surprise you *and* stop you patronising other dyslexics.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Unlike you, DotC's not a total fuckwit and understands context.



Like you he has a tendency to reduce himself to name calling when confronted by people who he disagrees with.

There is just no need for name calling - there is ample room in the world for disagreement. Unfortunately you and many here seem unable to come to terms with disagreement and fall back on abuse. 

Tolerance is difficult, esp when you have to tolerate people who disagree with you - tolerating people who agree is easy


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Disagreement, fine. Misrepresent my position and debate with all the honesty of Kenneth Noye and I will call you a cock.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Tolerance is difficult, esp when you have to tolerate people who disagree with you



How did you get the nails out g-man?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not 'with' anyone gmart. Nor am I relating the issues JUST through the lense of class, rather pointing out the inherent assumptions and classist nature of your positions. It's one of many things wrong with your ideas.
> 
> But hey, misrepresent, twist and lie. And then use a wink smilie for no apparent reason, you little coquette, you.



You certainly seem unable to try and bring class into the discussion - still I will ask you a direct question, tho I fear it will end up in more abuse from you:

If it were able to be proved that a more phonetic system of spelling would help the bottom 10% in society in education, would you, at least in principle, be in favour of change?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Like you he has a tendency to reduce himself to name calling when confronted by people who he disagrees with.
> 
> There is just no need for name calling - there is ample room in the world for disagreement. Unfortunately you and many here seem unable to come to terms with disagreement and fall back on abuse.
> 
> Tolerance is difficult, esp when you have to tolerate people who disagree with you - tolerating people who agree is easy



People who ignore argument, misrepresent others positions, and invent facts and statistics don't deserve anything except abuse. You can get back to a reasonable debate any time you want. Until then I wish you a very large knife up your rectum you dishonest cunt.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Like you he has a tendency to reduce himself to name calling when confronted by people who he disagrees with.
> 
> There is just no need for name calling - there is ample room in the world for disagreement. Unfortunately you and many here seem unable to come to terms with disagreement and fall back on abuse.
> 
> Tolerance is difficult, esp when you have to tolerate people who disagree with you - tolerating people who agree is easy



Tolerating fuckwits that finish every post with an inappropriate  or ?

No thanks, I'd rather call you out as the patronising cunts that you are.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You certainly seem unable to try and bring class into the discussion - still I will ask you a direct question, tho I fear it will end up in more abuse from you:
> 
> If it were able to be proved that a more phonetic system of spelling would help the bottom 10% in society in education, would you, at least in principle, be in favour of change?



It wouldn't. So I am not going to take a hypothetical stance on something that isn't true. But nice try.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Kenneth Noye



I don't see how comparing me with a known murderer is relevant, but if that is your current dubious story to justiofy your indulgence in abusive name calling then as you wish...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> VP - I live in hope for the day when you use your intelligence for contributing to a discussion as opposed to abuse. You are obviously clever, so I just don't buy your pretence at not seeing the merits of what we are suggesting.


Sunshine, I'm not clever, I'm a hack. 
*BUT* I'm also very good at what I do, and what I do is research, assimilate and synthesise information for people who care to pay me to do so.
Once you and/or THINK! proffer an idea that has more than minimal utility I might find it in me not to treat the pair of you as though your names are actually "Kevin" and "Perry". Until then... 


> So in other words try and avoid the snide remarks which you have to hastily backtrack on later please. You might be here to wind us up, but I am here to discuss the issue and unlike you I am open to either side being right.


No. You're not.
The proof of *that* pudding lies in every thread you've contributed to or posted. It lies in your inability to take *any* criticism, even constructive, your need to always be "right", and the way you avoid making apposite replies to points by implying that you've been insulted or attacked. Your _modus operandi_ is well-known. It's why many posters who'd otherwise engage tend to avoid your threads altogether.
This isn't "snideness" or "insult". This is plain fact.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

*Here's a better comparison*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> How did you get the nails out g-man?



He pulled himself away from them, for added martyrdom points.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I don't see how comparing me with a known murderer is relevant, but if that is your current dubious story to justiofy your indulgence in abusive name calling then as you wish...



another misrepresentation! I compared your honesty in debate to that of Kenneth Noye (for a humorous comparison, I doubt noye is really the debating sort), not compared you to a 'known murderer' (quick google eh? If you'd looked past the first line of wiki you'd have found out a bit more)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I don't see how comparing me with a known murderer is relevant, but if that is your current dubious story to justiofy your indulgence in abusive name calling then as you wish...



He's comparing your probity with that of Noye, not accusing you of having the morality or drives of a murderer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


>



Bit of an insult to Molesworth, that!


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> People who ignore argument, misrepresent others positions, and invent facts and statistics don't deserve anything except abuse. You can get back to a reasonable debate any time you want. Until then I wish you a very large knife up your rectum you dishonest cunt.



Your definition of ignoring arguments is disagreement with your position.

I am inventing nothing - unless you can quote me... I am misrepresenting no one... again unless you can quote me.

I have taken each and every point you have made and addressed it effectively using good old fashioned every day examples. Many here disagree with me and that's fine - I will not allow this to justify personal abuse - that is their right.

If you feel that the misrepresentation of your position is stating that you consider the consistency of etymology as it now stands to be more important than any help that spelling reform might give then please feel free to describe why you feel this is not the case.

You still haven't answered whether 'phoney' should be changed to start with an 'f' becoz that is its etymological root - or whether your position is simply one of no change.

Your position does seem to be one of no change, but if it is not, please tell me under what conditions you would consider spelling reform.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> under what conditions you would consider spelling reform.



I'll consider spelling reform when you consider my proposal for genetic reform.

Although my genetic reform would make your spelling reform unnecessary.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Your definition of ignoring arguments is disagreement with your position.



Your idea is a bad one because of x

_I don't care about that, words are too hard to spell and that's more important_

Your idea is a bad one because of y

_I don't care about that, words are too hard to spell and that's more important_

Your idea is a bad one because of z

_I don't care about that, words are too hard to spell and that's more important_

... and so on.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The proof of *that* pudding lies in every thread you've contributed to or posted. It lies in your inability to take *any* criticism, even constructive, your need to always be "right", and the way you avoid making apposite replies to points by implying that you've been insulted or attacked.



I could say exactly the same about those who are argue=ing against the proposal - and I suggest that your agreement with them is what is preventing you from accusing them of the same thing.

And BTW if being told to stick a knife up my rectum, being called thick and all the other insults I have had directed at me here don't rate as being insulted or attacked then you and I live in different worlds. And the fact that you are unwilling to accept this shows you up as biased, hack or otherwise.



DotCommunist said:


> another misrepresentation! I compared your honesty in debate to that of Kenneth Noye (for a humorous comparison, I doubt noye is really the debating sort), not compared you to a 'known murderer' (quick google eh? If you'd looked past the first line of wiki you'd have found out a bit more)



Are you suggesting that you didn't compare me to a known murderer?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Disagreement, fine. Misrepresent my position and* debate with all the honesty of Kenneth Noye* and I will call you a cock.



hth


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Stick a knife up your rectum you thick cunt, you're just like Kenneth Noye you murdering bastard.

There y'go.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> another misrepresentation! *I compared your honesty in debate to that of Kenneth Noye* (for a humorous comparison, I doubt noye is really the debating sort), not compared you to a 'known murderer' (quick google eh? If you'd looked past the first line of wiki you'd have found out a bit more)



hth


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Are you suggesting that you didn't compare me to a known murderer?



You _are_ a known murderer.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Your idea is a bad one because of x
> 
> _I don't care about that, words are too hard to spell and that's more important_
> 
> ...


That IS fair enough - my priority is the same now as it was at the beginning - to improve the spelling of English to help children learning to read, foreigners using English and dyslexics. Altho some points have been put to me here they have all been a variation of keeping the current etymology of English consistent and the inevitable: it'll never change so why bother trying - tho some have tried to argue that it wouldn't help...

If anyone *could *give me a straightforward reason why the world would fall apart if we spelt 'magic' as 'majic' then they would - but they can't which is why there is so much abuse - becoz they feel frustrated that my logic holds true when they feel it shouldn't - and as is often the case with those who refuse to switch their brains on, they fall back onto the much easier abusive program.

I am thankful that there is an ignore facility here or else I would be getting BA's abuse too - if Maomao can't stop his abuse he will eventually get put onto it too - but for the time being I am hopeful that he will desist with his abuse and at least accept that we can disagree without it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Your definition of ignoring arguments is disagreement with your position.
> 
> I am inventing nothing - unless you can quote me... I am misrepresenting no one... again unless you can quote me.
> 
> ...



You can start with answering my many questions about the Korean language and your knowledge of it (in particular the fact that Korean relies on Chinese charcacters for dictionary definitions and legal langauage).

You can follow this with a reasonable explanation of the differences between the prestige dialects in Korean (where everyone who doesn't speak with a Seoul accent is considered a fisherman and children from rural areas have to learn spellings that are irrelevant to their own dialects) and English (where lexicography is generally descriptive rather than prescriptive and accents are rarely a barrier in most occupations)

Aftter that you can provide some evidence that sound based spelling would help the majority of dyslexics. My understanding of the condition is that in most cases it would not.

You can then make a reasonable excplanation of your statement that 'advanced learners are better able to deal with' the immense difficulties that would be caused by the obliteration of all etymological traces from the Englsih language. 

Then you can explain how you came up with the figures of 'from 90% to 80%' for the reduction in words where 'phon' continued to retain it's meaning when spelled as 'fon'. My own quick estimate (based on actually counting the words) was 98% to 75%.

But you won't, will you, you'll just blather on about change and evolution (a process which you don't have the faintest fucking clue about from the way you use the word) and continue to lie about what other people are saying.

But at least that will give me a good excuse to abuse you more.  You complete and utter fucking cunt


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> hth



OK, so you think that comparing me to a murderer's dishonesty is not the same as comparing me to a murderer - fine.

So which post of mine do you consider dishonest? And feel frere to answer the question I asked, which you carefully avoided...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

You been moved to an open prison now kenny?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

I came back from making polpetta for my mates,and what do find? Just abuse, and confusion between mine and Gmathew's posts . There wer a couple of points worth replying to, but what's with all the abuse? Up your game.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> OK, so you think that comparing me to a murderer's dishonesty is not the same as comparing me to a murderer - fine.
> 
> So which post of mine do you consider dishonest? And feel frere to answer the question I asked, which you carefully avoided...



a) A murderer is one of many things noye is. He's also an ex-gangster, a crook involved in the Brinx-Matt dispersal of gold etc. A crook, thoroughly dishonest.


b) your doing it in the very second paragraph. I didn't 'carefully avoid' I told you I was unwilling to take a stance on a hypothetical situation because it simply isn't true. Loaded question Gmart, like I said, nice try.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> If anyone *could *give me a straightforward reason why the world would fall apart if we spelt 'magic' as 'majic' then they would - but they can't which is why there is so much abuse - becoz they feel frustrated that my logic holds true when they feel it shouldn't - and as is often the case with those who refuse to switch their brains on, they fall back onto the much easier abusive program.



No, you're receiving abuse because of the utter arrogance that you demonstrate beautifully above.

There is more to the way words are spelled than conveying their sounds.  The spellings also convey _meaning_ and _history_.  This is just one of the valid reasonings that have been put to you over the course of this thread.  You dismiss these because you struggle with the spellings themselves, and then go on to claim that there others _feel frustrated because [your] logic holds true._

You arrogant fuckwit.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> You can start with answering my many questions about the Korean language and your knowledge of it (in particular the fact that Korean relies on Chinese charcacters for dictionary definitions and legal langauage).



I just don't see what relevance my percentage fluency in Korean will help the discussion - the point was that there are many other languages which are more and less phonetic - my reletive fluency in Korean, Finnish, Italian, Spanish and Russian has no effect on this.


maomao said:


> You can follow this with a reasonable explanation of the differences between the prestige dialects in Korean (where everyone who doesn't speak with a Seoul accent is considered a fisherman and children from rural areas have to learn spellings that are irrelevant to their own dialects) and English (where lexicography is generally descriptive rather than prescriptive and accents are rarely a barrier in most occupations)



Everybody? That black and white world is so easy isn't it? 

If you want to discuss this then that is your business - if your point is that English gains from having less discrimination based on accents then fine start your own thread - but don't accuse me of avoiding the subject just becoz I refuse to be drawn into a different discussion



maomao said:


> Aftter that you can provide some evidence that sound based spelling would help the majority of dyslexics. My understanding of the condition is that in most cases it would not.



I love how you have had to change your position to 'majority of dyslexics', because of THINK! - still that is progress for you - my evidence is just talking to people about this and teaching it - I have no doubt that this will not be adequate for you, but I understand your position, I just have decided that I am persuaded where you are not.



maomao said:


> You can then make a reasonable excplanation of your statement that 'advanced learners are better able to deal with' the immense difficulties that would be caused by the obliteration of all etymological traces from the Englsih language.



The obliteration of all traces - not really true that - it would become more inconsistent but it would evolve - I have total confidence in teachers such as yourself to be able to take on these changes and teach them to the high level students (who are the ones who learn thru etymology) that you teach.



maomao said:


> Then you can explain how you came up with the figures of 'from 90% to 80%' for the reduction in words where 'phon' continued to retain it's meaning when spelled as 'fon'. My own quick estimate (based on actually counting the words) was 98% to 75%.



If you are unhappy with these figures then I am happy to give way and accept yours.



maomao said:


> But you won't, will you, you'll just blather on about change and evolution (a process which you don't have the faintest fucking clue about from the way you use the word) and continue to lie about what other people are saying.
> 
> But at least that will give me a good excuse to abuse you more.  You complete and utter fucking cunt



I doubt that you will be able to stop yourself.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> No, you're receiving abuse because of the utter arrogance that you demonstrate beautifully above.
> 
> There is more to the way words are spelled than conveying their sounds.  The spellings also convey _meaning_ and _history_.



This is where you misrepresent me. I am well aware of the history in words (etymology), it is just that I consider the idea of spelling as the language is actually said to be more important. 



Corax said:


> This is just one of the valid reasonings that have been put to you over the course of this thread.  You dismiss these because you struggle with the spellings themselves,



This is a guess on your behalf - I have never had a problem with spelling, and your inability to separate fact from fiction here is illuminating.



Corax said:


> and then go on to claim that there others _feel frustrated because [your] logic holds true._
> 
> You arrogant fuckwit.



'majic' IS easier to spell than 'magic' and 'thort' is easier to spell than 'thought' - you can call us all the names you like but it won't make a blythe bit of difference to this - and in fact just shows THINK! and I how unable you are to find a rebuttal to this logic.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

And Dotcommunist - I simply asked if you were open to the idea of changing spelling or not - if you consider that to be loaded, then that's your problem not mine - it was an honest question.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'majic' IS easier to spell than 'magic'


No, it's not.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> GMarthews mentioned the 1996 orthographic legislation in German-speaking European countries (except Luxembourg), which introduced a single standard for spelling and punctuation.
> ...And guess what? Austria *still* don't use umlauts, and the Swiss still use their "quaint" spellings, despite both being signatories.



I imagin that the old spellings would die out slowly. The Swiss wil probably keep their umlauts to make them different to the Jermans, like we do with our spellings oppose to using the American (slight) improovments.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'majic' IS easier to spell than 'magic'



About the same i reckon.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Can someone just kill the arrogant cunt in the face and be done with it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And Dotcommunist - I simply asked if you were open to the idea of changing spelling or not - if you consider that to be loaded, then that's your problem not mine - it was an honest question.



no you didn't. The question was far more qualified than 'simply'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Can someone just kill the arrogant cunt in the face and be done with it?



Nail him back to his cross.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

'majic' IS easier to spell than 'magic'



editor said:


> no, it's not.



Yes it is. duh!


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Nail him back to his cross.



_Lots_ of very _blunt_ nails preferably.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> No, it's not.



Why not?

Imagine the conversation with a child that you might have to teach this. One would be: 


> simply spell/pronounce it as it sounds.



While the other would be:



> now the letter 'g' can be pronounced as either a 'j' sound or a 'g' sound, and you have to learn all of them by rote.



Editor, and others - I know that you would *wish *for the first to be harder than the second but just face it - it isn't.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> About the same i reckon.



Would it bother you if in the future it was spelt like? that yor children came home from school and had spelt it that way in something they had written?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Would it bother you if in the future it was spelt like? that yor children came home from school and had spelt it like that in something they had written?



I'd tell them it was spelt wrong, yes.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Would it bother you if in the future it was spelt like? that yor children came home from school and had spelt it like that in something they had written?



I'd slap the shit out of them for being illiterate morons.  Better a few bruises than turning out like you and frodo.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'thort' is easier to spell than 'thought'



Except that no-one pronounces an 'r' in thought. And an 'r' in an English word indicates an 'r' for most English speakers.

Your answers and your argument are unsatisfactory precisely because they show how little understanding you have of the subject of language. Your fluency in Korean _is_ immensely relevant because it proves how little understanding you have of the language and culture you've held up as the model. To summarise, you place more importance on a slight gain in ease of learning at a very early stage of language learning above all other concerns about language. You're an imbecile and a joke. Is the reason you still haven't found that knife because of the silent 'k'? If so, here's a little help.

Go get one of these:







and stick it where the sun don't shine you ignorant fucking prick.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Why not?
> 
> Imagine the conversation with a child that you might have to teach this. One would be:
> 
> ...


If they were from oop north it would be 'MADG-GICK'. People don't pronounce words the same way. And how would you spell 'scone'? Or 'bath'? How about laugh/laff?

Your system is laughably inept, spectacularly pointless and likely to waste tens of billions of pounds.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> tens of billions of ounds..



Was that meant to be poonds?  Or paahnds?  Or puwnds perhaps?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> now the letter 'g' can be pronounced as either a 'j' sound or a 'g' sound, and you have to learn all of them by rote



No, g's followed by 'i's and 'e's are generally soft, no need to learn by rote at all.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I'd tell them it was spelt wrong, yes.



What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Was that meant to be poonds?  Or paahnds?  Or puwnds perhaps?


I'd corrected it before you posted. Hah-hah!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?



It's not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?



your new spelling of taught could not cause any confusion with american legal practise, no sir.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, g's followed by 'i's and 'e's are generally soft, no need to learn by rote at all.



but not all, "get" for example. wouldn't it be easier to hav one letter to represent the "JER" sound?


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

In Wales we say "tuth" for "tooth." Funnily enough, no one has problems getting their heads around the spelling looking different.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?



Ffs, if you're going to fuck with spellings _at least get it right_. Not even Americans pronounce an 'r' in 'taught'.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?


Tort is an entirely different word, meaning a 'civil wrong.'  Another example of the stupidity of this idea.


----------



## cesare (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What if that was the new acsepted spelling being taught, sorry, *tort*, in schools?



I pronounce 'taught' and 'tort' differently. They also mean two different things.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> your new spelling of taught could not cause any confusion with american legal practise, no sir.



but it would be easy for kids to learn.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> I pronounce 'taught' and 'tort' differently. They also mean two different things.



Really. How do you pronounce "taught", like it is spelt?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> but it would be easy for kids to learn.



Only if they spoke a non-rhotic dialect of English like yourself. (non-rhotic dialects where 'r's are ommited after vowels are in the minority by the way)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

tau -ght


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

There's no "g" in "taught" no matter where you come from.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> There's no "g" in "taught" no matter where you come from.


Yes, but there is an 'r' in tort.


----------



## cesare (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Really. How do you pronounce "taught", like it is spelt?



I pronounce it the way I was taught.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> I pronounce 'taught' and 'tort' differently. They also mean two different things.



"saw" and "saw" mean two different things, but we still hav them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> tau -ght



'taut' 


but, taut has a completely different meaning to taught. As I pronounce, they are homophones. This is not the same with all dialects and accents.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "saw" and "saw" mean two different things, but we still hav them.



entirely context specific, the definition is clear from the preceding words and those that follow, unless one is a very sloppy writer. Stop looking at words in isolation.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "saw" and "saw" mean two different things, but we still hav them.



A language can only support so many homonyms. Which is why sound based spelling never took off in Chinese. We'd have 120 words spelled 'shi'.


----------



## cesare (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "saw" and "saw" mean two different things, but we still hav them.



I see no reason to further complicate the language by introducing more examples.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> your new spelling of taught could not cause any confusion with american legal practise, no sir.



Tort is a pillar of *English* Common Law!  

_*tuts*_


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "saw" and "saw" mean two different things, but we still hav them.


So in your bid to make the language less complicated, you're advocating having more words that are spelt the same?

Grrrrrrreat logic!


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> A language can only support so many homonyms. Which is why sound based spelling never took off in Chinese. We'd have 120 words spelled 'shi'.



I'm not a particular fan of homonyms, but if it easier for kids and peeple with lower IQ's than mine to learn then I would go with it.

Incidently, Turkish, which has a mor disaplin'd spellings and mor recent spellings at that. "Yuz" can mean one hundred, a face, to skin *(as in: to skin a cat) and to swim, and they seem to get on with it very well


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> So in your bid to make the language less complicated, you're advocating having more words that are spelt the same?
> 
> Grrrrrrreat logic!



You shouldn't made so many words, the same, you should hav invented mor words instead of recycling already existing ones, this is a failure of imajination, there ar whole languages that don't share eny words with us.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You shouldn't made them the same, you should hav invented mor words instead of recycling already eisting ones, this is a failure of imajination, there ar whole languages that don't share eny words with us.


I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You shouldn't made them the same, you should hav invented mor words instead of recycling already eisting ones, this is a failure of imajination



So you're answer is that the _words themselves_ are wrong?

If you put your shoes on the wrong way round, presumably your answer is that the human body's designed wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You shouldn't made them the same, you should hav invented mor words instead of recycling already eisting ones, this is a failure of imajination, *there ar whole languages that don't share eny words with us.*



and should we need any of their words, we will nick them. That's english language, a constantly evolving tongue.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Kabbes I simply disagree with you all - I just don't believe that the change would:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.



A bit unclear i grant you, I'v tried to rectify it a bit.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> A bit unclear i grant you, I'v tried to rectify it a bit.



Have you?  It's still nonsensical shite.

Who are you accusing of 'make' so many words the same exactly?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

You conservativs.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> In Wales we say "tuth" for "tooth." Funnily enough, no one has problems getting their heads around the spelling looking different.



Eh? exactly and spelling reform would hav no effect on acsents.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Eh? exactly and spelling reform would hav no effect on acsents.



So which fucking accent are going to choose to base your 'new' spelling on?

_*bangs head against wall again*_


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2009)

If nothing else, surely the depth and breadth of opposition in this very thread against spelling reform shows in and of itself that it is a non-starter.  On this thread alone you have two people in favour of it and several dozen against.  How is such an unpopular movement ever going to take root in something that needs universal buy-in?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

kabbes said:


> If nothing else, surely the depth and breadth of opposition in this very thread against spelling reform shows in and of itself that it is a non-starter.  On this thread alone you have two people in favour of it and several dozen against.  How is such an unpopular movement ever going to take root in something that needs universal buy-in?



Not only that, we have two people who have made academic study of linguistics pointing out the flaws in the idea. Only to be repeatedly ignored.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So which fucking accent are going to choose to base your 'new' spelling on?
> 
> _*bangs head against wall again*_



What? *Giv, gon, ax, hav, acsent*?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 13, 2009)

Just a mor clearer way of spelling.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What? Giv, gon, ax, hav, acsent?



Again you  inappropriately when it's _you_ that *doesn't fucking get it*.  Twat.

How else do you want me to put it?

*IN DIFFERENT ACCENTS DIFFERENT WORDS ARE PRONOUNCED DIFFERENTLY.  WHICH ACCENT WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO BASE YOUR NEW SPELLING ON?*

Yes, I'm fucking shouting.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Just a mor clearer way of spelling.



"more clearer"?

'Clearer' is already a comparative.  The 'more' is redundant and just plain wrong.  Your illiteracy demonstrated once more.

Here, have one of your favourites:


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So which fucking accent are going to choose to base your 'new' spelling on?
> 
> _*bangs head against wall again*_



That decision has already been taken years ago

Maomao pointed out pages back that the prestige dialect in English for the UK is RP AKA Queen's English. You will find it in the pronunciation key ov the OED.

I am unsure as to why you feel the need to repeat posts from way back - are you running out of ways to ignore our responses - if so I would suggest pretending that we haven't addressed any of your points and refusing to read what we write (let alone comment eh?), while insulting us for daring to disagree with your conclusions.

Do any of you feel that this intolerance towards people with a different point of view to you is constructive? Can you not think of other situations where you had to agree to disagree rather than reduce yourselves to personal attacks?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

tactic one: Ignore the other peoples posts. Call it 'disagreement' rather than adress the points



tactic two: Weep about people who curse me out of frustration, AKA spuriously claim a moral highground


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> That decision has already been taken years ago
> 
> Maomao pointed out pages back that the prestige dialect in English for the UK is RP AKA Queen's English. You will find it in the pronunciation key ov the OED.



So your idea will only assist people who speak in RP, and wouldn't help anyone from the regions or anyone but a tiny minority that speak the way you do *whatsoever*.  Perhaps even exacerbate the situation for them.  Why can you not fucking grasp this?



Gmarthews said:


> I am unsure as to why you feel the need to repeat posts from way back



Because you _still_ haven't *grasped the fucking point*.




Gmarthews said:


> Do any of you feel that this intolerance towards people with a different point of view to you is constructive? Can you not think of other situations where you had to agree to disagree rather than reduce yourselves to personal attacks?



If you and your friend refrained from being such patronising, arrogant fucks finishing every post with a misplaced  or a martyr-complex  then perhaps I wouldn't be so fucking aggressive eh?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 13, 2009)

Why is anyone still trying to reason with Think and Gmarthews? It's just making them dig deeper into their position.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Maomao pointed out pages back that the prestige dialect in English for the UK is RP AKA Queen's English. You will find it in the pronunciation key ov the OED.



It's not a true prestige dialect in the UK anymore. A public school accent will get you further but that's not quite RP and even the BBC have a fucking welshman reading the news. Shoring up the idea of a 'correct' pronunciation at the level of spelling would create one however.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> no you didn't. The question was far more qualified than 'simply'.



You're still refusing to answer - hard isn't it? On one hand you don't want to come out against change becoz that would make you a conservative, while accepting the possibility of change puts you on my side of the fence - so I suspect you'll just avoid answering for a bit and hope I forget 



Corax said:


> Can someone just kill the arrogant cunt in the face and be done with it?


Whenever anyone insults me it just shows that they couldn't think of a reasoned reply to the points I have made.



maomao said:


> Except that no-one pronounces an 'r' in thought. And an 'r' in an English word indicates an 'r' for most English speakers.



THINK! has made a good case for this - and I can see his point - he gave a long list of words with the same phoneme in them and suggested that they would all be easier spelt with an 'or' spelling in the middle. If you think that the OED has got it wrong putting that phoneme in there then write to them but don't think for a moment that it has any relevance for this discussion.



maomao said:


> Your answers and your argument are unsatisfactory precisely because they show how little understanding you have of the subject of language. Your fluency in Korean _is_ immensely relevant because it proves how little understanding you have of the language and culture you've held up as the model. To summarise, you place more importance on a slight gain in ease of learning at a very early stage of language learning above all other concerns about language. You're an imbecile and a joke. Is the reason you still haven't found that knife because of the silent 'k'? If so, here's a little help.



My fluency in Korean is as valid as my fluency in the other languages I mentioned - you are missing the point - as ever - the fact is that they are more phonetic - perhaps the problem here is that you refuse to read what is being written.

And I agree that our idea would work for the very young and I would suggest that it would help much more than that - but i am coming to the conclusion that you are not really interested in discussion here, just the opportunity to abuse:



> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
> Upton Sinclair (1878 - 1968)



Which is why your reaction is:



maomao said:


> Go get one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



etc



maomao said:


> No, g's followed by 'i's and 'e's are generally soft, no need to learn by rote at all.



Generally eh? when are you going to get it? It is precisely these rules which are an impediment to learning spelling and pronunciation

The fact that you give a rule that would need to be learnt, and then state that there is no need for a rule to learn by rote was a joke yeah??? I hope so, or it is an example of your inability to follow your own logic.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Whenever anyone insults me it just shows that they couldn't think of a reasoned reply to the points I have made.



Apart from the reasoned replies I've given you that you've completely fucking ignored you obtuse, arrogant, patronising fash waste of fucking O2 cunt.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Is there nothing in the FAQs that classes these irritating fuckwits as trolls?

No, I know there isn't, I'm just wishing upon a star.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> THINK! has made a good case for this - and I can see his point - he gave a long list of words with the same phoneme in them and suggested that they would all be easier spelt with an 'or' spelling in the middle. If you think that the OED has got it wrong putting that phoneme in there then write to them but don't think for a moment that it has any relevance for this discussion.


Read the section on dialects at the beginning of the OED. It's quite clear on the matter and even explains that it's pronunciation key for the words is intended to reflect RP only. Words with an 'r' in them generally have that 'r' pronounced by the majority of English speakers.



> My fluency in Korean is as valid as my fluency in the other languages I mentioned - you are missing the point - as ever - the fact is that they are more phonetic - perhaps the problem here is that you refuse to read what is being written.



Given that you were holding up Korean as your model language I would say your fluency in it was crucial to recognising whether you understood the problems such a system would present. 



> The fact that you give a rule that would need to be learnt, and then state that there is no need for a rule to learn by rote was a joke yeah??? I hope so, or it is an example of your inability to follow your own logic.



'By rote' means one by one. A rule means you don't have to learn by rote. I think the problem here is that you barely speak English.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

You have my answer to the question Gmart, it's 'no I am not playing'. Prove the assertion contained within your original question (not the revised version you asked later) without recourse to made up stats and the witterings of lunatic fringe groups.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> s you don't have to learn by rote. I think the problem here is that you barely speak English.



It's like patiently trying to explain the theory of relativity to Jade Goody's equally dumb and deceased spaniel.

Honestly, short of scoring a crude tattoo of a penis on his forehead, gmarthews couldn't make more of an unwise cock out of himself. It feels like I'm making fun out of the stubbornly self-deluded, hey-ho.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> So your idea will only assist people who speak in RP, and wouldn't help anyone from the regions or anyone but a tiny minority that speak the way you do *whatsoever*.  Perhaps even exacerbate the situation for them.  Why can you not fucking grasp this?
> 
> Why would it exacerbate the situation? Are you suggesting that the bottom 10% would get worse? Or that you reckon that those who already can spell would suddenly not be able to take on this change?
> 
> ...



Seeing as I don't use rolley eyes, as I don't like them this is not really a justification for your abuse. I use a smiley face when I smile and the occasional wink when I think someone or something is funny - pretty straightforward and usual - but I'm sure this won't stop your abuse.

Arrogance and patronization is in the eye of the beholder - so if you see it, that is more a reflection on you rather than me. You could add 'smug' as well but these are all chips on your shoulders not mine - I am merely taking what you are saying and responding. I am ignoring the insults becoz you all seem unable to stop them and the Editor doesn't seem to care, so its just sticks and stones. The TRUE problem you have with me and THINK! is that we disagree with you and you haven't been tort basic tolerance.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Tolerance is what your idea deserves. Acceptance is optional. Uptake and serious consideration are a million miles away.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I am merely taking what you are saying and responding. I am ignoring the insults becoz you all seem unable to stop them and the Editor doesn't seem to care, so its just sticks and stones. The TRUE problem you have with me and THINK! is that we disagree with you and you haven't been tort basic tolerance.



No, you're taking what we're saying and ignoring all salient points, instead concentrating on irrelevant diversions and illogical flights of fancy. It's a snide trick to be honest.

It's not disagreement folks have a problem with. It's the dishonest and stupid fashion of your 'discussion' technique, which basically consists of you spouting a load of unsourced cobblers whilst ignoring others and projecting views onto them.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I use a smiley face when I smile and the occasional wink when I think someone or something is funny


You think it's funny beacuse you think someone's 'missed the point', when actually, it's you, twatface.



Gmarthews said:


> Arrogance and patronization is in the eye of the beholder - so if you see it, that is more a reflection on you rather than me.


Total and utter shite, twatface.



Gmarthews said:


> AI am ignoring the insults becoz you all seem unable to stop them and the Editor doesn't seem to care, so its just sticks and stones.


Justifiable assault, twatface.



Gmarthews said:


> The TRUE problem you have with me and THINK! is that we disagree with you and you haven't been tort basic tolerance.


I've 'tolerated' more shit that you could possibly imagine, twatface.  Arrogant obtuse cunts like you don't listen though, and deserve nothing but abuse.


And you've *still* ignored my 'reasoned responses', twatface.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Apart from the reasoned replies I've given you ...



Delusional



maomao said:


> Given that you were holding up Korean as your model language I would say your fluency in it was crucial to recognising whether you understood the problems such a system would present.
> 
> This just shows how little you understand my point - but seeing as you insist - I will yet again point out that it is the actual EXISTENCE of languages which are more phonetic which is important - not whether I can communicate in them.
> 
> 'By rote' means one by one. A rule means you don't have to learn by rote. I think the problem here is that you barely speak English.



You have to learn the rules one by one - but I can see why you were confused by what I said, sorry about that - now perhaps you could address what I said rather than avoid the subject?



DotCommunist said:


> You have my answer to the question Gmart, it's 'no I am not playing'.



If you have decided to step out of the discussion then I don't blame you, you were floundering badly...



tarannau said:


> It's like patiently trying to explain the theory of relativity to Jade Goody's equally dumb and deceased spaniel.
> 
> Honestly, short of scoring a crude tattoo of a penis on his forehead, gmarthews couldn't make more of an unwise cock out of himself. It feels like I'm making fun out of the stubbornly self-deluded, hey-ho.



As if you were trying to engage in conversation - you're just here to abuse. Each insult just shows that you are unable to deal with meeting people who you disagree with.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> You have my answer to the question Gmart, it's 'no I am not playing'. Prove the assertion contained within your original question (not the revised version you asked later) without recourse to made up stats and the witterings of lunatic fringe groups.



btw Gmart, as I know you enjoy throwing around rhetorical terms you do not understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


Your initial question to me?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You certainly seem unable to try and bring class into the discussion - still I will ask you a direct question, tho I fear it will end up in more abuse from you:
> 
> If it were able to be proved that a more phonetic system of spelling would help the bottom 10% in society in education, would you, at least in principle, be in favour of change?


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Delusional





Corax said:


> How else do you want me to put it?
> 
> *IN DIFFERENT ACCENTS DIFFERENT WORDS ARE PRONOUNCED DIFFERENTLY.  WHICH ACCENT WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO BASE YOUR NEW SPELLING ON?*
> 
> Yes, I'm fucking shouting.





Corax said:


> So your idea will only assist people who speak in RP, and wouldn't help anyone from the regions or anyone but a tiny minority that speak the way you do *whatsoever*.  Perhaps even exacerbate the situation for them.  Why can you not fucking grasp this?



You synaptically deficient fucknut cuntsac.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This just shows how little you understand my point - but seeing as you insist - I will yet again point out that it is the actual EXISTENCE of languages which are more phonetic which is important - not whether I can communicate in them.



The existence of such languages is not the point at all, it's whether there are any advanatages to such a system. The North Korean political sytem 'exists' do you think we should try it over here?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

tarannau said:


> No, you're taking what we're saying and ignoring all salient points, instead concentrating on irrelevant diversions and illogical flights of fancy. It's a snide trick to be honest.



It also happens to be what I think you are doing, while I am just addressing each and every point as clearly as possible

One major difference is that it is not THINK and I who are reducing ourselves to personal insults

For example Corax:



Corax said:


> You think it's funny beacuse you think someone's 'missed the point', when actually, it's you, twatface.
> 
> 
> Total and utter shite, twatface.
> ...



As if you had ever given any. I have addressed the issues very clearly and well. But you should walk away now becoz you all seem unable to argue against my responses and so ignore them.

You ignore them, but seem unable to stop yourselves from commenting and so you insult.

If you just gave me a string of simple questions I would answer them - but you already know the answers becoz I have already stated them clearly:

I consider the potential benefits of spelling reform to far outweigh any short term problems that might occur - You might disagree that they do, and that is your freedom, but it is mine to disagree too. It is simply a matter of different visions of the future and what to work towards.

Try and limit the insults they reflect badly on yourselves.

And Corax get a grip - we disagree get over it

I DON'T think that it would exacerbate the situation, and you do. That's fine.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

And you still ignore the points made, you disingenous little fuck.



Corax said:


> So your idea will only assist people who speak in RP, and wouldn't help anyone from the regions or anyone but a tiny minority that speak the way you do *whatsoever*.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Eh? exactly and spelling reform would hav no effect on acsents.


So who decides which regional pronunciation gets to dictate these new phonetic spellings?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Try and limit the insults they reflect badly on yourselves.



I don't think so at all. I think everyone's abuse on this thread has been a pretty natural and understandable reaction to your style of arguing. I'm assuming from what you said above that you've reported posts and no action has been taken. A mod was also posting on this thread and didn't ask anyone to stop. I think that's pretty validating. If you're going to behave like a prick you're going to get called a prick.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

And Maomao - my experience of countries which have a more phonetic system is exactly why I hopd such an unpopular opinion - I have seen at first hand the advantage this can give esp to the less gifted students, and this is why I am passionate about this idea - I don't think it will ever happen, but it is IMO a constructive step. 

Meanwhile I understand and respect that your opinion is that the consistency of etymology is more important and I don't blame you - you haven't had my experience and refuse to consider it - fair enough.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> So who decides which regional pronunciation gets to dictate these new phonetic spellings?



We've done this!  It's fucking *RP* apparantly!

See above ad fucking nauseam.   Just ban the cunt.*  Find a reason, invent one, whatever.





*No - I know that wouldn't be right and I'm not serious.  I can't stab him in the eye with a fork from this distance though.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> And you still ignore the points made, you disingenous little fuck.



OK Corax you seem to be a bit confused - the examples I gave such as 'fonetic' with an 'f' and ' majic'are NOT for a minority (as if RP was for a minority anyway). EVERYONE pronounces fonetic with an 'f' on the front and 'magic' with a 'j' sound in the middle- that's the point that you seem unable to get.

Meanwhile Maomao, there is never an excuse for the level of abuse I have received here - and whatever dubious story you might come out with to justify it is just that - dubious - and I suspect you know this to be true tho seem too scared to do the 'u' turn needed to be truthful.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2009)

So, let's get this straight. The new phonetic spellings would be based entirely on RP, so it would be of no use whatsoever to anyone with a regional accent? Is that correct?


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> OK Corax you seem to be a bit confused - the examples I gave such as 'fonetic' with an 'f' and ' majic'are NOT for a minority (as if RP was for a minority anyway). EVERYONE pronounces fonetic with an 'f' on the front and 'magic' with a 'j' sound in the middle- that's the point that you seem unable to get.



That's not a fucking answer.  Selective examples are not a valid response.

Fuck this, you're either a troll or the biggest fuckwit on urban.  I'm off for m'dinner.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> So, let's get this straight. The new phonetic spellings would be based entirely on RP, so it would be of no use whatsoever to anyone with a regional accent? Is that correct?



Nope, my priority would be to change the spelling of CONSONANT problems first and foremost - most accents are to do with vowel changes which would be too difficult to change and are too open to the variations you are chomping at the bit to defend.

So to use the examples we have used here - the use of 'ph' and 'gh' to represent the letter 'f', using the letter 'g' when actually it is a letter 'j', and using the letter 'c' where it should be an 's' and the letter 's' where it should be a 'z'.

That is far and away enough to be getting on with and would help immeasurably.

While yr about it could you take the personal abuse sections out of the FAQ's your reluctance to police them here just makes a mockery of your rules.


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> While yr about it could you take the personal abuse sections out of the FAQ's your reluctance to police them here just makes a mockery of your rules.



Yeah, you tell 'im, genius.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'majic' IS easier to spell than 'magic' and 'thort' is easier to spell than 'thought' - you can call us all the names you like but it won't make a blythe bit of difference to this - and in fact just shows THINK! and I how unable you are to find a rebuttal to this logic.


"Blithe", spelt properly follows some of your rules, so how come you messed up? Anyone would think you're not taking this "phonetics business seriously.

By the way, just as an aside, the only way your spellings would be "easier" is if the mind of the person you were inculcating them into was a _tabula rasa_. People, even young children are *not*, though, blank slates, so you'd be overlaying *your* rules on top of ones they'd already started to assimilate. 
Bear in mind how fucked-up children were when different methods of learning to read were introduced, what a hard time slightly older children had making the shift from imperial to metric and from L/s/d to £/p.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> I pronounce 'taught' and 'tort' differently. They also mean two different things.



The sensible person always pronounces the "r" in tort.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


>



I think he meant to say "respectfully withdraw", rather than imply that he has two personalities and that they're going to withdraw one after the other. 
Isn't it convenient for him that he *always* does his mini-flounces just when the weight of questions he hasn't deigned to answer gets particularly heavy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What? Giv, gon, ax, hav, acsent?



Here's a chain of logic. Please try to follow it, oh wise one.

"Phonetic" spelling is the spelling of a word as it sounds.
Various parts of the UK have different accents.
Different accents mean that many thousands of words would have variable spellings throughout the UK, sometimes varying over the distance of a few miles
This would mean that these words would not have a UK-wide standard spelling.
The only way to assure a standardised "phonetic" spelling would be to impose a single accent across the UK.

Quite simple, and that chain of logic is the reason why Corax has asked you this: *"So which fucking accent are going to choose to base your 'new' spelling on?"*
Got an answer, or are you just going to write more glib fatuities about the worthiness of "phonetic" spelling?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2009)

editor said:


> So, let's get this straight. The new phonetic spellings would be based entirely on RP, so it would be of no use whatsoever to anyone with a regional accent? Is that correct?



Unless you've got a hard-on for fucking over everyone who doesn't "do" RP. Then it's VERY useful.


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

I think by this point I could do Gmarthews posts for him. Editor, can't we ban him just for being a cock? It would make a lot of people very happy. Surely that has to count for something.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> [*]The only way to assure a standardised "phonetic" spelling would be to impose a single accent across the UK.



Trolling again eh? And a slippery slope fallacy thrown in for good measure 

So here's a bit of inconvenient logic for you to ignore:

It would be impossible to wipe out the different accents in our country and

In other countries with a more phonetic spelling system there are still accents.

The spelling changes I want to see are those which are constant for all UK speakers. This may not be much but everyone pronounces 'phone' with an 'f' in the front - and no matter how you blather with the rest of them, this constant and others like it are candidates for spelling reform.

What is dodgy is that the assumption you are making is that the UK population would not be able to change (a lack of faith in other people?). I think they would embrace the idea of having fewer rules to teach and strengthening English as an international language, while helping at least a percentage of dyslexics. 

Speaking for myself, I am not convinced with the argument that the consistency of etymology is more important, or that etymology should for some reason be frozen and stopped from changing.

Then again you are just trolling - of course, I admit that I don't really understand why you see the world in this way. A place where there is only one right answer, one set of priorities, which must be agreed on by everyone; leading to the *justified *eek abuse of those who dare to disagree (while being sanctioned by the authorities too!)


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> A place where there is only one right answer, one set of priorities, which must be agreed on by everyone; leading to the *justified *eek abuse of those who dare to disagree (while being sanctioned by the authorities too!)


Seeing you're expecting everyone to pay vast amounts of their hard earned cash for this ludicrous folly, and you're pushing for a homogenised, blander, southern-centric version of the language that will heavily penalise the old and those in the regions, why are you so surprised that people react strongly?

Again: why do you expect people to fork out the billions that this ludicrous venture would cost and have you any proof that it would prove of any benefit to the vast majority of the populace?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

At least they're tenacious.  You have to give them that.  Overwhelming opposition to this ridiculous idea based on a whole swathe of objections -- an idea that needs massive popular buy-in to have any success -- and yet 32 pages in they're still here fighting.  Just the two of them.  The Mexican army is shooting their little cabin to shit, but they refuse to give up.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

Got acsess to a word-prosessor now . I'v made changes using the, "Find and Replace" option, and hav cut off any unnecessary final "e"s. The text is virtually unchanged:


extract from, *"the Beach"*


"the first I heard of the beach was in Bangkok, on the Ko Sahn Road. The Ko Sahn Road was backpacker land. Almost all of the buildings had been converted to guest houses, there were long-distance telephone booths with air-con, the cafes showed brand-new Hollywood films on video, and you couldn't walk ten feet without passing a bootleg tape stall. The main function of the street was as a decompression chamber for all those about to e Thailand; a halfway house between the East and the West. 

I'd landed at Bangkok in the late afternoon, and by the time I got to Ko Sahn it was dark. My taxi driver winked and told me that at one end of the street was a police station, so I asked him to drop me off at the other end. I wasn't planning on a crime, but I wanted to oblige his conspiratorial charm. Not that it made much difference at which end one stayed because the police obviously weren't ace. I caught the smell of grass as soon as I got out of the cab, and half the travelers weaving past me were stoned. 

The driver left me outside a guest house with an eating area open to the street. As I studied it, checking the clientele to gauge what kind of place it was, a thin man at the table nearest me leaned over and touched my arm. I glanced down. He was, I guessed, one of those heroin hippies that float around India and Thailand. He'd probably come to Asia ten years ago and turned an occasional dabble into addiction. His skin was old, though I'd e believed he was in his thirties. The way he was looking at me, I had the feeling I was being sized up as someone to rip off. 

"What?" I said warily. 

He pulled an expression of surprise and held up the palms of his hands. Then he curled his finger and thumb into the O-shaped perfection sign and pointed into the guest house. 

"It's a good place?" 

He nodded. 

I looked again at the people around the tables. They were mostly young and friendly looking, some watching TV and some chattering over their dinner. 

"Okay." I smiled at him in case he wasn't a heroin addict but just a friendly mute. "I'm sold." 

He returned the smile and turned back to the video screen. 

Quarter of an hour later I was settling into a room that was a little larger than a double bed. I can be accurate about it because there was a double bed in the room, and on four sides there was a foot of space. My bag could just slide into the gap. 

One wall was concrete -- the side of the building. The others were Formica and bare. They moved when I touched them. I had the feeling that if I leaned against one it would fall over and maybe hit another, and all the walls of the neighboring rooms would collapse like dominoes. Just short of the ceiling, the walls stopped, and across the space was a strip of mosquito netting. The netting almost upheld the illusion of being in a confined, personal area, until I lay down on my bed. As soon as I relaxed, I began to hear the cockroaches scuttling around in other rooms. 

At my head end I had a French couple in their late teens -- a beautiful, slim girl with a suitably handsome boy attached. They'd been ing their room as I got to mine and we exchanged nods as we passed in the corridor. The other end was empty. Through the netting I could see that the light was off, and anyway, if it had been occupied I would e heard the person breathing. It was the last room on the corridor, so I presumed it faced the street and had a window. 

On the ceiling was a fan, strong enough on full setting to stir the air. For a while I did nothing but lie on the bed and look up at it. It was calming, following the revolutions, and with the mixture of heat and soft breeze, I felt I could drift to sleep. That suited me. West to east is the worst for jet lag, and I wanted to fall into the right sleeping pattern on the first night. 

I switched off the light. Enough of a warm glow from the corridor outside came through for me to still see the fan. Soon I was asleep. 

Once or twice I was aware of people in the corridor, and I thought I heard the French couple coming back, then ing again. But the noises never woke me fully and I was always able to slip back into the dream I'd been ing before. Until I hard the man's footsteps. They had no rhythm or weight and dragged on the floor. 

A muttered stream of English swearwords floated into my room as he jiggled the padlock on his door. Then there was a loud sigh, the lock opened with a click, and his light came on. The mosquito netting cast a patterned shadow on my ceiling. 

Frowning, I looked at my watch. It was two in the morning -- late afternoon, English time. I wondered if I might get back to sleep. 

The man slumped onto his bed, ing the wall between us an alarming shake. He coughed awhile, then I heard the crackle of a joint being rolled. Soon there was blue smoke caught in the light, rolling through the netting. 

Aside from the occasional deep exhalation, he was silent. I drifted back to sleep, almost. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bitch," said a voice. I opened my eyes. 

"Fucking bitch. We're both as good as ..." 

The voice paused for a coughing fit. 

"Dead." 

I was wide awake now, so I sat up in bed. 

"Cancer in the corals, blue water, my bitch. Fucking Christ, did me in," the man continued. 

He had an accent but at first my sleep-fogged head couldn't place it. 

"Bitch" he continued. 

A Scottish accent. Beach. 

There was a scrabbling sound on the wall. For a moment I thought he might be trying to push it over, and I had a vision of myself being sandwiched between the Formica board and the bed. Then his head appeared through the mosquito netting, silhouetted, facing me. 

"Hey," he said. 

I didn't move. I was sure he couldn't see into my room. 

"Hey. I know you're listening. In there, you know you're awake." 

He lifted up a finger and gave the netting an exploratory poke. It popped away from where it was stapled to the Formica. His head struck through. 

"Here." 

A glowing red object sailed though the darkness, landing on the bed in a little shower of sparks. The joint he'd been smoking. I grabbed it to stop it from burning the sheets. 

"Yeah," said the man, and laughed quietly. "Got you now. I saw you take the butt." For a few seconds I couldn't get a handle on the situation. I kept thinking -- what if I actually had been asleep? The sheets might e caught fire. I might e burned to death. The panic flipped into anger, but I suppressed it. The man was way too much of a random element for me to lose my temper. I could still see only his head and that was backlit, in shadow. 

Holding up the joint, I asked, "Do you want this back?" 

"You were listening," he replied, ignoring me. "Heard me talking about the beach." 

"... You've got a loud voice." 

"Tell me what you heard." 

"I didn't hear anything." 

"... Heard nothing?" 

He paused for a moment, then pressed his face into the netting. 

"You're lying." 

"No. I was asleep. You just woke me up ... when you threw this joint at me." 

"You were listening," he hissed. 

"I don't care if you don't believe me." 

"I don't believe you." 

Well ... I don't care ... Look." I stood on the bed so our heads were at the same level, and held out the joint to the hole he'd made. "If you want this, take it. All I want is to go to sleep." 

As I lifted my hand he pulled back, moving out of the shadow. His face was flat like a boxer's, the nose busted too many times to e any form, and his lower jaw was too large for the top half of his skull. It would e been threatening if not for the body it was attached to. The large jaw tapered into a neck so thin it seemed incredible that it supported his head, and his T-shirt hung slackly on coat hanger shoulders. 

Past him I saw into his room. There was a window, as I'd assumed, but he'd taped it up with pages from a newspaper. Apart from that it was bare. 

His hand reached through the gap and plucked the butt from my fingers. 

"Okay," I said, thinking I'd gained some kind of control. "Now e me alone." 

"No," he replied flatly. 

"... No?" 

"No." 

"Why not? What do you ... Do you want something?" 

"Yep." He grinned. "I wants lots. And that's why" -- again he pushed his face into the netting -- "I won't e you alone."


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> Again you  inappropriately when it's _you_ that *doesn't fucking get it*.  Twat.
> 
> How else do you want me to put it?
> 
> ...



What? Where in the World "*gone*" is pronounced _"gone"_ (rhymes with bone) "*give*" pronounced "_give_" (rhymes with five), *accent* pronounced "_ak-kent or "as-sen_t" "*have" * pronounced "_have_ (rhymes with Dave), "*axe*" pronounced, "aches" *????????????????????????????*

All you would be doing is rectifying some mispelt words, a few changes to the spellings we hav already, not rewriting the language with a new alfabet or with a new acsent.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Nope, my priority would be to change the spelling of CONSONANT problems first and foremost - most accents are to do with vowel changes which would be too difficult to change and are too open to the variations you are chomping at the bit to defend.
> 
> So to use the examples we have used here - the use of 'ph' and 'gh' to represent the letter 'f', using the letter 'g' when actually it is a letter 'j', and using the letter 'c' where it should be an 's' and the letter 's' where it should be a 'z'.
> 
> ...



So you're only going to change the spellings of/in words that would not be affected by accent.  Thus creating an inconsistent mess.  The idea becomes more ridiculous the more you explain it.

And please answer editor's question on who's going to pay for this multi-billion pound exercise in futility.

As for the "abuse", man up or fuck off eh?


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

> This message is hidden because THINK! is on your ignore list.



That is soooo much better.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> That is soooo much better.


It really is, isn't it?  Half the thread just goes away.  The particularly stupid half, at that.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Got acsess to a word-prosessor now . I'v made changes using the, "Find and Replace" option, and hav cut off any unnecessary final "e"s. The text is virtually unchanged:


Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that it would indeed be a totally pointless exercise.

Oh, and stop posting up all these reams of  cut and paste. It's against the FAQ as well you know.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Seeing you're expecting everyone to pay vast amounts of their hard earned cash for this ludicrous folly, and you're pushing for a homogenised, blander, southern-centric version of the language that will heavily penalise the old and those in the regions, why are you so surprised that people react strongly?
> 
> Again: why do you expect people to fork out the billions that this ludicrous venture would cost and have you any proof that it would prove of any benefit to the vast majority of the populace?



Millions? sorry, *Billions*? It's up to publishing Houses what spellings they adopt/use, same with News papers, same with individuals, only educational books would be affected, they would be paid for in the usual  way same as they ar now.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

I think we should get rid of the alphabet altogether.  It's really confusing.  

We need to represent everything with little pictures.  That's the future right there.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Seeing you're expecting everyone to pay vast amounts of their hard earned cash for this ludicrous folly, and you're pushing for a homogenised, blander, southern-centric version of the language that will heavily penalise the old and those in the regions, why are you so surprised that people react strongly?
> 
> Again: why do you expect people to fork out the billions that this ludicrous venture would cost and have you any proof that it would prove of any benefit to the vast majority of the populace?



I don't see why spelling 'magic' as 'majic' would cost billions!! And you don't seem to give any reason either. Just wishful thinking?

It may cost a few million to the OED for the extra work, but beyond that *shrug* And of course I consider the long term benefits to be well worth the cost.



kabbes said:


> At least they're tenacious.  You have to give them that.  Overwhelming opposition to this ridiculous idea based on a whole swathe of objections -- an idea that needs massive popular buy-in to have any success -- and yet 32 pages in they're still here fighting.  Just the two of them.  The Mexican army is shooting their little cabin to shit, but they refuse to give up.



Thanx, we are passionate and unconvinced mostly due to the lightweight arguments offered against - so to use your metaphor it is more like surrounding that cabin and starving them out, than any actual bullets. 



Corax said:


> So you're only going to change the spellings of/in words that would not be affected by accent.  Thus creating an inconsistent mess.  The idea becomes more ridiculous the more you explain it.



It's a good start, I anticipate some resistance from the conservatives. I have given many examples, all of which would be unrelated to accents. spelling the 's' or 'z' on the end of the plurals for example is nothing to do with accents - but of course you know that - you just can't walk away from people you disagree with.



Corax said:


> And please answer editor's question on who's going to pay for this multi-billion pound exercise in futility.



It's great how your lack of reasonable arguments against lead you to jump on his bandwagon before he has even explained why spelling 'phone' as 'fone' will cost all that much. Remember it would be started at school?



Corax said:


> As for the "abuse", man up or fuck off eh?



Whatever dubious story justifies its continuance eh?



editor said:


> Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that it would indeed be a totally pointless exercise.
> 
> Oh, and stop posting up all these reams of  cut and paste. It's against the FAQ as well you know.



If I may respond instead of THINK! - your inability or reluctance to police the FAQ's makes a mockery of them. 

Why should *we *adhere to them if *you *don't?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> I think we should get rid of the alphabet altogether.  It's really confusing.
> 
> We need to represent everything with little pictures.  That's the future right there.



You're close, but it's _writing itself_ that's the problem.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that it would indeed be a totally pointless exercise.
> 
> Oh, and stop posting up all these reams of  cut and paste. It's against the FAQ as well you know.



I would hav "thort" that an exseption could easily be made on this occassion as we need to demostarte our points about spelling using text. I would use a shorter version, but than be accused of "selectiv". 

oh, and I'v proov'd spelling refrom wouldn't harm you at all, you could carry on in yor usual conservativ way.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> We need to represent everything with little pictures.



The 'bottom 10%' might find too many pictures confusing.  We should limit it to just, say, three.

Three smilies, in fact.  , , and


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I would hav "thort" that an exseption could easily be made on this occassion as we need to demostarte our points about spelling using text.


That's just plain gibberish.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I don't see why spelling 'magic' as 'majic' would cost billions!! And you don't seem to give any reason either. Just wishful thinking?
> 
> It may cost a few million to the OED for the extra work, but beyond that *shrug* And of course I consider the long term benefits to be well worth the cost.


Here's a tiny example of what would have to be changed to fit in with your idiotic scheme:

Signposts. 
Official documents. 
Government forms. 
Websites. 
Books. 
Reference books.
Teaching books.

It would cost billions, cause confusion and archive absolutely fuck all. So why the fuck should anyone have to pay for this folly?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> That's just plain gibberish.



Well, you hav the ability to abuse yor power, why don't you just ban me?


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Billions is a massive understatement.

I have a feeling you've not really thought this through G.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Well, you hav the ability to abuse yor power, why don't you just ban me?



wat


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Here's a tiny example of what would have to be changed to fit in with your idiotic scheme:
> 
> Signposts.
> Official documents.
> ...



*Sign posts *= usually *proper nouns*. i.e. names = no change. We'v sed this befor.

*Websites* don't hav to adopt the new spellings. Ther ar no restrictions  on what spellings they use on their sites *now*?

*Books*: as new books ar printed as the old ones wear out or ar replaced, the new ones can adopt the new spellings or not . it 's up to the Publishing Houses.

The same with documents.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

give way dude


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Sign posts *= usually *proper nouns*. i.e. names = no change. We'v sed this befor.
> 
> *Websites* don't hav to adopt the new spellings. Ther ar no restrictions now on what spellings they use on their sites?
> 
> ...



...and why haven't they already? Are you anti-evolution or something?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> wat



Wot.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Web search becomes a bit shit when nobody can agree on how to spell things.  But I'm sure you've considered that.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

Will people stop quoting the idiot please?  It's quite nice to just be able to ignore his mad ramblings.  Now I know that he thinks that you can somehow change the spelling of a word without changing the millions of documents that exist with that word in it, as if people will be happy to carry on reading something spelt in one way but somehow "know in their head" that it is *actually* spelt in a different way.  I put him on ignore for a reason and that reason is being FLAGRANTLY overtrodden .


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Wil pepol stop qotin the ediot plese?  Its quit nic to just be abl to ignor his mad rambalins.  Now I kno that he thinks that you can somhow chang the spelin of a word without changing the milions of documents that egzist with that word in it, as if pepol will be hapy to cary on readin something spelt in one way but somehow "kno in ther hed" that it is *actualy* spelt in a diferent way.  I put him on ignor for a reson and that reson is bein FLEYGRENTLY overtrodon .



fyp


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

Aaargh!


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Wil peepl stop qwotin the idiot plees?  It's qwite nice to just be abl to ignor his mad ramblings.  Now I no that he thinks that you can somhow chang the speling of a word withowt changing the milions of documents that exist with that word in it, as if peepl will be hapy to cary on reeding somthing spelt in won way but somhow "no in ther hed" that it is *actualy* spelt in a diferent way.  I put him on ignor for a reeson and that reeson is being FLAGRANTLY overtroden .



fyp x 2


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Sign posts *= usually *proper nouns*. i.e. names = no change. We'v sed this befor.
> 
> *Websites* don't hav to adopt the new spellings. Ther ar no restrictions  on what spellings they use on their sites *now*?
> 
> ...


Right. 

So your cunning plan to simplify the language is to introduce a set of alternative spellings (some with several meanings) that will run concurrently with the old spellings, thus - at a stroke - doubling the confusion and uncertainty.

Great thinking, Einstein!


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Seeing you're expecting everyone to pay vast amounts of their hard earned cash for this ludicrous folly, and you're pushing for a homogenised, blander, southern-centric version of the language that will heavily penalise the old and those in the regions, why are you so surprised that people react strongly?
> 
> Again: why do you expect people to fork out the billions that this ludicrous venture would cost and have you any proof that it would prove of any benefit to the vast majority of the populace?



Peeple ar penalised by current moronic spellings, which make so many giv up on English.

Incidently, i was with, amongst others, yesterday two mates from Manchester and Bolton who had come down to see U2" and we wer putting them up. They hav strong Northern acsents I show'd them "giv", "gon", "ax", etc. they could read them no problem. Fucking acsent has nothing to do with it and they didn't say, "You Southern cunt, you're trying to oppress me!".


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

yer, rite


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Right.
> 
> So your cunning plan to simplify the language is to introduce a set of alternative spellings (some with several meanings) that will run concurrently with the old spellings, thus - at a stroke - doubling the confusion and uncertainty.
> 
> Great thinking, Einstein!



Halfing the confusion of how a word was spelt.

Example:
I had to ask the women next to me how do you spell "*tear*" (drop of worter from the eye)? is it the same as "*tear*" (tare/rip)?


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Boo hoo.  I mean bo hooo, or is it booo who?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Halfing the confusion of how a word was spelt.
> 
> Example:
> I had to ask the women next to me how do you spell "*tear*" (drop of worter from the eye)? is it the same as "*tear*" (tare/rip)?



Yes it is.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Example:
> I had to ask the women next to me how do you spell "*tear*" (drop of worter from the eye)? is it the same as "*tear*" (tare/rip)?





butchersapron said:


> Yes it is.



Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

_That's the way it is suckers._ I could not care less _why_.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Boo hoo.  I mean bo hooo, or is it booo who?



Boo Hoo. incidently how "*who*" should be spelt. *HOO*.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> _That's the way it is suckers._ I could not care less _why_.



Thank you for caring. You'd be a nice ruler to hav.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> It would cost billions, cause confusion and archive absolutely fuck all. So why the fuck should anyone have to pay for this folly?



I agree that there would be some costs but the benefits that would accrue from the simplified spelling system we are suggesting would make these costs worth it.



fractionMan said:


> give way dude



I wish they would...

Meanwhile can anyone tell me why etymology should never change - I mean the word itself comes from middle English as 'etimologie' which is more phonetic in itself - but if change has been allowed in the past (the reasons for that change are interesting) - why should there be a freeze on all changes now? 

And if I am wrong and you accept that change is fine - what kind of changes would you be prepared to accept and why?

I look forward to you all ignoring thee reasonable questions as usual...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Thank you for caring. You'd be a nice ruler to hav.



If you want to be anti-society/evolution then fine.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Boo Hoo. incidently how "*who*" should be spelt. *HOO*.



What, but then they're spelled the same?

I'm confused by your inconsistency.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I agree that there would be some costs but the benefits that would accrue from the simplified spelling system we are suggesting would make these costs worth it.



Known murderer.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I agree that there would be some costs but the benefits that would accrue from the simplified spelling system we are suggesting would make these costs worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your questions are based on a false premise.  There isn't a freeze on changes now.  Whatever gave you that idea?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> If you want to be anti-society/evolution then fine.



jiberish.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Your questions are based on a false premise.  There isn't a freeze on changes now.  Whatever gave you that idea?



Giv me a list of the _numerous_ words that hav changed their spellings sinz 1909. ie the last one hundred years. Of course they ar frozen, you learn the same spellings that Victorians children had to learn, probably, even befor that, and they wern't even correct then!


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Your questions are based on a false premise.  There isn't a freeze on changes now.  Whatever gave you that idea?



What changes do you have in mind then?


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> What changes do you have in mind then?



none.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> What, but then they're spelled the same?
> 
> I'm confused by your inconsistency.




hoo=who


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> What changes do you have in mind then?



You have no idea of the dynamics of social change do you? It rarely happens by someone _decreeing_ it, it happens by the evolution of usage - murtherer.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Giv me a list of the _numerous_ words that hav changed their spellings sinz 1909. ie the last one hundred years. Of course they ar frozen, you learn the same spellings that Victorians children had to learn, probably, even befor that, and they wern't even correct then!



If they've not changed it's because there have been no changes in usage.  That is not the same as saying change is prohibited or frozen.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> hoo=who



the same as boo hoo.  how am I supposed to tell the difference?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> none.



So when you said:


> There isn't a freeze on changes now.


That was not due to your knowledge of a number of changes, it was just wishful thinking?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So when you said:
> 
> That was not due to your knowledge of a number of changes, it was just wishful thinking?



No, it was due to the knowlsdge of how language functions. If you're serioulsy arguing that there has been no change over the last 100 years then you're a loon as well as a murtherer.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> the same as boo hoo.  how am I supposed to tell the difference?



The same way you tell the difference between 'see' and 'sea' or 'there', their' and 'they're' - context.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The same way you tell the difference between 'see' and 'sea' or 'there', their' and 'they're' - context.



Exactly, that's one central strut of your own argument pulled out from beneath you.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Halfing the confusion of how a word was spelt.


Except your system would *double* the confusion, offering two 'correct' spellings instead of one, and complicating matters further by having more words spelt the same.

It's breathtakingly stupid.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> none.



Was it the wimple that gave it away?

You see what I did there?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Except your system would *double* the confusion, offering two 'correct' spellings instead of one, and complicating matters further by having more words spelt the same.
> 
> It's breathtakingly stupid.



One of the key divisions here is between those like yourself who feel that the population need to be protected from change becoz they just couldn't deal with it and those like us who have more faith in them.

Still you are entitled to your opinion, I just don't share it - I feel that the benefits from a simplified system would far outweigh such short term problems as you are throwing up.

Still waiting for examples of recent etymological changes...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> One of the key divisions here is between those like yourself who feel that the population need to be protected from change becoz they just couldn't deal with it and those like us who have more faith in them.
> 
> Still you are entitled to your opinion, I just don't share it - I feel that the benefits from a simplified system would far outweigh such short term problems as you are throwing up.
> 
> Still waiting for examples of recent etymological changes...



No, the people have _already_ spoken/written -and you're wagging your finger at them and telling them that they're wrong.

And yes, the langauge of today is exactly the same as 100 years go. You're right.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> One of the key divisions here is between those like yourself who feel that the population need to be protected from change becoz they just couldn't deal with it and those like us who have more faith in them.
> 
> Still you are entitled to your opinion, I just don't share it - I feel that the benefits from a simplified system would far outweigh such short term problems as you are throwing up.
> 
> Still waiting for examples of recent etymological changes...



Where is this royal decree banning change?  I'd like to read it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Does g-man really think _langauge_ has been imposed?


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Changes?  I'm not even sure you understand the word.



> The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> One of the key divisions here is between those like yourself who feel that the population need to be protected from change becoz they just couldn't deal with it and those like us who have more faith in them.


What the population need to be protected from is idiotic, money-sucking, pointless and hugely confusing schemes like the ludicrous folly you're proposing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Trolling again eh? And a slippery slope fallacy thrown in for good measure


Except that I'm not trolling, you boring little snide, and I have posited *no* "slippery slope fallacy", however much you might wish to see one in what I've written.


> So here's a bit of inconvenient logic for you to ignore:
> 
> It would be impossible to wipe out the different accents in our country and




Quite. That is actually part of my point, which everyone except you seems to have understood.


> [*]In other countries with a more phonetic spelling system there are still accents.


You haven't been positing "more phonetic", you've been positing a gradual but complete change.
Do at least make an attempt to not be more dishonest than you can possibly help.


> [*]The spelling changes I want to see are those which are constant for all UK speakers. This may not be much but everyone pronounces 'phone' with an 'f' in the front - and no matter how you blather with the rest of them, this constant and others like it are candidates for spelling reform.



And yet many of the words you and THINK! have presented as candidates for this change are *not* "constant for all UK speakers", however much *you* blather that they are.


> What is dodgy is that the assumption you are making is that the UK population would not be able to change (a lack of faith in other people?).


I've made no such assumption anywhere in the post you're replying to. *YOU*, however, wish to assume that I have because it helps your "argument". It's a tactic you've used before. It was pathetic then and is pathetic now.
In fact, I have every confidence that, if necessary, the people of the UK *would* subject themselves to the grotesqueries you demand, if they could be convinced it would "help". 
You, though, haven't come up with an argument that could convince a cauliflower, let alone a population.



> I think they would embrace the idea of having fewer rules to teach and strengthening English as an international language, while helping at least a percentage of dyslexics.


What you *think* isn't germane. What *is* or would be germane is what you can substantiate.


> Speaking for myself, I am not convinced with the argument that the consistency of etymology is more important, or that etymology should for some reason be frozen and stopped from changing.


Etymology *isn't* frozen. That, at least, is obvious. It's accretive.


> Then again you are just trolling - of course, I admit that I don't really understand why you see the world in this way. A place where there is only one right answer, one set of priorities, which must be agreed on by everyone; leading to the *justified *eek abuse of those who dare to disagree (while being sanctioned by the authorities too!)


I'm not trolling, but as I said with reference to another assumption of yours, it serves your purposes to represent me as doing so, the same as it does to represent any who questions your opinions as some kind of lexico-fascists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> none.



Precisely. If a system the like of which GMart and his Mini-me propose has utility, then it will be adopted in time anyway, because the *obvious* utility will mean that productive potential will outweigh vested interests. It's called evolution, and if you want to get mono-maniacally Spencerian about it, "survival of the fittest".


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmart, does "starting with the consonants" also mean "ending with the consonants"?  Or does it mean "and then moving to the vowels"?

Because if the latter then you are being highly disingenuous to avoid vowel problems -- for you, it's just a matter of timing.

Also, if you only are talking about consonants then it should be "becauz" and not "becoz".  Be consistant please, since it is consistency you are basing your argument around.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Where is this royal decree banning change?  I'd like to read it.



Just a few examples - one even - it's open to anyone...


Corax said:


> Changes?  I'm not even sure you understand the word.



Well the word itself - 'etymology' and many others have changed and this is part of the study of etymology now - why did we change from 'etimologie' to 'etymology' if you consider yourself to be such an expert then answer...

If change has happened in the past then it is not impossible for it to change in the present. So my question as to recent changes is to find out if it has been inadvertently frozen.



editor said:


> What the population need to be protected from is idiotic, money-sucking, pointless and hugely confusing schemes like the ludicrous folly you're proposing.



The people don't need to be protected from ideas like this - they need to be protected from the elitist authoritarians like yourself who insist that they can't make their own minds up.

The usage of txt speech speaks for itself - if given the chance I think that the population would grasp the opportunity. If after a hundred years there are people still using the old system then I would be happy to admit that I was wrong... I'll also eat my hat


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Just a few examples - one even - it's open to anyone...



Ok. etymology.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The people don't need to be protected from ideas like this - they need to be protected from the elitist authoritarians like yourself who insist that they can't make their own minds up.



No, they *have* made their mind up and now you're telling them they're wrong.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Well the word itself - 'etymology' and many others have changed and this is part of the study of etymology now - why did we change from 'etimologie' to 'etymology' if you consider yourself to be such an expert then answer...
> 
> If change has happened in the past then it is not impossible for it to change in the present. So my question as to recent changes is to find out if it has been inadvertently frozen.



You were talking about



> etymological change



You can't _change_ etymology numbnuts, unless you're able to change history that is.  You can _add_ to it, which is perhaps what you were painfully struggling to express.

You're not too hot on clarity of expression are you?


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, they *have* made their mind up and now you're telling them they're wrong.



Like I said before, the mindset of a dictator.  Dangerous fash mentality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

I gave GMart and THINK! a recent example of etymological change/evolution in post #227, with the word "bare", whose etymology now includes the British/Afro-Caribbean meanings ascribed to the word.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> You were talking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I *did* tell him that etymology is accretive, but it appears that GMart only sees what he *wants* to see in many posts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, they *have* made their mind up and now you're telling them they're wrong.



No, you don't understand. It's those who argue *against* GMart who are wrong. All he's trying to do is put in place a "common-sense" solution, something so sensible it's natural that people would want to adopt it. Human nature is such that going for the easiest "solution" to a problem is always provides the most appropriate answer.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, I *did* tell him that etymology is accretive, but it appears that GMart only sees what he *wants* to see in many posts.



I think 'accretive' may have been asking a bit much.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> I think 'accretive' may have been asking a bit much.



Not at all. If an old hack like me can grasp such words, then I'm sure he can.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only way to assure a standardised "phonetic" spelling would be to impose a single accent across the UK.



You're right it's not a slippery slope fallacy it is a strawman - sorry, my mistake. 

But if you are not trolling then you are not reading my posts. I have stated that certain parts of the spelling of English would be maintained such as the 'e' on the end of words to lengthen the vowel sound and the doubling of letters to shorten it - so your argument above falls down because you are exaggerating my position.



kabbes said:


> Gmart, does "starting with the consonants" also mean "ending with the consonants"?  Or does it mean "and then moving to the vowels"?
> 
> Because if the latter then you are being highly disingenuous to avoid vowel problems -- for you, it's just a matter of timing.
> 
> Also, if you only are talking about consonants then it should be "becauz" and not "becoz".  Be consistant please, since it is consistency you are basing your argument around.



I would prefer to see the vowels changed as well, but this would be less clearcut. For example the 'f' at the beginning of 'phone' is constant for ALL English speakers, which is why the accent argument is so rubbish - the same goes for the 'j' in 'majic'. Many here seem to have missed this point.

And for me the vowel combination 'au' rhymes with 'cause' and so it is a good example why vowel sounds would be further down the road - the 'becoz' example is to highlight the 'z' sound where it is spelt 'se' necessitating the need to learn yet another rule.

My priority atm is to show that etymology is frozen and that we could start the ball off by changing small things first.



ViolentPanda said:


> You haven't been positing "more phonetic", you've been positing a gradual but complete change.



I would prefer to see it completely change, but I would be happy with the consonant examples I have given so far. I suspect that vowel changes would be a step too far - but never say never, it could happen.



ViolentPanda said:


> And yet many of the words you and THINK! have presented as candidates for this change are *not* "constant for all UK speakers", however much *you* blather that they are.



Which words did you have in mind? I have been very careful to only give consonant examples which are constant across all accents, such as the 'j' in 'magic' - so I suspect you will quietly ignore this request to list them...



ViolentPanda said:


> In fact, I have every confidence that, if necessary, the people of the UK *would* subject themselves to the grotesqueries you demand, if they could be convinced it would "help".



What ALL of them?? That's as great an excuse for no change than I've heard - there have always been some people who are resistant to change and so your recipe is for the conservative dream of no change ever...



ViolentPanda said:


> What you *think* isn't germane. What *is* or would be germane is what you can substantiate.



I take it that you don't find my arguments logical, or disagree with my priorities - that's fine, it's a free country - at least for now. I wonder what form of substantiation you would find convincing? Maybe if the incidence of dyslexia were lower in countries with simpler spelling systems? 



ViolentPanda said:


> Etymology *isn't* frozen. That, at least, is obvious. It's accretive.



Really? Any example you like VP - a recent change, more than one would be great... just to prove that it IS accretive...



ViolentPanda said:


> Precisely. If a system the like of which GMart and his Mini-me propose has utility, then it will be adopted in time anyway, because the *obvious* utility will mean that productive potential will outweigh vested interests. It's called evolution, and if you want to get mono-maniacally Spencerian about it, "survival of the fittest".



There are often structural systems in place to prevent change - such as the system that kept feudalism in place. I do think that in time these changes will occur, but not yet. We need to unfreeze etymology first.

#227

This post points out that a dictionary lists the different meanings and uses of words from the past - it mentions the word 'bare' but doesn't  actually give an example of spelling change which would be recorded by etymology.

So, to be clearer -  etymology is an account of the history of a particular word or element of a word - so the history is there but can this story continue? Can the evolution of words as described in etymology be continued, or is it frozen in time, never to be changed?

My question is whether anyone can find a word which has changed recently - I gave the example of the word 'etymology' itself which comes from the word 'etimologie' so it changed its spelling once in the past - so why has change suddenly stopped?


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 14, 2009)

Do you even read what other people write?  I think you do, it just the bits that don't fit with your worldview get filtered out somehow.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2009)

So, in short, you DO want to change the vowel sounds.  You just want to do so later.  So saying "I'm not going to answer questions about vowel sounds" is actually totally disingenuous.  It's not a slipperly slope, it's your own actual target.

Frankly, I think that changing a few consonants is completely pointless.  Very few of these consonant sounds are actually ambiguous or inconsistent ("ph" is always pronounced the same way, for example).  And changing them whilst leaving the much, much bigger issue of vowels alone does nothing at all.  I can't see it helping anybody whatsoever, whilst it would cause immense difficulty for all the reasons already stated.

So stop prevaricating and deal with the real problem.  If you want to defend spelling reform, at some point you are going to have to deal with vowels.  And if you are dealing with vowels, you have to deal with accents.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The people don't need to be protected from ideas like this - they need to be protected from the elitist authoritarians like yourself who insist that they can't make their own minds up.


I think I know why people are rude to you now.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> If they were from oop north it would be 'MADG-GICK'. People don't pronounce words the same way. And how would you spell 'scone'? Or 'bath'? How about laugh/laff?
> 
> Your system is laughably inept, spectacularly pointless and likely to waste tens of billions of pounds.



MADG- GICK? with Hard "*g*"s? MAD-GICK?

laugh? has got a "g" sound in it? It hasn't even got either a soft "g", or a Hard "g" sound in it.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 'taut'



"*taut*", would rhyme with "*tout*", as in ticket tout, (Rhymes with, _out, bout clout_) There is a word "*taut*", which if you look in the pronunciation guide you wil see is pronounced exactly the same as "*taught*" and "*tort*".

It the same with "sauce" and "source". Incidentally, they should be spelt "sorz".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*taut*", would rhyme with "*tout*", as in ticket tout, (Rhymes with, _out, bout clout_) There is a word "*taut*", which if you look in the pronunciation guide you wil see is pronounced exactly the same as "*taught*".



taut would not rhyme with tout the way I pronounce.

and taut-taught being the same sound as I speak is exactly the point I was making.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> the same as boo hoo.  how am I supposed to tell the difference?



Like, " i saw the saw sawing the wood"Would that be?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> taut would not rhyme with tout the way I pronounce.
> 
> and taut-taught being the same sound as I speak is exactly the point I was making.



T-A-U-T would sound mor like "tout". Inconsistent diphthongs ar not my fort.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> MADG- GICK? with Hard "*g*"s? MAD-GICK?
> 
> laugh? has got a "g" sound in it? It hasn't even got either a soft "g", or a Hard "g" sound in it.


The more you type the more ridiculous your idea becomes.

I'll ask again. Some people say, 'laff' instead of 'larf' for laugh, so which spelling wins out? And how about words like 'tooth' which is pronounced 'tuth' in Wales?

I'm assuming you'd want to crush all regional accents and force an RP spelling on everyone, or would you allow a few token regional spellings in there. Is that correct?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> taut would not rhyme with tout the way I pronounce.
> 
> and taut-taught being the same sound as I speak is exactly the point I was making.



but the spelling of "taught" givs the wrong clues to how it is pronounced. What's that "g' doing in there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> The more you type the more ridiculous your idea becomes.
> 
> I'll ask again. Some people say, 'laff' instead of 'larf' for laugh, so which spelling wins out? And how about words like 'tooth' which is pronounced 'tuth' in Wales?
> 
> I'm assuming you'd want to crush all regional accents and force an RP spelling on everyone, or would you allow a few token regional spellings in there. Is that correct?



No, he wants all pronunciation to be as he speaks. We have established this.

All in the name of freedom from inconsistency, obviously. Definitely not just a selfish nutter who wants to re-work our entire written language because he has difficulties with it.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> The more you type the more ridiculous your idea becomes.
> 
> I'll ask again. Some people say, 'laff' instead of 'larf' for laugh, so which spelling wins out? And how about words like 'tooth' which is pronounced 'tuth' in Wales?
> 
> I'm assuming you'd want to crush all regional accents and force an RP spelling on everyone, or would you allow a few token regional spellings in there. Is that correct?



Don't bother me, laff or larf, i would still pronounce it the same way as I do now. It's the spelling that is shit. Most spelling reforms wouldn't affect Regional acsents, as with the Hard "g" to "j' case. as I hav pointed out ad nauseum in many posts, a point that has never been reply'd to.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> No, he wants all pronunciation to be as he speaks. We have established this.



*NO, I don't, idiot boy*, I just want us to adopt a mor consistent and lojical spellings,. So FUCKING simple.

DOTCOM., truely you ar a moron 35 pages of argue-ments and you still don't get what I'm talking about. FACE*/*palm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You're right it's not a slippery slope fallacy it is a strawman - sorry, my mistake.


No it isn't, unless you're reading it outwith the context of the post the comment was made in.


> But if you are not trolling then you are not reading my posts. I have stated that certain parts of the spelling of English would be maintained such as the 'e' on the end of words to lengthen the vowel sound and the doubling of letters to shorten it - so your argument above falls down because you are exaggerating my position.


No I'm not.


> I would prefer to see it completely change, but I would be happy with the consonant examples I have given so far. I suspect that vowel changes would be a step too far - but never say never, it could happen.


So in other words my point was accurate, and you're just humming and hah-ing around the edges because it's hard for you to admit.


> Which words did you have in mind? I have been very careful to only give consonant examples which are constant across all accents, such as the 'j' in 'magic' - so I suspect you will quietly ignore this request to list them...


I rarely ignore any of your requests. Your belief that I do is probably due to the fact that you don't properly read replies to your posts.
A good example would be "thought", which despite your contention, *isn't* constant. In Norfolk it's "thort", in north Lincs it's often "thowt", in the west country it usually sounds like thaaht. 


> What ALL of them?? That's as great an excuse for no change than I've heard - there have always been some people who are resistant to change and so your recipe is for the conservative dream of no change ever...


You really *don't* read what's on the screen, do you? I've just agreed that yes, I'm sure the British public *would* agree to your system *if* you could prove that it would be beneficial, and you accuse them and me of being conservative and of wanting language to stay static. 



> I take it that you don't find my arguments logical, or disagree with my priorities - that's fine, it's a free country - at least for now. I wonder what form of substantiation you would find convincing? Maybe if the incidence of dyslexia were lower in countries with simpler spelling systems?


That would depend on whether you could also provide an accurate reflection of the national literacy rate, and the level at which the literacy rate was set, so that a comparison with, say similar and dissimilar countries could be made. You'd also need to quantify whether the "spelling system" was indeed "simpler". Just you saying "_X_ plus _Y_ equals _Z_ isn't enough to convince me, and certainly wouldn't be enough to convince someone whose academic field of endeavour is linguistics. I like data, not fine words.


> Really? Any example you like VP - a recent change, more than one would be great... just to prove that it IS accretive...


I've already done so.


> There are often structural systems in place to prevent change - such as the system that kept feudalism in place. I do think that in time these changes will occur, but not yet. We need to unfreeze etymology first.


1) Feudalism *retarded* literacy, it didn't prevent it. That much is obvious from the role the printed word played in wider society in the late medieval era.
2) Etymology isn'r frozen, and you've done nothing to prove that it is, merely repeated your litany.


> #227
> This post points out that a dictionary lists the different meanings and uses of words from the past - it mentions the word 'bare' but doesn't  actually give an example of spelling change which would be recorded by etymology.


You asked for an example that showed etymology wasn't frozen, and now you've decided to re-define your question so that any example must encompass spelling change too. Well done!


> So, to be clearer -  etymology is an account of the history of a particular word or element of a word - so the history is there but can this story continue? Can the evolution of words as described in etymology be continued, or is it frozen in time, never to be changed?
> 
> My question is whether anyone can find a word which has changed recently - I gave the example of the word 'etymology' itself which comes from the word 'etimologie' so it changed its spelling once in the past - so why has change suddenly stopped?


The answer, obvious to most people, is that it hasn't. Conventions, spellings and even "received" pronunciations change in line with social usage, later being reflected in changes in the codified reference work for the language: The dictionary. Put a good case for changing a spelling and people will listen, but trying to advance a case through spurious references to helping the less fortunate is patronisation and condescension.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

> If they were from oop north it would be 'MADG-GICK'. l


Perhaps you wer trying to write "MAD*J*-*J*ICK. I think you got yor soft "g's mix up with yor J's.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Do you even read what other people write?  I think you do, it just the bits that don't fit with your worldview get filtered out somehow.



Certainly appears that way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> NO I don't, idiot boy, I just want us to adopt a mor consistent and lojical spellings,. So FUCKING simple.
> 
> DOTCOM., truely you ar a moron 35 pages of agruements and you still don't get what I'm talking about. FACE*/*palm.



I do, but your logical inconsistencies are what is face palm here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> NO I don't, idiot boy, I just want us to adopt a mor consistent and lojical spellings,. So FUCKING simple.
> 
> DOTCOM., truely you ar a moron 35 pages of agruements and you still don't get what I'm talking about. FACE*/*palm.



Yeah, idiot boy. He's got an IQ of 137, you know! 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (sorry, just recalling some of the papers I've read on the irrelevance of IQ to any realistic measure of intellectual capacity)


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Don't bother me, laff or larf, i would still pronounce it the same way as I do now. It's the spelling that is shit.


So, again, *how would it be spelt?*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I do, but your logical inconsistencies are what is face palm here.



Agruement.
Sounds like a stomach-ache, don't you think?
And he's *added* an "e". Not very consistent of him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> So, again, *how would it be spelt?*



*I-T, you div!!*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, you don't understand. It's those who argue *against* GMart who are wrong. All he's trying to do is put in place a "common-sense" solution, something so sensible it's natural that people would want to adopt it. Human nature is such that going for the easiest "solution" to a problem is always provides the most appropriate answer.



But his idea basically takes a lot of the colour out of our language.  It would suck.

And, Christ, we have to learn a few varying spellings.

Spare a thought for the poor buggers in China who have to master how to inscribe some 5000 characters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, idiot boy. He's got an IQ of 137, you know!
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (sorry, just recalling some of the papers I've read on the irrelevance of IQ to any realistic measure of intellectual capacity)



If THINK! has such a 'mighty' IQ, and a string of eastern ex girlfriends, I will eat my hat sans condiments


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> So, again, *how would it be spelt?*



*I DON'T MIND!* They ar both better than the currant version. You choose one as you ar feeling so fucking oppressed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> But his idea basically takes a lot of the colour out of our language.  It would suck.


Yep, and it wouldn't be any help a fair few types of dyslexia either


> And, Christ, we have to learn a few varying spellings.
> 
> Spare a thought for the poor buggers in China who have to master how to inscribe some 5000 characters.


I do. As I said earlier in the thread, trying to learn Ukrainian Russian nearly drove me mad, and that's a fairly simple 33-character alphabet the language is based on. 5,000 characters is a head-fuck and a half!


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> If THINK! has such a 'mighty' IQ, and a string of eastern ex girlfriends, I will eat my hat sans condiments



Then eat it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, and it wouldn't be any help a fair few types of dyslexia either
> 
> I do. As I said earlier in the thread, trying to learn Ukrainian Russian nearly drove me mad, and that's a fairly simple 33-character alphabet the language is based on. 5,000 characters is a head-fuck and a half!



Fuck me, writing poetry in that language must be a nightmare


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> If THINK! has such a 'mighty' IQ, and a string of eastern ex girlfriends, I will eat my hat sans condiments



He may well have such a "mighty" IQ (137 isn't really *that* mighty, though), but what is IQ? It's a socially-constructed, culturally-specific measure of what denotes "intelligence" to the particular people who originally formulated the concept, that's all. I had my own IQ tested 30 years ago, and had a slightly better score than THINK! but I've got no illusions whatsoever that it means anything except I have an aptitude for the type of test I took, and I'd certainly never dream of calling myself a "genius" or of joining MENSA, because outside the specific cultural context (middle class, problem solver-centric) it is meaningless. A high IQ doesn't imbue you with any abilities, merely (most often, to people who take it seriously) an over-inflated sense of your own importance. It's big bollocks in a big hairy ball-bag. 
As for the ex-girlfriends, I doubt you'll have to gnaw your fedora, mate. With or without brown sauce!


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *I DON'T MIND!* They ar both better than the currant version. You choose one as you ar feeling so fucking oppressed.


The great news is that no matter how many 'rolls eyes' you petulantly post up, there's not the remotest chance of your hare-brained spelling reforms ever seeing the light of day.

And that's because the vast majority of people will instantly realise that it's a truly spectacular waste of time and money and one of the daftest, stupidest follies imaginable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> But his idea basically takes a lot of the colour out of our language.  It would suck.
> 
> And, Christ, we have to learn a few varying spellings.
> 
> Spare a thought for the poor buggers in China who have to master how to inscribe some 5000 characters.



Just thought I'd mention that the reason I talked about "human nature" in the post you replied to is part of a running joke between me and butchersapron, because it's absolutely amazing how often people "naturalise" or attempt to naturalise issues when all *rational* argument fails.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He may well have such a "mighty" IQ (137 isn't really *that* mighty, though), but what is IQ? It's a socially-constructed, culturally-specific measure of what denotes "intelligence" to the particular people who originally formulated the concept, that's all. I had my own IQ tested 30 years ago, and had a slightly better score than THINK! but I've got no illusions whatsoever that it means anything except I have an aptitude for the type of test I took, and I'd certainly never dream of calling myself a "genius" or of joining MENSA, because outside the specific cultural context (middle class, problem solver-centric) it is meaningless. A high IQ doesn't imbue you with any abilities, merely (most often, to people who take it seriously) an over-inflated sense of your own importance. It's big bollocks in a big hairy ball-bag.
> As for the ex-girlfriends, I doubt you'll have to gnaw your fedora, mate. With or without brown sauce!




well yes, I remember watching a prog that talked about the problems with the cultural specificity of IQ. It was an australian thing and they showed that while the aboriginal group scored less on the IQ scale to there settler counterparts, they were in fact able to map and assign values to areas of the map almost unconsciously. Different problems require different modes of problem solving. IQ measurement can be flattering, but it's nowt to crow about eh.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> The great news is that no matter how many 'rolls eyes' you petulantly post up, there's not the remotest chance of your hare-brained spelling reforms ever seeing the light of day.
> 
> And that's because the vast majority of people will instantly realise that it's a truly spectacular waste of time and money and one of the daftest, stupidest follies imaginable.



That's yor opinion *MADG-GICK*, you run with it, and  and a little, x, as well, but don't tell DOTCOM.


Incidently, no where in the World is the word, "magic" pronounced, MADG-GICK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Fuck me, writing poetry in that language must be a nightmare



Perhaps that's why some Chinese poetry, even in translation, is so beautiful? 

(yes, I am a bit of a believer in suffering for your art to improve it )


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That's yor opinion *MADG-GICK*, you run with it, and  and a little, x, as well, but don't tell DOTCOM.!


Sorry, I've no idea what you're on about again, but if posting up emoticons takes your mind off the_ incessant _arse kicking you're getting here for your idiotic ideas and piss-weak arguments, you keep on keeping on, sunshine.

*pats head.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> I think I know why people are rude to you now.



Do you know why peeple ar rude to you?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Sorry, I've no idea what you're on about again, but if posting up emoticons takes your mind off the_ incessant _arse kicking you're getting here for your idiotic ideas and piss-weak arguments, you keep on keeping on, sunshine.
> 
> *pats head.



Incessant beating? it's you that's run-off whimpering and resorted to insults.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Incessant beating? it's you that's run-off whimpering and resorted to insults.



I think he means beating your meat. the amount of one-handed surfing you must do, given that you're obviously a massive wanker. 











​


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

ed, can you ask llamas if he can find a way to disable smilies for an individual poster?  I'm worried someone's gonna knife the fucker otherwise.


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Do you know why peeple ar rude to you?



rood shirly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

cesare said:


> rood shirly



Ah, but then he'd just be compounding the problem he's railing against, because "rood" already has another meaning.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

context, etymology, accent, cost and pointlessness

These are the four areas of fail for the idea of phonetic spelling. Even if we take elegance, beauty and proven usefulness as three minor areas of fail for the idea.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> ed, can you ask llamas if he can find a way to disable smilies for an individual poster?  I'm worried someone's gonna knife the fucker otherwise.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> ed, can you ask llamas if he can find a way to disable smilies for an individual poster?  I'm worried someone's gonna knife the fucker otherwise.



and some mor.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 14, 2009)

and a couple mor.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

I wish I'd left you on ignore.  I'm clearly a masochist.

Answer me one question.  Do you realise that the vast majority of Urban (I assume, based on this thread) thinks you're a total nob?

Just out of interest like.  I'm curious as to why you're continuing to embarass yourself like this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> I wish I'd left you on ignore.  I'm clearly a masochist.
> 
> Answer me one question.  Do you realise that the vast majority of Urban (I assume, based on this thread) thinks you're a total nob?
> 
> Just out of interest like.  I'm curious as to why you're continuing to embarass yourself like this.



Attention-seeking. Even negative validation is *still* validation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

I'll give unTHINK! this, he is at least honest in his one man mission of lunacy. His co-lunatic Gmart is actually really fucking dishonest in debate.


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

This thread has given me loads of amusement over the past few days, so I'm gonna wade on in...



THINK! said:


> I imagin that the old spellings would die out slowly. The Swiss wil probably keep their umlauts to make them different to the Jermans, like we do with our spellings oppose to using the American (slight) improovments.



Why would that make them different from the Germans? They still use it...



editor said:


> Seeing you're expecting everyone to pay vast amounts of their hard earned cash for this ludicrous folly, and you're pushing for a homogenised, blander, southern-centric version of the language that will heavily penalise the old and those in the regions, why are you so surprised that people react strongly?



It's not even that tbh... More middle/upper class SE England. My accent is pretty much RP, but even so I've picked up distinct pronunciations long the way.



THINK! said:


> What? Where in the World "*gone*" is pronounced _"gone"_ (rhymes with bone) "*give*" pronounced "_give_" (rhymes with five), *accent* pronounced "_ak-kent or "as-sen_t" "*have" * pronounced "_have_ (rhymes with Dave), "*axe*" pronounced, "aches" *????????????????????????????*



Accent (er... I can't be bothered to add accents to the letters btw):
French: Ecouter, Accent.
Spanish: Acento.
Italian: Accento.

Are they wrong? Is it going to make it easier for them if we change it?



THINK! said:


> I would hav "thort" that an exseption could easily be made on this occassion as we need to demostarte our points about spelling using text. I would use a shorter version, but than be accused of "selectiv".
> 
> oh, and I'v proov'd spelling refrom wouldn't harm you at all, you could carry on in yor usual conservativ way.



As was pointed out to you, thought is not pronounced thort; in the US the RP would be something like a short 'thawt' (θɔt) in Oxford English it's a longer sound (θɔ:t). Something like port (pɔrt) is similar, but not the same. Also we're running up against another problem here; there are clearly not enough accents and letters to accommodate a phonemic spelling system.



Gmarthews said:


> One of the key divisions here is between those like yourself who feel that the population need to be protected from change becoz they just couldn't deal with it and those like us who have more faith in them.



Kabbes pulled you up on this, but just to add it's not a 'be' sound, but a 'bi' (short I, like bic) - you're using the American pronunciation...



THINK! said:


> "*taut*", would rhyme with "*tout*", as in ticket tout, (Rhymes with, _out, bout clout_) There is a word "*taut*", which if you look in the pronunciation guide you wil see is pronounced exactly the same as "*taught*".
> 
> It the same with "sauce" and "source". Incidentally, they should be spelt "sorz".



Who the fuck pronounces 'sauce' 'sorz' ffs? 

I'd assume you were asking me to sample your pustulant abscesses if you asked me to try your 'sorz'. 



ViolentPanda said:


> He may well have such a "mighty" IQ (137 isn't really *that* mighty, though), but what is IQ? It's a socially-constructed, culturally-specific measure of what denotes "intelligence" to the particular people who originally formulated the concept, that's all. I had my own IQ tested 30 years ago, and had a slightly better score than THINK! but I've got no illusions whatsoever that it means anything except I have an aptitude for the type of test I took, and I'd certainly never dream of calling myself a "genius" or of joining MENSA, because outside the specific cultural context (middle class, problem solver-centric) it is meaningless. A high IQ doesn't imbue you with any abilities, merely (most often, to people who take it seriously) an over-inflated sense of your own importance. It's big bollocks in a big hairy ball-bag.
> As for the ex-girlfriends, I doubt you'll have to gnaw your fedora, mate. With or without brown sauce!



The IQ test is actually pretty interesting; was developed by Alfred Binet (one of the pioneers of developmental psychology) as a system to find children who might be in need of further help. The original intention was certainly not to give someone's intelligence a defined value. 




			
				Binet said:
			
		

> The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.



By testing the children he was able to identify where they might have problems, he could then help them develop that area. The idea is the total antithesis of the fixed 'I have an IQ of' thing that we get today.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Cid said:


> This thread has given me loads of amusement over the past few days, so I'm gonna wade on in...



Oh, fuck....


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Fuck me, writing poetry in that language must be a nightmare



No, it's not. There's only just over 400 possible syllable sounds so _everything_ rhymes.


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> Oh, fuck....



I love this shit man, I don't care who's on the other end, it makes me brush up on my linguistics and it's fun. It's like going tooth and claw with quacks and religious nuts. Makes you feel alive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, it's not. There's only just over 400 possible syllable sounds so _everything_ rhymes.



Hah! a completely different nightmare to the one I envisaged then. When it all rhymes how do you get proper significance from a flow?

Still, that is the difficulty with writing poems with rhyme anywise...


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I take it that you don't find my arguments logical, or disagree with my priorities - that's fine, it's a free country - at least for now. I wonder what form of substantiation you would find convincing? Maybe if the incidence of dyslexia were lower in countries with simpler spelling systems?



Dyselxia as we know it is virtually unknown in China (though literacy rates are far lower for social reasons). So we should adopt a logographic system then.

Please note that the Korean alphabet is not an alphabet, each character/letter represents a syllable. Dyslexia rates are lower with such systems I believe. I have hwowever, never seen any evidence that dyslexia rates are lower in any language that uses alphabets.


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And Maomao - my experience of countries which have a more phonetic system is exactly why I hopd such an unpopular opinion - I have seen at first hand the advantage this can give esp to the less gifted students, and this is why I am passionate about this idea



How could you possibly have seen and understood it first hand when you don't speak the language in question? You might have seen it but if you don't understand the language how could the experience have made any sense to you at all?


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Hah! a completely different nightmare to the one I envisaged then. When it all rhymes how do you get proper significance from a flow?



Poetry is predominantly a written medium in Chinese. It sounds nice when you read it out but a poem needs to be read and or explained to make sense.


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll give unTHINK! this, he is at least honest in his one man mission of lunacy. His co-lunatic Gmart is actually really fucking dishonest in debate.



That's fair but the problem is that Gmarthews existence validates THINK!'s position so rather than taking criticism and going off and reading something useful he thinks he's part of a team and starts posting up lists of words that he thinks should change without realising they don't make sense,


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Cid said:


> I love this shit man, I don't care who's on the other end, it makes me brush up on my linguistics and it's fun. It's like going tooth and claw with quacks and religious nuts. Makes you feel alive.



Mate, have you _read_ this thread?  I'm no fucking genius, but Frodo and Samwise are the most blinkered, arrogant, patronising, least self-aware stupid little fucks I've encountered on here since I was Neo G.

I don't want to discourage you - I'm off on holiday for a fortnight but I'm looking forward to reading this when I get back.   Good luck


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

Yeah, I've read it; what can I say, I _like_ trying to use the pen to break through a brick wall.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

I pity your nib.  Enjoy!  

I'm off for my first holiday in 6 years tomorrow morning.  Did I mention that?  

_*does a little dance*_


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

Where?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> Mate, have you _read_ this thread?  I'm no fucking genius, but Frodo and Samwise are the most blinkered, arrogant, patronising, least self-aware stupid little fucks I've encountered on here since I was Neo G.
> 
> I don't want to discourage you - I'm off on holiday for a fortnight but I'm looking forward to reading this when I get back.   Good luck



What's really genius is the way they keep painting everyone else as spelling fascists determined to keep the little man down, and in the same breath declaring that phonetic spelling would liberate the poor people and chavs from the oppression of orthodox spelling. Without realising how incredibly fucking patronising this attitude is.

A point among many that has been totally unaddressed


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Cid said:


> Where?



The exotic Dorset coast.

You don't have to indulge me, honestly, I'm just a wee bit over-excited now it's really here.


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> What's really genius is the way they keep painting everyone else as spelling fascists determined to keep the little man down, and in the same breath declaring that phonetic spelling would liberate the poor people and chavs from the oppression of orthodox spelling. Without realising how incredibly fucking patronising this attitude is.



Not to mention the fact that they are aguing against a natural, organic, almost anarchic system in favour of one imposed by (presumably) the state.


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

Corax said:


> The exotic Dorset coast.
> 
> You don't have to indulge me, honestly, I'm just a wee bit over-excited now it's really here.



You'd hate my sister; she graduated last year and set up as a free-lance graphic designer. This means she can do her work from practically anywhere, so seems to spend most of her time diving; got back from the Philippines in June after spending 3 months doing her dive instructor and, after a couple of weeks, landed a job helping to set up a conservation/diving place on an Island off Cambodia. She's back in late November. 





Dorset is nice though, enjoy.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> What's really genius is the way they keep painting everyone else as spelling fascists determined to keep the little man down, and in the same breath declaring that phonetic spelling would liberate the poor people and chavs from the oppression of orthodox spelling. Without realising how incredibly fucking patronising this attitude is.
> 
> A point among many that has been totally unaddressed



That's _exactly_ the attitude that makes me want to plant a fork in their heads.

I wouldn't of course, cos I'm actually a 6 foot coward.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Cid said:


> You'd hate my sister



Nah, I know a tonne of people who pootle off all over the place.  I made my choices, and I'm happy with 'em.  I'd rather my girl and her/our kid than the disposable income.  

And to be fair, I _could_ spend a bit less on weed if it really bothered me.


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> What's really genius is the way they keep painting everyone else as spelling fascists determined to keep the little man down, and in the same breath declaring that phonetic spelling would liberate the poor people and chavs from the oppression of orthodox spelling. Without realising how incredibly fucking patronising this attitude is.
> 
> A point among many that has been totally unaddressed



Nah, it's predictable, don't bite on that shit. You can technically argue that we are being small c conservative, but in this case that's no bad thing. You can also technically argue that they're for authoritarian reform, playing with terms works both ways.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

Cid said:


> Nah, it's predictable, don't bite on that shit. *You can technically argue that we are being small c conservative*, but in this case that's no bad thing. You can also technically argue that they're for authoritarian reform, playing with terms works both ways.



you could, if language was edicted from solemn bodies that we all must adhere to. Given that it an out of control and constantly evolving beast that dictionaries are constantly two steps behind, I don't see the grounds for even a small-c accusation. This aspect of the arguement then shifts to accents, phonemics, etymological issues and other fruitless outlets.

GMart and THINK! will literally not have a look at the flaws presented to them.


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2009)

Oh yeah, good point. Have been drinking so not quite thinking.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

maomao said:


> Dyselxia as we know it is virtually unknown in China (though literacy rates are far lower for social reasons). So we should adopt a logographic system then.
> 
> Please note that the Korean alphabet is not an alphabet, each character/letter represents a syllable. Dyslexia rates are lower with such systems I believe. I have hwowever, never seen any evidence that dyslexia rates are lower in any language that uses alphabets.



From dictionary.com: 



> Alphabet - any system of characters or signs with which a language is written.



Which in my mind includes Korean, or have I missed something? Why is the Korean script not an alphabet, and more importantly - why is it important that it be one?

I have no idea about China so I will take your word for it.

And why would linguistic skill be a factor in recognizing that a more phonetic system helps? I went to Italy and saw the same thing there and my Italian is atrocious - but I was able to talk to the Italians and ask them questions in English in the same way as I did with many teachers of English in Korea.

And I am still waiting for an example of recent etymological/spelling change - you can all ignore this inconvenient question, as you are - but unless you can find one then my suggestion that the evolution of spelling has stopped and is a problem remains. Indeed the fact that you haven't already given me a few suggests that you're in a pickle with this. 

So here it is - a chance to abuse again - all you need to do is find a few examples where the story of etymology has a recent chapter and then you can abuse me for being wrong... how much fun would that be??

I have a dictionary here from 1851 and in it the word 'etymology' is spelt 'correctly' - which means that its spelling must have been changed between its origin in 1350-1400 in middle English as 'etimologie' and 1851. Now I can't find out when that change occurred, but it is part of the story or etymology of this word. 

So I am asking you all for any example from recent history of an addition to the story of any word that you can find - to back up your claim that spelling change is not frozen and is evolving in the way you describe - 'organically' and 'constantly evolving beast' etc.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Is that not a fucking huge and extremely telling point?

Simplifying things a bit, but both Frodo and Samwise (IIRC) have put themselves up as advocates for 'the people' when it comes to spelling.

Both Frodo and Samwise (IIRC) have agreed that the OED is reactive, not proactive.  It records, not dictates.

Therefore attempts to direct the evolution of language via a set programme are....


Fuck it, it shouldn't be necessary to spell it out at all, but I'm assuming even the intellectual hobbit twins ought to be able to follow it from there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

> mail (1)
> "post, letters," c.1205, "a traveling bag," from O.Fr. male "wallet, bag," from Frank. *malha, from P.Gmc. *malho- (cf. O.H.G. malaha "wallet, bag," M.Du. male "bag"), from PIE *molko- "skin, bag." Sense extension to "letters and parcels" (18c.) is via "bag full of letter" (1654) or "person or vehicle who carries postal matter" (1654). In 19c. England, mail was letters going abroad, while home dispatches were post. Sense of "personal batch of letters" is from 1844, originally Amer.Eng. Mailman is from 1881; mail-order is from 1875. The verb is 1828, Amer.Eng. E-mail is from 1982, shortened from electronic mail (1977); this led to the contemptuous application of snail mail (1983) to the old system.



no meaning drift here at all, no sir.

Not to mention it's other meaning WRT armour.


----------



## Corax (Aug 14, 2009)

Frodo - you seem to suddenly have started using the word _etymology_ and its derivitaves in a more appropriate sense!  Thanks for your silent acknowledgement.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> no meaning drift here at all, no sir.
> 
> Not to mention it's other meaning WRT armour.



That is meaning drift, and indeed that is part of etymology - so it is my fault for not being precise - this thread is about spelling and so I was/am hoping to find a *spelling *change (which would be included in an etymological history) in recent history - to back up the idea that it is the 'constantly evolving beast' you describe...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2009)

and one gives clue to linguistic roots by changing the spelling? You haven't thought this through have you?

or rather you have, but you discarded and/or ignored a lot of linguistic functions  and riffed on from there. Real paralogism.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> and one gives clue to linguistic roots by changing the spelling? You haven't thought this through have you?
> 
> or rather you have, but you discarded and/or ignored a lot of linguistic functions  and riffed on from there. Real paralogism.



Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time. 

Your argument is that we should not add to this history by changing its form (spelling), because this will confuse the advanced learners of English who study it.

Yet my argument is that history is ongoing, and that we should be adding to it.

Your argument is that it is an organic and 'evolving beast' (your words) - but I am asking for an example where the *form *has changed in recent times - seeing as this is a key part to etymology. 

If it turns out that the form part of etymology has stopped changing - proved by your inability to find many examples of such changes - then that would support my claim that we should be trying to continue this story rather than stop it as is happening here.


----------



## Cid (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And why would linguistic skill be a factor in recognizing that a more phonetic system helps? I went to Italy and saw the same thing there and my Italian is atrocious - but I was able to talk to the Italians and ask them questions in English in the same way as I did with many teachers of English in Korea.



Italy has lower literacy rates than the UK... 



> And I am still waiting for an example of recent etymological/spelling change - you can all ignore this inconvenient question, as you are - but unless you can find one then my suggestion that the evolution of spelling has stopped and is a problem remains. Indeed the fact that you haven't already given me a few suggests that you're in a pickle with this.



Etymologies don't change as such (something doesn't go from having a French origin to a German one), they're added to as meaning changes of course, but (unless someone finds an error in the linguistic history) they'll stay the same up to that point. As to spelling, once a language is properly codified and that version is commonly used, there's less change. Hence the way the French tend to just ignore reform, the resistance in Germany and the continuing use of stuff like the ß in Switzerland. 



> So here it is - a chance to abuse again - all you need to do is find a few examples where the story of etymology has a recent chapter and then you can abuse me for being wrong... how much fun would that be??



Still not sure you understand what etymology means; it's the history of a word; both in terms of form and meaning.  



> I have a dictionary here from 1851 and in it the word 'etymology' is spelt 'correctly' - which means that its spelling must have been changed between its origin in 1350-1400 in middle English as 'etimologie' and 1851. Now I can't find out when that change occurred, but it is part of the story or etymology of this word.



Its origin is Greek, etymo and logos. You really, really should know that kind of thing if you want to talk about language.



> So I am asking you all for any example from recent history of an addition to the story of any word that you can find - to back up your claim that spelling change is not frozen and is evolving in the way you describe - 'organically' and 'constantly evolving beast' etc.



Gay, hello, ming, yard, queer, mail, draw, drag, fag etc etc. Off the top of my head, without even starting on completely new words.

Not spelling change, but etymological change.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> *Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
> *
> Your argument is that we should not add to this history by changing its form (spelling), because this will confuse the advanced learners of English who study it.
> 
> ...




no, not really. I think you are describing philology there (admittedly a closely related field of study).

e2a my bad, it's a little different to philology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philology
As for the rest of your post, well you show that you really haven't bothered to take even a cursory look at the history of languages. The only other people who would deny something exists because it doesn't happen right in front of them are Creationists. They at least have the excuse of evolution being very slow, Linguistic drift and changes are trackable to anyone willing to have a look. But you aren't willing to do so.


----------



## Cid (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.






			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Etymology (pronounced /ɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/) is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmat-------->
<------------honest debate


----------



## Corax (Aug 15, 2009)

Fucking brilliant.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

Cid said:


> Italy has lower literacy rates than the UK...



We were talking about dyslexia rates, but very interesting .



Cid said:


> Etymologies don't change as such (something doesn't go from having a French origin to a German one), they're added to as meaning changes of course, but (unless someone finds an error in the linguistic history) they'll stay the same up to that point. As to spelling, once a language is properly codified and that version is commonly used, there's less change. Hence the way the French tend to just ignore reform, the resistance in Germany and the continuing use of stuff like the ß in Switzerland.



Origins don't change of course - but the history of a word continues and this is part of etymology.



Cid said:


> Still not sure you understand what etymology means; it's the history of a word; both in terms of form and meaning.



That is the definition I gave above, (did you read my post or skim it?) - I am happy to accept that the meaning of words has a recent change - but I am waiting for someone to give me recent form (spelling) changes which are also included in etymology. 



Cid said:


> Its origin is Greek, etymo and logos. You really, really should know that kind of thing if you want to talk about language.



That's fine, and I did know that, but the first recorded instance as the word 'etimologie' was 1350-1400.



Cid said:


> Gay, hello, ming, yard, queer, mail, draw, drag, fag etc etc. Off the top of my head, without even starting on completely new words.
> 
> Not spelling change, but etymological change.



Indeed, not a spelling change, so I will continue to wait as I cannot find one either and it begs the question as to why spelling has been allowed to atrophy and whether this is constructive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Wiki-genius eh?


----------



## Corax (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Wiki-genius eh?



Genius you say?  A a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

So what if it is from wiki?

Here is one from an American source:



> The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible



 - they are all the same - etymology includes spelling - that is why you have all been going on about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Tell me about cognates and why they are relevant to written english, in your own words and without recourse to Wikipedia (that means yo can't just sloppily cut and paste)


----------



## Cid (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So what if it is from wiki?
> 
> Here is one from an American source:
> 
> ...



You asked for "examples where the story of etymology has a recent chapter", I gave you some. Etymology is the history of a word, it can be the spelling, the meaning, the pronunciation; that's what I was pointing out. As I said, once codified, spelling changes less; I see no problem with that. In Finland there are dialects totally different from the standard one, which is mainly used for news, official purposes etc. Even that will change (spoken language tends to change very quickly in comparison to the written word).


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Tell me about cognates and why they are relevant to written english, in your own words and without recourse to Wikipedia (that means yo can't just sloppily cut and paste)



Do you feel unable to answer any of the points made? Is that why you are suddenly keen to change the subject? Cognates are interesting but irrelevant, if you wish to start a thread about them feel free. Here tho I am still waiting for these examples - your inability to give any speaks volumes.

I put it very simply for you in #928... if you have forgotten...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 15, 2009)

The thing is that boring and/or pissing people off until they stop arguing with you is not the same as _winning an argument_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Cognates are irrelevant to a discussion about phonetic english. Are you lying to yourself, or just the rest of us?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

Cid said:


> You asked for "examples where the story of etymology has a recent chapter", I gave you some.



Even _you _said after your examples that they weren't _form _examples which is what I am waiting for.



Cid said:


> Etymology is the history of a word, it can be the spelling, the meaning, the pronunciation; that's what I was pointing out. As I said, once codified, spelling changes less; I see no problem with that.



Sure, but it doesn't change less - it has stopped completely. Spelling has stopped changing so why should it stop changing? What advantage is there to keeping the spelling the same as it was in Victorian times? If there is a case for change then why not? 

It seems that furthermore, we are so used to it not changing that we have abuse at the very suggestion that it might.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Cognates are irrelevant to a discussion about phonetic english. Are you lying to yourself, or just the rest of us?



It is irrelevant to the question at hand, which you are ignoring, yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Cid said:


> Originally Posted by Gmarthews
> Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by wikipedia
> Etymology (pronounced /ɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/) is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.



no response to this post exposing you as the sort of lazy twt who won't even re-word his wiki-wisdom?

You must think us all fucking idiots.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is irrelevant to the question at hand, which you are ignoring, yes.



'it'?

what 'it'? We are discussing the viability of phonetic english. Cognates are a major puncture to your idea, dear. I suppose that is why they are now irrelevant (although you brought them up).

You are so flimsy brother, just have the good grace to go away and THINK! eh?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> no response to this post exposing you as the sort of lazy twt who won't even re-word his wiki-wisdom?
> 
> You must think us all fucking idiots.



Still avoiding the question I see - I happen to agree with the wiki definition and I can guarantee that you have no problem with it either - you are just trying to avoid it.

Wiki has problems but if it has a definition that I agree with I will use it.

Feel free to state precisely which part of that definition you think is wrong - I'm sure you won't


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

nobody is buying your bullshit spelling reforms, still less your dishonest style, Noye. *oh no he called me noye mummy*.

now cry abuse and play martyr. 

As anyone can see you are a tawdry wiki-genius. Well bully for you, Gmart. You and THINK! can carry on with your fools crusade while the rest of us carry on as normal. Just remember to re word the wiki links you follow, that way you might not look such a laughable twat


----------



## Cid (Aug 15, 2009)

You ever composed an essay or similar? Quote your sources, explain why you used them, at the very least hide your use of them, to simply pass someone else's work off as your own is just low. Anyway, I'm quite drunk now, discussion will continue tomorrow.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> (although you brought them up).



No I didn't, if you think that the idea that spelling 'magic' as 'majic' will not help those learning to spell and cease the need to learn the multitude of ridiculous rules which keep English from being more fonetic then feel free to tell me - using cognates if you feel it will help.

Anyone who engages in debate rather than abuse is welcome here AFAIAC, and I will thank anyone who adds to my knowledge and provides an angle on this issue which is new. Sadly this is not happening here atm.

The facts are still the same now as it was hundreds of pages ago - if your priority is to keep the etymology of a word the same as it was during the Victorian times, even in the face of the probable benefits of making spellings even more fonetic than they are now - then we disagree - if your priority is the other way round and you feel that the benefits would probably help and that etymology can be a continual science rather than one set in the past only - then you are with me.

It is a sad reflection on those here that this point is not pretty obvious.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

Cid said:


> You ever composed an essay or similar? Quote your sources, explain why you used them, at the very least hide your use of them, to simply pass someone else's work off as your own is just low. Anyway, I'm quite drunk now, discussion will continue tomorrow.



This is not an essay - if the definition is accurate I will use it. If the only way to argue with me is to ridicule this then that just shows how unable you are to answer the questions I have been setting.

I never noticed that the form part of etymology was frozen in time at approximately the end of the Victorian age - this is interesting in itself - and is justification enough to carry on the discussion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No I didn't,





> Gmarthews
> Registered User
> 
> Join Date: Aug 2005
> ...




have the courtesy to read the shit you quote dude. Else we might get the impression you are pulling stuff from google without bothering to read it


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> No I didn't, if you think that the idea that spelling 'magic' as 'majic' will not help those learning to spell and cease the need to learn the multitude of ridiculous rules which keep English from being more fonetic then feel free to tell me - using cognates if you feel it will help.
> 
> Anyone who engages in debate rather than abuse is welcome here AFAIAC, and I will thank anyone who adds to my knowledge and provides an angle on this issue which is new. Sadly this is not happening here atm.
> 
> ...


U ar torking bollox and no-1 givs a fuck about yr bonkurs spellings.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Which in my mind includes Korean, or have I missed something? Why is the Korean script not an alphabet, and more importantly - why is it important that it be one?



Maybe you should expand your reference materials past Dictionary dot fucking com. If you'd managed to even get as far as wiki you would have found this:

"An alphabet is a standardized set of letters — basic written symbols or graphemes  — each of which roughly represents a phoneme in a spoken language, either as it exists now or as it was in the past. There are other systems, such as logographies, in which each character represents a word, morpheme, or semantic unit, and syllabaries, in which each character represents a syllable."

It's important because the systems work with the brain differently. With syllable sized chunks the brain doesn't face as many problems  constructing the letters into units of sound that dyslexics get. The Korean system _is_ actually pretty special because the letters are within the characters, that is any possible Korean syllable can be constructed from a limited set of components meaning that it has some characteristics of an alphabet in terms of ability to represent new sounds, however the eye sees the characters as syllables. Unfortunately, English syllable structure is far too complex to make this a feasible system for us (I can prove this if you want but I'd rather not waste time on someone who hasn't even bothered with basic research into his argument). The point being that dyslexia rates in Korea are in no way comparable with dyslexia rates in countries where alphabets are used.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And why would linguistic skill be a factor in recognizing that a more phonetic system helps? I went to Italy and saw the same thing there and my Italian is atrocious - but I was able to talk to the Italians and ask them questions in English in the same way as I did with many teachers of English in Korea.



Because you don't have the tools to analyse the situation. Go and talk to a Chinese person now and they will happily spend half an hour telling you exactly why spending half your primary education memorising 5,000 distinct logograms is the best reading system in the world. But unless you actually understand how it works (and quite frankly I was shocked that you don't even know what _type_ of writing system the Koreans use seeing as you wouldn't shut up about it for the first half of the thread) you aren't going to be in a position to make any sort of judgement at all.

You fucking hopeless imbecile.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 15, 2009)

maomao said:


> Because you don't have the tools to analyse the situation. Go and talk to a Chinese person now and they will happily spend half an hour telling you exactly why spending half your primary education memorising 5,000 distinct logograms is the best reading system in the world. But unless you actually understand how it works (and quite frankly I was shocked that you don't even know what _type_ of writing system the Koreans use seeing as you wouldn't shut up about it for the first half of the thread) you aren't going to be in a position to make any sort of judgement at all.
> 
> You fucking hopeless imbecile.



I pointed that out to him on a different thread before, too. He simply doesn't take in what anyone else says - it all gets filtered by his maginificent shield of righteousness, so that all he reads is 'I don't like change, I love etymology, and I want to keep the poor people down - it makes a change from kicking puppies.' 

Linguistics debates are fun, but talking to Think and Gmarthews isn't debating, it's shouting into the void.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Linguistics debates are fun, but talking to Think and Gmarthews isn't debating, it's shouting into the void.



Scrambled eggs, coffee and a little holler into the void is a perfect start to the day.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 15, 2009)

*Knob*



Corax said:


> I wish I'd left you on ignore.  I'm clearly a masochist.
> 
> Answer me one question.  Do you realise that the vast majority of Urban (I assume, based on this thread) thinks you're a total *nob*?
> 
> Just out of interest like.  I'm curious as to why you're continuing to embarass yourself like this.



"*Nob*" is spelt, "*knob*", by the way. _"*Oh , the etymology*. *OH*, you can't deduce the meaning from the spelling, all that *history* is lost. And in what *accent* would it be pronounced it? Is it prononuced "nobe", noob, nub"?*"*_


----------



## THINK! (Aug 15, 2009)

*Pluralization*

*Plurals*: The plural of "*cat*" is "*cats*", "*dog*" is *dogs*", "*bird*" is "*birds*" etc. Words like "*countries*" "*counties*" should follow the same pattern. just add an "s" it would make life so much simpler. So countries would become "*countrys*", not diificult.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 15, 2009)

*Spelling lojic:*
Here ar four words: if you put two of them together, with some adjustments, they make another word. WHICH TWO?

*COUNT         TRY
CUNT TREE​*
Take the word, "count" then add, "y", you hav "county", take the word, "count" and add
(t)ry and you get "country", but the "count" part in both words ar pronounced differently.

_Waits for hilarious puns about "cunt" and "tree"._


----------



## THINK! (Aug 15, 2009)

editor said:


> I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.



Yet DOTCOM did.


----------



## tendril (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I currently live in South Korea where their language is completely phonetic, ie their spelling is exactly how their words sound.
> 
> It struck me that this could be done in English. At the moment each child is expected to remember by memory how to spell thousands of words, and the dyslexics have a greater difficulty with this than others.
> 
> ...



To be honest, we only need to remember a few 'exceptions to the rule' with spelling. We use a written language that uses a small fixed number of letters to represent our words and it is the combination of letters that make up those words. Some combinations are more difficult to remember, but in the main they are easy.

In China, written words are represented by a single figure, with a different figure being required for each word, making it necessary to remember thousands of different characters.

If the Chinese can remember all these different written symbols then surely it must be easier for us to remember a few 'exceptions to the rule' with our spelling.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

Maomao

Your posts make interesting reading, but you seem reluctant to deal with the specifics that I am dealing with. As I suspected you wanted to talk about Korean because you know about it, and not because it is relevant for this debate (I hope your ego enjoyed its little wank above). Your posts at no point give a reason why we shouldn't change the spelling of 'magic' to 'majic'. And so, tho interesting, your posts are just an example of your refusal to address the issue at hand.

So yet again I need to point out to you that I was using Korean as an example of a language where their spelling system is more directly in relation to how they say their words. Ours is too!!! All these words that you are reading are also generally spelt as the are said - but they are NOT as close as the other languages I have mentioned such as Italian, Spanish, Finnish, Russian etc.

Furthermore the position many here have taken is that the form part of etymology (as opposed to the meaning) is still evolving naturally and 'organically' - and if that were the case then there would be no need for spelling reform because it would happen naturally.

Sadly it seems that the spelling of words was frozen, probably around about the invention of the dictionary, or at least the Victorian age, and so seeing as no one here has been able to give any examples of spelling change in recent times I must declare this point well made - which begs the question whether this freeze on spelling changes is constructive.

I agree tho that it is difficult to compare dyslexia rates for different countries with different languages because it is usually impossible to separate the many factors involved. So for example I could have pointed out that the world education tables are dominated by languages which are more phonetic than ours - but I haven't because I recognize that it would be fallacious to jump to conclusions like that.

Still it would be interesting to compare the dyslexic rates within Europe, and to compare notes.

You feel that when comparing two language systems, both people need to be fluent in both languages to come to any valid conclusions. I beg to differ - when I lived in Korea I was involved in many conversation with many other people, both English speaking and Hangul speaking. By your rationale all those conversations were null and void. Whatever you say, I saw with my own eyes the advantages for teaching reading and writing which occurred with a more phonetic spelling system, and tho you are correct to state that we couldn't change to Korean, that is a far cry from stating that we shouldn't improve the consistency of our current spelling system - and this discussion has also thrown up the point that our spelling system is currently atrophied as well -which is also a problem in my view.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

tendril said:


> To be honest, we only need to remember a few 'exceptions to the rule' with spelling. We use a written language that uses a small fixed number of letters to represent our words and it is the combination of letters that make up those words. Some combinations are more difficult to remember, but in the main they are easy.



I would say that they are not 'only a few exceptions', because if they were then this thread wouldn't be so long and detailed. The examples given here have been many and varied, and I dare say that those arguing against such reform would have given up ages ago if it were just a matter of a 'few exceptions' to iron out.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2009)

> So yet again I need to point out to you that I was using Korean as an example of a language where their spelling system is more directly in relation to how they say their words. Ours is too!!!



What incoherence. Many more examples can be found. In all honesty, someone with your problems with English should not be offering advice on this issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I would say that they are not 'only a few exceptions', because if they were then this thread wouldn't be so long and detailed. The examples given here have been many and varied, and I dare say that those arguing against such reform would have given up ages ago if it were just a matter of a 'few exceptions' to iron out.



Yet again, without even realising it, you undermine your own argument, this time by highlighting just how extensive your proposed reforms would have to be.


----------



## tendril (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I would say that they are not 'only a few exceptions', because if they were then this thread wouldn't be so long and detailed. The examples given here have been many and varied, and I dare say that those arguing against such reform would have given up ages ago if it were just a matter of a 'few exceptions' to iron out.



1. there are 800,000 English words and I stand by what I said... a few 'exceptions to the rule'

2. This is Urban75 and folk will argue the toss over anything for ever and a day. Lots of egos jostling for position innit.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 15, 2009)

tendril said:


> To be honest, we only need to remember *a few *'exceptions to the rule' with spelling. We use a written language that uses a small fixed number of letters to represent our words and it is the combination of letters that make up those words. Some combinations are more difficult to remember, but in the main they are easy.
> 
> In China, written words are represented by a single figure, with a different figure being required for each word, making it necessary to remember thousands of different characters.
> 
> If the Chinese can remember all these different written symbols then surely it must be easier for us to remember a few 'exceptions to the rule' with our spelling.



I would hav sed, "if the Chinese can remember thousands ov different caracters, the Britsh can remember an extra 18 letters". The Japanese hav three different alfabets and they manage to remember them all. "Exceptions to the Rule " ar not the way forward. and i would say there ar mor than a "*a few*" ov them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2009)

Cid said:


> This thread has given me loads of amusement over the past few days, so I'm gonna wade on in...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that make them different from the Germans? They still use it...


I think he mis-read my comments about how the _rechtscreibreform_ that Germany, Austria and Switzerland signed up to in 1996 pretty much didn't work out as planned, because written Austrian German often still elides umlauts, and the Swiss still go their own way with regard to using their colloquial spellings.


> The IQ test is actually pretty interesting; was developed by Alfred Binet (one of the pioneers of developmental psychology) as a system to find children who might be in need of further help. The original intention was certainly not to give someone's intelligence a defined value.
> 
> 
> 
> By testing the children he was able to identify where they might have problems, he could then help them develop that area. The idea is the total antithesis of the fixed 'I have an IQ of' thing that we get today.


I agree that the history of it is fascinating.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> From dictionary.com:
> 
> 
> 
> Which in my mind includes Korean, or have I missed something? Why is the Korean script not an alphabet, and more importantly - why is it important that it be one?


He's talking about the difference between letter-characters and pictographic characters, as I'm sure you know.
By the way, why not check the etymology of the word "alphabet" to get a *really* good grasp of what he means?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*Nob*" is spelt, "*knob*", by the way. "*Oh , the etymology*. *OH*, you can't deduce the meaning from the spelling, all that *history* is lost. And in what *accent* would it be pronounced it? Is it prononuced "nobe", noob, nub"?*"*



Depends what you mean by the word. If you're calling someone a penis or bell-end, then "knob" is appropriate. If you're calling them a snob, a posho, a demon-infiltrated rat-bastard or a splendidly-dressed fop, then "nob" is perfectly apposite.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> By the way, why not check the etymology of the word "alphabet" to get a *really* good grasp of what he means?



One of the interesting things about this 'debate' is that I have found out about etymology, and this is after two very successful years as an English teacher in Korea and Italy - You don't really use it much if you aren't teaching university students I think.

What did you think was interesting about 'alphabet'? - it comes from the Greek words 'alpha' and 'beta' as you no doubt know - but it seems to be just a necessary invented word to describe the list of letters of a language. All words are just made up in the beginning I suppose, but why specifically this one?

Oh and I am aware of that basic difference between Korean and English - both have writing systems - an attempt to put speech into written form - that's what writing is - the method can be very different, but ALL writing systems are this same attempt at communication thru writing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> One of the interesting things about this 'debate' is that I have found out about etymology, and this is after two very successful years as an English teacher in Korea and Italy - You don't really use it much if you aren't teaching university students I think.


Are you teaching "natives" to speak English as a second language, or teaching  English-speakers in foreign locations?
I ask because the former doesn't require (for a beginner/intermediate student) for etymology to be an issue, whereas the latter...


> What did you think was interesting about 'alphabet'? - it comes from the Greek words 'alpha' and 'beta' as you no doubt know - but it seems to be just a necessary invented word to describe the list of letters of a language. All words are just made up in the beginning I suppose, but why specifically this one?


I'll wait until THINK! either answers or doesn't, before answering you, thanks all the same. 


> Oh and I am aware of that basic difference between Korean and English - both have writing systems - an attempt to put speech into written form - that's what writing is - the method can be very different, but ALL writing systems are this same attempt at communication thru writing.


They do, however, realise their goals in different ways.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you teaching "natives" to speak English as a second language, or teaching English-speakers in foreign locations?
> I ask because the former doesn't require (for a beginner/intermediate student) for etymology to be an issue, whereas the latter...



The former only.


----------



## maomao (Aug 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Your posts at no point give a reason why we shouldn't change the spelling of 'magic' to 'majic'.



Well it hardly seems worth the bother to change just one word but here's another reason: the internet. If I want to search for something I don't want to search for all different possible spellings of a word, I want a fucking answer now. Having a standard spelling is a must for the modern world quite frankly and unless you're suggesting a completely new spelling system which I think no-one has the heart for it would be more confusing to go changing a few individual words. You can start your marvelous new 'majic' website if you want but don't expect many hits from all the magicians out there who can spell.

And I didn't enjoy my ego wank nearly as much as I enjoyed the real _cock in hand and spunk all over my belly_ wank I had at the thought of a large kitchen knife plunging in and out of your imbecile arse.


----------



## maomao (Aug 16, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Spelling lojic:*
> Here ar four words: if you put two of them together, with some adjustments, they make another word. WHICH TWO?
> 
> *COUNT         TRY
> ...



Well the 't' in country isn't geminate (which it would be in cunt tree) for a start. It's not a very good example.


----------



## lontok2005 (Aug 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Sadly it seems that the spelling of words was frozen, probably around about the invention of the dictionary, or at least the Victorian age.



Actually, no. It was the invention of the printing press by Caxton in the 15th century that was most responsible for 'freezing' the spellings of English words. However, the spelling then reflected more accurately than today the pronunciation of the various dialects of the books he was commissioned to print (and probably the dialect of London, where he was based), and this ironically occurred at a time when the language was just about to undergo some major phonoligical changes (known as the Great Vowel Shift, which always put a puerile smile on my face when I had to write about it at uni - a loooong time ago now). Of course, there have been changes since and the publication in the 18th century of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language helped standardise things even more, as did the publication of the St. James Bible before that etc., as well as the spread of education provision. By the way, dictionaries had been around for centuries before that, and Johnson's was not even the most extensive, although it was a huge project that took several years and loads of scholars and was therefore accepted at the time as the most authoritative. Bilingual dictionaries have been around for millennia (some dating back hundreds of years BC). Interestingly, although the language continues to develop phonoligically, the fact that English is now a written language and that we have one spelling system used the world over for all the many different dialects that are spoken tends to rein in that development.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

some mor words to ad to the "*or*" list:

*sporn* (spawn)
*frort* (fraught) 
*morn* (mourn)
*dorb* (dawb)
*brorl* (brawl)


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> some mor words to ad to the "*or*" list:
> 
> *sporn* (spawn)
> *frort* (fraught)
> ...



Again, no, because some of them have 'r's in them and some of them don't. Or do you want to confuse all the little dyslexic children in Scotland, the west country, America etc etc etc.?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*100 Words List:*

You (plural) claim that dictionaries ar back-dated rather than freeze words in an frozen, unchanged, unchange-able form and that spellings ar evolving all the time. Both Gmathews and I ask'd for examples of words that hav changed their spelling in recent years. say the last one hundred yeras for example, you havn't given us one. Please could you giv us some. I'll giv you the first one and you won't hav any diifculty in filling in the other 99:


1.*fantasy* (phantasy)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
52.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
80.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*Gramatical Reform*

*Suffixes:*

*suffix*: words that end in -*ment*.

you hav:
*manage* add *ment* and you hav "*management*".
*announce* add *ment* and you hav *"announcement"*.

but then you hav

*judge* + *ment* = judgment why not, *judgement*
*argue* + *ment* = argument. *arguement*


Yor system is inconsistent and the "full-word" example would be easier to learn and easier to remember.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

The correct spelling in British English _is_ judg*e*ment. The extra e was confusingly dropped on the other side of the atlantic during one of those annoying American attempts at spelling reform.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*suffixes*: 

you hav:

*sly*, *slyly*. *shy, shyly* carry on the system and you should hav: *merry, merryly* (_not merrily_), also works with other suffixes: *dizzy dizzyness*. This would be consistent and easier to learn.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *suffixes*:
> 
> you hav:
> 
> *sly*, *slyly*. *shy, shyly* carry on the system and you should hav: *merry, merryly* (_not merrily_), also works with other suffixes: *dizzy dizzyness*, This would be consistent and easier to learn.



It is consistent, y changes to an 'i' when a suffix is added unless the y is stressed. Always.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*suffixes*: 

-*able*
-*ible*. In well over 90% of cases these two suffixes ar pronounced exactly the same (maomao wil confirm). I'v only come across two examples where the "*i*" is pronounced.

hard "A"schwa * a' b'l*​
Not only hav you invented two suffixes for the same purpose and sound , you hav also manage to spell them wrong: "*abel*" would hav been better effort.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> The correct spelling in British English _is_ judg*e*ment. The extra e was confusingly dropped on the other side of the atlantic during one of those annoying American attempts at spelling reform.



Though to be fair, our legal system uses 'judgment'.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> The correct spelling in British English _is_ judg*e*ment. The extra e was confusingly dropped on the other side of the atlantic during one of those annoying American attempts at spelling reform.



and "*arguement*"? Glad to see you ar still logging in.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*suffixes*: 

An example of where *suffixes* go wrong:

"*salable*". When I first saw this word I didn't hav a clue how to pronounce it. It look a bit like "salad" so i try'd to prononce the first bit like that. But no, not a fucking clue. As to its meaning even less of a clue. If it had been spelt, "*saleable*", I would hav been both known how to pronounce it and its meaning, *sale>saleable*.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> and "*arguement*"? Glad to see you ar still logging on.




Just one of those things.

Research suggests that dyslexics who grow up with 'deep spelling' systems (those that fossilise etymology) take longer to learn to read but have better meaning recognition of words compared to those who learn 'shallow' systems (more phonemically accurate) who can learn more quickly to read the sounds out but don't do as well on comprehension tests. 

I'm not going to link my source for that because there are two sentences in it that Gmarthews, the cocksucking toad, will immediately cherry pick. What I'd like to know is how you feel about that. Does a written language exist merely to reproduce the sounds we make when we speak or is it actually a different form of communication?


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *suffixes*:
> 
> An example of where *suffixes* go wrong:
> 
> "*salable*". When I first saw this word I didn't hav a clue how to pronounce it. It look a bit like "salad" so i try'd to prononce the first bit like that. But no, not a fucking clue. As to its meaning even less of a clue. If it had been spelt, "*saleable*", I would hav been both known how to pronounce it and its meaning, sale>saleable.



Saleable is a correct spelling and is used 4 times more often (figure obtained by comparing google results).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*suffixes*: 

*suffix:* 

-"*or*"
-"*er*" 

Both of these suffixes ar pronounced the same, (as maomao wil confirm). Why hav two? For years, i thort "actor" was pronounced "act -tor", and "visitor" "visit-tor", becoz of the inaccurate spellings, but they both should be pronounced with a schwa.

Actually, we hav, "*adviser*" and "*Advisor*", exactly the same word, pronounced exactly the same.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Saleable is a correct spelling and is used 4 times more often (figure obtained by comparing google results).



Which one would you go with, and why?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Just one of those things.
> 
> Research suggests that dyslexics who grow up with 'deep spelling' systems (those that fossilise etymology) take longer to learn to read but have better meaning recognition of words compared to those who learn 'shallow' systems (more phonemically accurate) who can learn more quickly to read the sounds out but don't do as well on comprehension tests.
> 
> I'm not going to link my source for that because there are two sentences in it that Gmarthews, the cocksucking toad, will immediately cherry pick. What I'd like to know is how you feel about that. Does a written language exist merely to reproduce the sounds we make when we speak or is it actually a different form of communication?



You can PM it and I could hav a look.?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*suffixes*: 

suffixes:

*-ism*

You already know what i think about this one/these ones, but any way:
It would be easier to read them if they had been spelt: *-isem*


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *suffixes*:
> 
> suffixes:
> *-ism
> ...



Phonetically speaking the schwa is optional. English (at the level of mental representation) has a null vowel which allows us to run two consonants together. I certainly don't produce a vowel sound between after the s, I go straight to the 'm'.

I've never seen the suffix 'izm'. I think you're confused again.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Again, no, because some of them have 'r's in them and some of them don't. Or do you want to confuse all the little dyslexic children in Scotland, the west country, America etc etc etc.?



maomao, it would be interesting if you put up how you think these words should be written. I am actually starting at the other end to you, I look at written word first. I'm not interested in acsents, I look at the spelt word first, I see words that ar spelt, "wrong", and  that make no-sense to me, then try to correct them, _use.ing_, as i say the alfabetical rules that i was "tort" as a kid.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Phonetically speaking the schwa is optional. English (at the level of mental representation) has a null vowel which allows us to run two consonants together. I certainly don't produce a vowel sound between after the s, I go straight to the 'm'.
> 
> I've never seen the suffix 'izm'. I think you're confused again.



You might be right, probably confuse-ing them with "*ise*", and "*ize*" and just assumed there wer two as well. Logic.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> well yes, I remember watching a prog that talked about the problems with the cultural specificity of IQ. It was an australian thing and they showed that while the aboriginal group scored less on the IQ scale to there settler counterparts, they were in fact able to map and assign values to areas of the map almost unconsciously. Different problems require different modes of problem solving. IQ measurement can be flattering, but it's nowt to crow about eh.



I'm sure IQ is a better indicator of intelligence than being able to spell. I used my IQ to show, that I'm not, "thick" (as I'v been so charmingly call'd), I'm dyslexic.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> It is consistent, y changes to an 'i' when a suffix is added unless the y is stressed. Always.



And that's obvious? Why not hav one simple rule for all situations?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm sure IQ is a better indicator of intelligence than being able to spell. I used my IQ to show, that I'm not, "thick" (as I'v been so charmingly call'd), I'm dyslexic.



You provide clear proof that IQ isn't a good indicator of intelligence. Nor empathy, ability to understand an argument or reason persuasively.

In fact, I don't care what your IQ is. You're a numpty unable to hold any form of logical argument together - this thread's becoming a procession of daft, thought-untroubled posts from you, failing to understand anyone else.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You might be right, probably confuse-ing them with "*ise*", and "*ize*" and just assumed there wer two as well. Logic.



sporn (spawn)
frort (fraught)
morn (mourn)
dorb (dawb)
brorl (brawl)

Of those words only 'mourn' has an 'r' that is pronounced fully in most dialects of English. In fact, in the RP of 30 years ago it would have been a diphthong short 'u' to schwa but speakers of Estuary English take 3 sounds:

long 'o:' as in 'taught'
'o:' followed by 'r' as in 'or'
And short 'u' to schwa (diphthong) as in 'door' and 'poor'

And reduced them all to 'o:'. The majority of English speakers distinguish at least 2 of these and some distinguish all 3. The 'r' in door and poor will be pronounced by many speakers though they may not distinguish the vowel from the vowel in 'porn' and 'torn'.

No English speakers, as far as I know, pronounce an 'r' in spawn, fraught, dawb or brawl.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm sure IQ is a better indicator of intelligence than being able to spell. I used my IQ to show, that I'm not, "thick" (as I'v been so charmingly call'd), I'm dyslexic.



What IQ test did you take? Surely your dyslexia would prevent you from taking a normal IQ test in the same time as a non-dyslexic person? Was it a standard test? Did you have extra time? Was it one test or several?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

*"nob"!*



Corax said:


> I wish I'd left you on ignore.  I'm clearly a masochist.
> 
> Answer me one question.  Do you realise that the vast majority of Urban (I assume, based on this thread) thinks you're a total *nob*?
> 
> Just out of interest like.  I'm curious as to why you're continuing to embarass yourself like this.



*"nob", **Core-axe*, with that one word you undermine all of *your* _(*plural*_) arguements. Yor new spelling was understood by everyone, in fact no-one notis'd you had spelt it wrong, the spelling wasn't affected by accent, it didn't lose its meaning, you didn't need etymology to deduce its meaning.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> in fact no-one noticed you had spelled it wrong



Yes they did and it's been commented on by two people now.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

This thread is a good example of how people think that people they agree with are sane and people they don't agree with are not.

All the insults here are in one direction only - and they are attacking the man because they can't deal with attacking his ideas logically.

That's because it is OK to have a different point of view, but only one side here recognizes that.

Maomao made a good point earlier that search engines would need to recognise that there are more than one spelling, much as they do now. Wouldn't be difficult. Can't remember why this was a point against - it was more an example of how the world would need to change.

And 'spawn' has the same phonetic pronunciation as thought, ie an /ɔ/ sound in it - the 'r' is not there at all, it is a vowel sound

and so spawn is /spɔn/
and thought is /θɔt/

it is the same sound and should be spelt the same to reflect this.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> What IQ test did you take? Surely your dyslexia would prevent you from taking a normal IQ test in the same time as a non-dyslexic person? Was it a standard test? Did you have extra time? Was it one test or several?



University. No extra time, no special treatment. it was being used to discover wether I was dyslexic or not. Sent there by my tutors, test paid for by some grant-thingy, I didn' think I was dyslexic and told them so. Test was done by some professor and expert in the subject, certificate at home. And you ? 

I spend a lot of time given out semi-personal information, I wanted to find out why we see the same subject so differently, but you havn't reply'd in kind or reveal'd anything about why you hav cetain opinions about spelling. ?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Yes they did and it's been commented on by two people now.



Me and me.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This thread is a good example of how people think that people they agree with are sane and people they don't agree with are not.
> 
> All the insults here are in one direction only - and they are attacking the man because they can't deal with attacking his ideas logically.
> 
> ...



Thank you. I can only use the alfabet I was given.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> and so spawn is /spɔn/
> and thought is /θɔt/
> 
> it is the same sound and should be spelt the same to reflect this.



Should be  /spɔ:n/ and /θɔ:t/


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

_*Spelling lojic:*
Here ar four words: if you put two of them together, *with some adjustments*, they make another word. WHICH TWO?

*COUNT         TRY
CUNT TREE​*
Take the word, "count" then add, "y", you hav "county", take the word, "count" and add
(t)ry and you get "country", but the "count" part in both words ar pronounced differently.

Waits for hilarious puns about "cunt" and "tree"._


maomao said:


> Well the 't' in country isn't geminate (which it would be in cunt tree) for a start. It's not a very good example.



If you look, i did write, "*with some adjustments*".


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Should be  /spɔ:n/ and /θɔ:t/



British or American system, the point remains and you are avoiding it with this post


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Maomao made a good point earlier that search engines would need to recognise that there are more than one spelling, much as they do now. Wouldn't be difficult. Can't remember why this was a point against - it was more an example of how the world would need to change.



What do you mean much as they do now? I was able to compare usage of 'salable' and 'saleable'. Are you suggesting that Google change their system so that when you search for 'majik' (which no-one would be using anyway) you get 'magic' as well? What if I wanted to find out how the spelling reforms were doing and how many people were using them? How would I be able to compare results for different spellings? The truth is we'd either have to spend billions changing everything that's already on the web or search for anything that's been changed twice.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> British or American system, the point remains and you are avoiding it with this post



No. It's got absolutely nothing to do with British or American systems at all. The ':' indicates a long vowel you fucking imbecile.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> No. It's got absolutely nothing to do with British or American systems at all. The ':' indicates a long vowel you fucking imbecile.



Whatever, it is still the same sound and you are avoiding comment - and again reducing yourself to insult coz you can't


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Whatever, it is still the same sound and you are avoiding comment - and again reducing yourself to insult coz you can't



Where did I claim it was a different sound? They _are_ spelled differently, and unless the whole English speaking world loses its mind they will continue to be spelled differently.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Just one of those things.
> 
> Research suggests that dyslexics who grow up with 'deep spelling' systems (those that fossilise etymology) take longer to learn to read but have better meaning recognition of words compared to those who learn 'shallow' systems (more phonemically accurate) who can learn more quickly to read the sounds out but don't do as well on comprehension tests.
> 
> I'm not going to link my source for that because there are two sentences in it that Gmarthews, the cocksucking toad, will immediately cherry pick. What I'd like to know is how you feel about that. Does a written language exist merely to reproduce the sounds we make when we speak or is it actually a different form of communication?



Still thinking about this, maomao.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

I think i miss'd out, "*bord*" (board)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This thread is a good example of how people think that people they agree with are sane and people they don't agree with are not.
> 
> *All the insults here are in one direction only - and they are attacking the man because they can't deal with attacking his ideas logically.
> *
> ...



tiresome lies. THINK! hasn't hesitated to insult me when he is irritated.

I just don't cry about it, or use it to claim some spurious high ground. Unlike some, eh G?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> tiresome lies. THINK! hasn't hesitated to insult me when he is irritated.
> 
> I just don't cry about it, or use it to claim some spurious high ground. Unlike some, eh G?



There is a simple rule with me, "if you don't insult me, *i don't insult you*". You hav done nothing else,  but insult me since we first "encounter'd" each other. *Back to you.*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> There is a simple rule with me, "if you don't insult me, *i don't insult you*". You hav done nothing else,  but insult me since we first "encounter'd" each other. *Back to you.*



i don't give a flying fuck THINK!

It's the internet. Insult away. I am not in the slightest bit bothered.

Just pointing out Gmarthews playing fast and loose with the truth. Again.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Just pointing out Gmarthews playing fast and loose with the truth. Again.



'Cause he's a lying cocksucking toad.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Whatever, it is still the same sound and you are avoiding comment - and again reducing yourself to insult coz you can't



When someone uses 'whatever' to cover up the fact they've been found out bullshitting again it does tend to suggest they're a wind-filled tosspot with nothing constructive to say. 

You have a cracking lack of knowledge and a wonderful record of being innaccurate and downright wrong gmarthews. Differences of opinion aside, you're an unashamed liar.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> No. It's got absolutely nothing to do with British or American systems at all. The ':' indicates a long vowel you fucking imbecile.



This is classic comment for here - it is obvious that the point is that the two sounds are the same, but this is not what Maomao wants to talk about - he wants to point out that I was using a different pronunciation system to the one he would prefer.

The whole point of this thread is that we are suggesting that spelling should start to evolve again after having been frozen a couple of hundred years ago by the invent of the printing press and dictionaries.



> Of those words only 'mourn' has an 'r' that is pronounced fully in most dialects of English. [...] No English speakers, as far as I know, pronounce an 'r' in spawn, fraught, dawb or brawl.



But there is no 'r' in the pronunciation of these words (I struggle to hear the one even in 'mourn' tho the pronunciation key insists there is one with two versions: /mɔrn, moʊrn/ both with an 'r').

BTW I'd like to congratulate everyone here for the effort they've put in to get this thread to 1000 pots - an epic achievement esp on a topic which has so little chance of being changed in the immediate future.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This is classic comment for here - it is obvious that the point is that the two sounds are the same, but this is not what Maomao wants to talk about - he wants to point out that I was using a different pronunciation system to the one he would prefer.



No you weren't. The US pronunciation of spawn is the same as British and a long vowel should be shown. I don't know any system of phonetic representation that doesn't differentiate long and short vowels. And the US pronunciation is /θɑt/. The alphabet I'm using to write that is known as the _I_PA. Do you know what the fucking I stands for? Your not just wrong, you're a liar.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> When someone uses 'whatever' to cover up the fact they've been found out bullshitting again it does tend to suggest they're a wind-filled tosspot with nothing constructive to say.
> 
> You have a cracking lack of knowledge and a wonderful record of being innaccurate and downright wrong gmarthews. Differences of opinion aside, you're an unashamed liar.



Life is just simple for you - I said 'whatever' because his comment was neither here nor there in comparison to the point he was (and still is) avoiding. If that is the dubious story you feel justifies your inability to converse than feel free to use it, but it fools no one.

The fact is that these two words have the same phoneme and so should be spelt the same. _Any _word is spelt vaguely phonetically or else it would be unrecognisable so we are just arguing for a _more _consistently spelling system.

The question, as always, is why should spelling be allowed to freeze itself 200+ years ago - if the invention of the printing press/dictionary has caused and inadvertent stop on this, then maybe we should help by introducing spelling reform. Etymological form should be a story in progress as it is with meaning.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

This is something of a mismatch, isn't it? You've got people who know what they're talking about, and others who clearly are bullshitting and obfuscating to cover their pitiful lack of insight and reasoning. Gmarthews' ability to crow from a position of ignorance whilst trying to claim the moral high ground is cracking though.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> No you weren't. The US pronunciation of spawn is the same as British and a long vowel should be shown. I don't know any system of phonetic representation that doesn't differentiate long and short vowels. And the US pronunciation is /θɑt/. The alphabet I'm using to write that is known as the _I_PA. Do you know what the fucking I stands for? Your not just wrong, you're a liar.



I'm not a liar, I just copied it directly from dictionary.com's pronunciation here.

If you click on 'show IPA' then you will see exactly what I pasted itn.

I doubt you'll have the good manners to apologize, but at least answer the question you are avoiding eh?


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I'm not a liar, I just copied it directly from dictionary.com's pronunciation here.



Lol, dictionary.com is wrong.  (I'm not joking, it's a shit site). That pronunciation would be 'spon' as in 'spondoolies' and I've never heard anyone say that.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

The point I think you are missing, Gmart, is that the US and the UK pronounce those words differently and, more to the point, inconsistently.  So attempting to have the same spelling for them both would upset someone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, maomao, but I think that is what you are saying?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

This goes to the heart of your lack of knowledge though gmarthews. You keep on paraphrasing/copying wikipedia and dictionary.com almost wholesale and passing it off as your independent thoughts and phrasing. Which means, when questioned, your only defence is to point back to a source that you don't really understand.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> This is something of a mismatch, isn't it? You've got people who know what they're talking about, and others who clearly are bullshitting and obfuscating to cover their pitiful lack of insight and reasoning. Gmarthews' ability to crow from a position of ignorance whilst trying to claim the moral high ground is cracking though.



You can check that link as well, and answer the question too. You and Dotcommunist are that strange breed found here on urban who fail to engage in discussion and just sit around waiting for the movers and shakers of life to do something and then you insult from the sidelines. No one can criticize you becoz you haven't got the guts to actually get involved with the discussion, you just do nothing, insult and complain - you must be great fun at a party.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I doubt you'll have the good manners to apologize, but at least answer the question you are avoiding eh?



I answered the question above. I don't give a fuck that it's spelled differently. There is no advantage in changing them to be the same and there is evidence that shallow (more phonemic) spelling sytems impair reading comprehension in children and dyslexics.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> The point I think you are missing, Gmart, is that the US and the UK pronounce those words differently and, more to the point, inconsistently.  So attempting to have the same spelling for them both would upset someone.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, maomao, but I think that is what you are saying?



No, he's just wrong. He's only checked one site (any decent website that wanted to be used internationally would give US and British pronunciations) and that site is wrong.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

Is that an apology I read gmarthews, or are you busy copying something off apology.com that you'll try and pretend is your own work?

Many folks, myself included, have spent time patiently trying to reason with you, using decent examples and our own thoughts. Unsurpisingly enough, after your flood of bullshit, obfuscation and cheaply copied and misunderstood references, most can't be bothered. It's quicker to cut to the chase and call you an uninformed liar who doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol, dictionary.com is wrong.  (I'm not joking, it's a shit site). That pronunciation would be 'spon' as in 'spondoolies' and I've never heard anyone say that.



Wow! if in doubt stick your fingers in your ears eh? I have seen this pronunciation key form before and tho I agree that the one with the ':' is more usual - I wouldn't say that dictionary.com is 'wrong' it is just using a different system. 

It astonishes that given a choice of accepting that you are mistaken or an established site checked by thousands daily is wrong, that your ego goez for the former - but credit to ya - you're taking self-delusion to another level - while still avoiding the question...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You can check that link as well, and answer the question too. You and Dotcommunist are that strange breed found here on urban who fail to engage in discussion and just sit around waiting for the movers and shakers of life to do something and then you insult from the sidelines. No one can criticize you becoz you haven't got the guts to actually get involved with the discussion, you just do nothing, insult and complain - you must be great fun at a party.



That might work if I hadn't made several points on this thread before losing it with your dishonesty. I'll not debate with a shameless liar. Oh and a plagiarist as well


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

Thing is, Gmart, it looks like you're arguing about vowel sounds again.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Wow! if in doubt stick your fingers in your ears eh? I have seen this pronunciation key form before and tho I agree that the one with the ':' is more usual - I wouldn't say that dictionary.com is 'wrong' it is just using a different system.
> 
> It astonishes that given a choice of accepting that you are mistaken or an established site checked by thousands daily is wrong, that your ego goez for the former - but credit to ya - you're taking self-delusion to another level - while still avoiding the question...



In fact I can tell you that the person who wrote the pronunciation for that site probably came from one of these areas of the US (green and yellow dots) and is reflecting their own accent. I think it's a shit site, I wouldn't use it.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Many folks, myself included, have spent time patiently trying to reason with you, using decent examples and our own thoughts. Unsurpisingly enough, after your flood of bullshit, obfuscation and cheaply copied and misunderstood references, most can't be bothered. It's quicker to cut to the chase and call you an uninformed liar who doesn't know what he's talking about.



I could say the same thing about you - cuts both ways, and yr still avoiding the point made which is that words are made up of phonemes - the spelling needs to relate to some degree to this pronunciation or else it would be impossible to read - I would say that English is 60% odd phonetic already, and we are just arguing that we should consider change - your posiution is to not change and tho you think that you have argued you side 'patiently and with decent examples' I would suggest not.

Heck you don't even acknowledge that your position continues the freeze on spelling change that we are referring to - nor that you are putting the maintainance of this status quo above any of the benefits we have quite reasonably listed.

All you do is insult on the sidelines and refer obliquely to imaginary rational arguments you had in the past. In fact you, along with many here have been avoiding the points continually, and are continuing to do so with this one.

So Maomao - even if dictionary.com is a 'bad' site, which I deny, it is still giving the same answer as every other site you consider to be 'right' - the two words have the same phoneme and so should be spelt the same etc.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 17, 2009)

So that's more unapologetic bullshit and another simplistic attempt to misrepresent the thread then. Worra cock.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So Maomao - even if dictionary.com is a 'bad' site, which I deny, it is still giving the same answer as every other site you consider to be 'right' - the two words have the same phoneme and so should be spelt the same etc.



I'm not convinced that the vowel is the same in US English actually but I'd need to talk to a few native speakers though. I think the standard US pronunciation would have spawn as /spɔ:n/ and thought as /θɑt/. They're caught up in the whole cot/caught thing anyway and pronunciation is likely not evenly distributed. You admitted yourself that vowels were difficult to deal with for reasons like this.

Why should they be spelled the same? Who does that benefit except making learning slightly quicker at a very early stage of reading? In order to make a very small and temporary gain you have:

1. Lost the beauty of an established language.
2. Compromised reading comprehension in poor readers.
3. Incurred great cost.
4. Given that most people don't like being told what to do, ended up with a system that only some people use.
5. Made internet search engines much harder to use.

The cost benefit analysis on this just doesn't work.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> I'm not convinced that the vowel is the same in US English actually but I'd need to talk to a few native speakers though. I think the standard US pronunciation would have spawn as /spɔ:n/ and thought as /θɑt/. They're caught up in the whole cot/caught thing anyway and pronunciation is likely not evenly distributed. You admitted yourself that vowels were difficult to deal with for reasons like this.
> 
> Why should they be spelled the same? Who does that benefit except making learning slightly quicker at a very early stage of reading? In order to make a very small and temporary gain you have:
> 
> ...



I agree that I would prefer to deal with consonant sounds first - but seeing as no one seemed interested in addressing those examples, I thought I would wade in, why not? - the phoneme is the same and so the principle is the same.

1 Loss of beauty - in time the new system would be seen as beautiful - we only think of the existing system as beautiful coz we are used to it like that.
2 Reading comprehension, esp for poor readers would be improved NOT diminished.
3 It would cost 
4 They would have the freedom to use the spelling that exists now instead, so they wouldn't need to rebel.
5 Internet search engines would need to be tweaked, indeed.

I don't think the gain would be as small as you - but that is where we disagree.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

"Tweaked" lol.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 2 Reading comprehension, esp for poor readers would be improved NOT diminished.



The reference for that has a quote on it from a German piece of research that you will post up here instantly as 'proof' of your position. But the fact is research has shown deep spelling systems do take a bit longer to learn than shallow ones but once learned word meaning recognition is much faster, particularly in dyslexics. Similarly, if you mark the stresses, I can read perfect Russian but I've got no idea what 99% of it means.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 4 They would have the freedom to use the spelling that exists now instead, so they wouldn't need to rebel.



Hence the problems for internet searches and in fact any type of reference book. 



> 5 Internet search engines would need to be tweaked, indeed.



Please explain how this would/could be done? Do you have any idea of the programming necessary to do this. And if you're suggesting a free system where people can spell as they want then you're going to end up with people from different places writing things that are not mutually intelligible and eventually fragmenting into distinct new languages. This would be interesting but would destroy English as an international language.

You will continue to claim that accents are not a problem, the fact that you don't seem to recognise is that changes between accents are not evenly distributed. Here is a list of differences between American accent and a British accent that are not predictable by the general vowel changes between accents. You'll notice they're not all vowel changes either. And that's just an incomplete list of differences between 2 dialects of English. There will be a similar amount of inconsistencies between any 2 dialects within the UK as well.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 4 They would have the freedom to use the spelling that exists now instead, so they wouldn't need to rebel.



Can you clear up this point for me? Are you suggesting a completely anarchic system where people are free to spell as they want (result: mutual unintelligibility and fragmentation of an international language) or are you suggesting 2 spelling systems? Are dyslexic children to be educated in both? Or are they to be educated only in the phonemic system? We either end up making things twice as difficult for everyone (especially teh poor dsyelcixs) or do we end up with a limited set of reading material available in this new twisted language? A sort of sub literature for subhumans? Or a guarantee that everything will be published in two versions, in which case people _aren't_ free to spell how they like. Very confusing and I don't think you've thought it through.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> I don't think you've thought it through.


Gosh -- y'think?


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Gosh -- y'think?



Lol, it's a dead day at work.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> And if you're suggesting a free system where people can spell as they want then you're going to end up with people from different places writing things that are not mutually intelligible and eventually fragmenting into distinct new languages. This would be interesting but would destroy English as an international language.



Except I'm not, (strawman eh?), a point I accepted hundreds of pages ago - one wonders why you felt the need to repeat this... I am happy with the idea of a correct spelling system and I think you are too - I am just suggesting that spelling evolution can restart. There is no need to keep it in the Victorian form, in fact I am curious as to why you feel that it should be. The evolution of etymology on the meaning side has continued but the form side has not.

We currently have two spellings for US and UK English and yet the search engines manage somehow. Try putting 'recognise' and recognize' into Google and see how easily it deals with it. In time the new spellings would refer to more and more documents.

BTW I think technology will nake this change more andmore possible over time - I have stated often that I don't think these changes will occur any time soon - but I think that once the dyslexic institutions see it as something which would help - I think they will apply pressure, publishing their own books maybe and lobbying government to allow a more phonetic form in schools.

Certainly you are correct to say that I don't have all the answers. But this thread is to argue that change should be considered - that there are problems associated with the current spelling system which could be helped thru modest reform. That's why I have been concentrating on the more obvious problems rather than vowel ones - such as 'j' instead of 'g' and 'f' instead of 'ph' and 'gh' and 'z' instead of 's' - these are consistent  wherever you go in the English speaking world (which is why you are wasting your time when talking about accents) - there isn't any accent which doesn't put an 'f' sound on the front of 'phone'. Any further changes could be considered later (tho I don't rule them out) once a mechanizm for change has been worked out.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

So why were you arguing the toss about vowel sounds that you don't understand this morning?


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

And that's not what Strawman means. It _was_ a slippery slope argument but definitely not a strawman. Fucking idiot.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> I'm not convinced that the vowel is the same in US English actually but I'd need to talk to a few native speakers though. I think the standard US pronunciation would have spawn as /spɔ:n/ and thought as /θɑt/. They're caught up in the whole cot/caught thing anyway and pronunciation is likely not evenly distributed. You admitted yourself that vowels were difficult to deal with for reasons like this.
> 
> Why should they be spelled the same? Who does that benefit except making learning slightly quicker at a very early stage of reading? In order to make a very small and temporary gain you have:
> 
> ...



I think 'spawn' would probably be 'spɒ:n' in most American dialects. 

It'd certainly be spɔn in a tiny number of US dialects, but not including the mid western accent that's usually used in American dictionaries. It's misleading to use a minority accent as a pronunciation guide. I suspect that missing out the  was just a mistake on dictionary.com's part, though. 

No way is it a different system. They're using IPA - to see the the phonetic transcription you even have to click on a bit that say 'show IPA,' so there's no doubt about what system they're using - but they made a mistake. 

In fact, looking around dictionary.com it seems that they consistently forget to show that the sound is a long vowel rather than a short one. This is really, really bad on their part: they show 'ship' and 'sheep' as being complete homophones, which they're not in any British or American dialect. EFL learners will end up making more mistakes if they expect dictionary.com to get the pronunciation right. 

(Just backing you up ). 


BTW, someone was asking earlier about new spellings that have been accepted into dictionaries. 

Well, the OED has had 'bovver' as a variant spelling of 'bother' for a while now, and the most recent ediction included 'bovvered,' too (with a different meaning to 'bovver').  It also includes luv, alright, cum (as a variant spelling of come rather than as in summa cum lauda), and even luvvlyjubbly, which includes a variant spelling of lovely. There are probably a lot more, but I can't be arsed looking further. 

(Some of these are only in the full OED, not the compact).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The former only.



So unless you're one of the relatively few educators who teach advanced English, you don't actually have to engage with the issue of etymology, then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'm sure IQ is a better indicator of intelligence than being able to spell. I used my IQ to show, that I'm not, "thick" (as I'v been so charmingly call'd), I'm dyslexic.



You're missing the point. IQ testing is a product of a specific culture (i.e. a predominantly white "Anglo-Saxon" culture), which means that people FROM that culture will generally score better than people who are NOT from that culture. The inherent cultural loading allowed a pair of racists Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein) to issue an academic book ("The Bell Curve") in the 1980s which purported to prove that black people were _per se_ less intelligent than whites because they performed worse in IQ tests.
So, outside of a certain set of factors, IQ is a pretty meaningless determinant of intellect. There are too many variables inherent in each individual taking the test to make it anything but a vaguely general indicator of how well an individual is able to process certain tasks.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

QI, on the other hand, is brilliant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> QI, on the other hand, is brilliant.


Indeed. Informative, educating and funny all at the same time.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing the point. IQ testing is a product of a specific culture (i.e. a predominantly white "Anglo-Saxon" culture), which means that people FROM that culture will generally score better than people who are NOT from that culture. The inherent cultural loading allowed a pair of racists Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein) to issue an academic book ("The Bell Curve") in the 1980s which purported to prove that black people were _per se_ less intelligent than whites because they performed worse in IQ tests.
> So, outside of a certain set of factors, IQ is a pretty meaningless determinant of intellect. There are too many variables inherent in each individual taking the test to make it anything but a vaguely general indicator of how well an individual is able to process certain tasks.



They are pretty useful as part of testing people for dyslexia, though, like Think's test. That's very much in line with how the tests were originally intended to be used. 

QI is fun, but it annoys me just how often they repeat urban legends as 'facts.'


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2009)

I thought QI did the opposite of repeating urban legends as facts.  ISTM that they are all about exploding urban legends as myths.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> And that's not what Strawman means. It _was_ a slippery slope argument but definitely not a strawman. Fucking idiot.



I'd rather be a fucking idiot than have to use fallacies to prove my point. 

Maybe the ':' on the IPA represents a longer sound than without - which would be why they use the regular version only?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I'd rather be a fucking idiot than have to use fallacies to prove my point.



For you, zere is no choice.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I thought QI did the opposite of repeating urban legends as facts.  ISTM that they are all about exploding urban legends as myths.



They try that, but get it wrong sometimes. As usual with this sort of thing, it's hard to remember specific examples. One that I can think of is them saying that Henry the Eighth had an affair with Lord Pembroke - they were talking about Anne Boleyn, who was given the title in her own right before she married Henry. However, she would never have been Lord Pembroke, but Marchioness Pembroke, so the oh-so-clever question was wrong.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I'd rather be a fucking idiot than have to use fallacies to prove my point.



Well at least I'm capable of using a rhetorical device.



> Maybe the ':' on the IPA represents a longer sound than without - which would be why they use the regular version only?



Yes. Dictionary.com doesn't indicate vowel length which is a huge problem in English because the short and long vowels aren't strictly speaking pairs as they are in some other languages (ie. the quality of the vowel is different as well as the length).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2009)

scifisam said:


> They are pretty useful as part of testing people for dyslexia, though, like Think's test. That's very much in line with how the tests were originally intended to be used.


Yep, I agree. They're a handy tool for some purposes.
Beyond that, though, they're not any more useful than the many other "intelligence tests" as effective universal gauges of "intellect".


> QI is fun, but it annoys me just how often they repeat urban legends as 'facts.'


I quite like that. It reinforces my fondness for urban myths.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 18, 2009)

*Internet search:*

When I do an internet search, and I'v spelt the word wrong, it always asks me , "Do you mean..._so and so_?" and has the sites underneath any way. Surely, it would do the same for new spellings? The technology is already there and the problem solv'd.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 18, 2009)

*Inadequate Alfabet*

I hav to point out to peeple my spellings ar *within the limits of our alfabet*. One of the points of this discusion/thread was to point up the limitations and inadquacies of the present alfabet, which has only 26 letters to represent 44 sounds. Kinda proovs my point.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Internet search:*
> 
> When I do an internet search, and I'v spelt the word wrong, it always asks me , "Do you mean..._so and so_?" and has the sites underneath any way. Surely, it would do the same for new spellings? The technology is already there and the problem solv'd.



It's a _little_ more complex than that.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2009)

Not to mention that you have to be able to spell words the proper way in the first place in order to understand what it is asking you if you meant.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 18, 2009)

*Not Quite there Yet.*

*American Spellings:*

The much hated and resisted by the british, spellings:

Altho, I think there ar great successes with some of the American innovations, 
thank God, for "*Program*" instead of "Programme", and "*Catalog*" instead of "Catalogue" and all the other, "*-logue*" words

I don't think they hav gon that far. Take "*color*".

was "colour" and is a slight improovment on that, but really it should be something like "*culler*", "*kuller*" or "*cuhler*", it's the same with with all the "*-or*" improovments. Same with "*Honor*". "*Honor*" is a improovment on "*Honour*" but it still has a "*h*" in front of it.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> It's a _little_ more complex than that.



I v done an internet search *diliberately speelling werds *wrong and it found all of them.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *American Spellings:*
> 
> The much hated and resisted by the british, spellings:
> 
> ...


You can't even decide on the 'correct' new spellings yourself, thus proving at a stroke the sheer idiocy of your daft campaign.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 18, 2009)

editor said:


> You can't even decide on the 'correct' new spellings yourself, thus proving at a stroke the sheer idiocy of your daft campaign.



Oh, Dear, I was pointing out that, "color" wasn't such a great innovation, there wer easily better versions they could hav come up with.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Oh, Dear, I was pointing out that, "color" wasn't such a great innovation, there wer easily better versions they could hav come up with.


Your refusal to post up correct spellings here is just laziness isn't it? It's also a discourtesy to other readers who have to work harder to understand what it is you're blathering on about. 

For example, "wer" (instead of were) is meaningless. It doesn't even follow your own phonetic rules.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

There are two issues here:

1) Whether change to spellings should or could be re-started after hundreds of years of atrophy.

2) The form or vision of the simplified spelling we should be working towards.

I would suggest that we can can restart changing spelling again - but that we should start with the more obvious changes first - such as 'chagrin' which is actually pronounced 'shagrin'.

I think too much of the people here to believe that they truly think that 'chagrin' should remain being spelt like this - which is why I think they are trolling. But it is fair comment to say that I don't have a completely cogent picture of how the future 'should' be - I would prefer to set the parameters up - ie that the OED should issue new spellings every year which represent the words which are the furthest from how they are pronounced. 

A few words every year would not be so difficult - in fact I would suggest that people would be very able to understand these new spellings - look at this thread here - THINK and I (to a lesser degree) have used more phonetic spellings at times and _no one_ has turned around and said that they cannot understand our words, which speaks volumes for our adaptability as a race.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2009)

You still don't seem to understand that the OED follows usage, it doesn't define it.

If you want your new spellings to take effect, I suggest that you use them and hope that others follow suit.  If they gain a widespread enough following then the OED will include them.

I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

Thank fuck I'm too busy at work today for this shit. He pisses off every afternoon after he's been proved a fool and a liar and roundly ridiculed by every poster except one and then turns up the next day and pretends there's still a debate to be had.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You still don't seem to understand that the OED follows usage, it doesn't define it.



You are aware that I am putting forward the idea of change...???

I know what the OED does now - and I am proposing a change.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You are aware that I am putting forward the idea of change...???
> 
> I know what the OED does now - and I am proposing a change.



Well you constantly lie about what you're actually proposing so it's hard to keep up. You are suggesting a system where spelling is effectively dictated by the state then?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> Thank fuck I'm too busy at work today for this shit. He pisses off every afternoon after he's been proved a fool and a liar and roundly ridiculed by every poster except one and then turns up the next day and pretends there's still a debate to be had.



You still haven't quite worked out that people can disagree on the direction they want the world to go.

I bet you pay lip service to tolerance when it comes up too, tho your words on this thread show that you have no interest in it.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well you constantly lie about what you're actually proposing so it's hard to keep up. You are suggesting a system where spelling is effectively dictated by the state then?



I would certainly ensure that the OED is an independent institution of course, with a remit to improve the spelling of UK English over time.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2009)

It gets worse.  Actively setting up an institution to dictate to us how our own language should be used?  Bollocks to that.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2009)

Why don't you trust the people g-man?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 18, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It gets worse.  Actively setting up an institution to dictate to us how our own language should be used?  Bollocks to that.



Indeed. Just think of the people we could have heading it up though. How's about Gyles Brandreth and Lynne Truss?


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I would suggest that we can can restart changing spelling again - but that we should start with the more obvious changes first - such as 'chagrin' which is actually pronounced 'shagrin'.



Chagrin is a French word, it wouldn't exactly help the French learn our language if we went and changed the spelling would it? It's not pronounced 'shagrin' anyway, or it is, but that spelling doesn't differentiate between 'shag-rin' and 'sha-grin'. In the US its more like 'shuh-grin' anyway, and we would be using the US spellings for our universal system. Also note the French have a silent 'n' in there, perhaps you should pop on over and tell them it should be spelled 'shagra'. If chagrin was a commonly used word it would probably lose its 'n' in time anyway, then you have to change it again.



> I think too much of the people here to believe that they truly think that 'chagrin' should remain being spelt like this - which is why I think they are trolling. But it is fair comment to say that I don't have a completely cogent picture of how the future 'should' be - I would prefer to set the parameters up - ie that the OED should issue new spellings every year which represent the words which are the furthest from how they are pronounced.
> 
> A few words every year would not be so difficult - in fact I would suggest that people would be very able to understand these new spellings - look at this thread here - THINK and I (to a lesser degree) have used more phonetic spellings at times and _no one_ has turned around and said that they cannot understand our words, which speaks volumes for our adaptability as a race.



A few words every year? I love the way this argument keeps going round in circles; someone will now point out that a few words every year is not going to make a blind bit of difference to anyone learning English, and that it will run behind actual changes in pronunciation anyway, then you'll respond to that by saying 'start with the consonant sounds', then someone will tell you that that would be an enormous, cumbersome, expensive, impractical etc thing to do, then you'll go back to 'well just a few words a year'.

And yes, of course we understand your spellings, you don't seem to have too much trouble understanding ours either though.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2009)

If we do just a few words a year, in fifty years we could have changed as many as one hundred words!  Imagine that!  A whole hundred words!


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

kabbes said:


> If we do just a few words a year, in fifty years we could have changed as many as one hundred words!  Imagine that!  A whole hundred words!



But the poor dyslexic children will weep tears of gratitude to Gmarthews when they think of the suffering that previous generations went through.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

Cid said:


> then someone will tell you that that would be an enormous, cumbersome, expensive, impractical etc thing to do



But I don't acsept that it would be that expensive, and more than that I would consider it to be money well spent even if it were. This is where we disagree - I would change it anyway, while you wouldn't. I am not lying or back-tracking, I just have different priorities to you, and you seem unwilling to allow me this - it's called tolerance...

If it was just cost that was enough to dissuade you from something then you could argue against education in total which costs a fortune - but I suspect that you consider this 'enormous, cumbersome, expensive, impractical' cost to be worth it - so do I - and I am also in favour of spending money on this, which will not cost anything like as much as you suggest.

And I don't care about the French and their decisions - they already make their own mind up on their own language, I do not consider it relevant to ask them to change ours. It is actually just yet another dubious story to justify the spelling reform atrophy which I am referring to and you are supporting.

And a whole hundred words every fifty years would be a good step forward - tho each adjustment could affect many words at a time, so it would probably be a bit more dramatic than that.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2009)

Le sigh.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I would certainly ensure that the OED is an independent institution of course, with a remit to improve the spelling of UK English over time.



Will they get ceremonial dress and a sword?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> Thank fuck I'm too busy at work today for this shit.



Your uncertainty seems to still bring you back, over and over - at least to insult, even if you can't find a logical reason why spelling should be stopped from changing.

Seeing as you seem so keen on etymology, I would suggest that you look at the changes in spelling before this freeze - notice how the changes then all added to the history of the word - and yet you feel that this 'etymology in action' should be disallowed. 

Why are you so against changes in spelling? Why do you feel that language should stay in one form? Where is the evidence for your natural evolution of spelling (which you are still yet to give any evidence of in recent times)?


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Your uncertainty seems to still bring you back, over and over - at least to insult, even if you can't find a logical reason why spelling should be stopped from changing.



Lol. I've given many many reasons and you've dismissed them all as unimportant without any substantial argument or demonstrating any knowledge about the subject matter in hand. I've finished all the shit I had to do this morning by the way.



> Seeing as you seem so keen on etymology, I would suggest that you look at the changes in spelling before this freeze - notice how the changes then all added to the history of the word - and yet you feel that this 'etymology in action' should be disallowed.



Doesn't make sense.



> Why are you so against changes in spelling? Why do you feel that language should stay in one form? Where is the evidence for your natural evolution of spelling (which you are still yet to give any evidence of in recent times)?



No I haven't, I've argued for standardisation and a level playing field.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2009)

I think the problem isn't only that you don't understand my position, but it is also that you don't understand your own and have skipped the actual reading and thinking part becoz you have dismissed the idea so readily.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I think the problem isn't only that you don't understand my position, but it is also that you don't understand your own and have skipped the actual reading and thinking part becoz you have dismissed the idea so readily.



Lol, you fucking twat.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 18, 2009)

@GM oh fuck off you dishonest twat


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 18, 2009)

jinx!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I think the problem isn't only that you don't understand my position, but it is also that you don't understand your own and have skipped the actual reading and thinking part becoz you have dismissed the idea so readily.



Your position changes daily.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I think the problem isn't only that you don't understand my position, but it is also that you don't understand your own and have skipped the actual reading and thinking part becoz you have dismissed the idea so readily.



What a fucking liar.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2009)

Another point; a big problem in the english speaking world is learning foreign languages. By making our spelling system totally different to any other language, we're not exactly going to improve things.


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2009)

I've just realised that 'phonetic' is a really bad example of phonetic spelling.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 19, 2009)

Santino said:


> I've just realised that 'phonetic' is a really bad example of phonetic spelling.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

*"or"*

use-ing the *SAMPA* system (computer keyboard frendly version of IPA) *"or"* would be represented by *"o:"*, as would be all the other words I hav listed. "*Taught*", "*taut*" and "*tort*" would all be spelt exactly the same, there is no difference.


----------



## maomao (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *"or"*
> 
> use-ing the *SAMPA* system (computer keyboard frendly version of IPA) *"or"* would be represented by *"o:"*, as would be "*awe*"and  "*ore*". All the other words I hav listed would be spelt with,* "o:" *as well. "*Taught*", "*taut*" and "*tort*" would all be spelt exactly the same, there is no difference. maomao will confirm this layter.



Maomao has refuted this several times on this thread already actually and will refute it again. Despite what your dictionary may tell you (and I assume you're not using the OED because it wouldn't make this mistake) you are conflating three sounds which are distinguished in most dialects of English but not in the estuary accent that you speak with. I've already answered this in detail above and I'm not going to do it again.

And thank you for the flood of inane pms but seeing as they seem to mainly consist of the same insane word lists that you insist on posting up here rather than actually taking part in the conversation I won't be answering them.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

Com þa to recede 
rinc siðian, 
dreamum bedæled.         
Duru sona onarn, 
fyrbendum fæst,         
syþðan he hire folmum æthran; 
onbræd þa bealohydig,      
ða he gebolgen wæs, 
recedes muþan.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> ...For example, "wer" (instead of were) is meaningless. It doesn't even follow your own phonetic rules.



"*were*" rhymes with, "*here*" does it? or maybe, "*there*"?
"*Mere*", maybe? 

*"Her", *"*worker" *thus *"wer".* Same with, "*herb*", "*herd*", and *"nerd"*.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

maomao said:


> Will the poor dyslexic children will weep tears of gratitude to Gmarthews when they think of the suffering that previous generations went through.



Probably.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2009)

It's like he's got glossolalia, the noddy. DotCom's mum must have slapped THINK! with a Toronto blessing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Probably.



No, they'll weep, while intoning the curse "may THINK! and GMarthews burn forever in Hell while demons stick pitchforks up their arseholes".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

I am eternally grateful to the man who changed, "*Olde*" to "*Old*", "*Shoppe*" to "*shop*" and "*sinne*" to "*sin*".


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

'Shoppe' is still a valid English word. It adds character and usefully conveys information about what kind of store it is. That's the kind of linguistic nuance that your idiotic plans would crush, of course.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "or"
> 
> use-ing the *SAMPA* system (computer keyboard frendly version of IPA) *"or"* would be represented by *"o:"*, as would be "*awe*"and  "*ore*". All the other words I hav listed would be spelt with,* "o:" *as well. "*Taught*", "*taut*" and "*tort*" would all be spelt exactly the same, there is no difference.



"Mystification is a sinister, conspiratorial force, whose quite immoral purpose is to endow historical or cultural phenomena with all the appearance of natural ones." 
John Sturrock, 1979


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*were*" rhymes with, "*here*" does it? or maybe, "*there*"?
> "*Mere*", maybe?
> 
> *"Her", *"*worker" *thus *"wer".* Same with, "*herb*", "*herd*", and *"nerd"*.


See what you've done there? You've just fucked up again and exposed the failings of your barking phonetic system. 'Were' does not rhyme with 'here.' Or 'there.'


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

"or" = LOGICAL DISJUNCTION






And THINK! forgot to include OAR in his mystification of all words sounding or looking similar to 'OR'


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

..


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> See what you've done there? You've just fucked up again and exposed the failings of your barking phonetic system. 'Were' does not rhyme with 'here.' Or 'there.'



Read the post mor carefully, fool.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Read the post mor carefully, fool.


No. You're still not making sense with your gibberish.

Oh, and a courtesy to others, could you use a spell checker please? They're absolutely free and only take a few moments of your time.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> ...For example, "wer" (instead of were) is meaningless. It doesn't even follow your own phonetic rules.



_"*were*" rhymes with, "*here*" *does it?* or maybe, "*there*"?
"*Mere*", maybe? 

*"Her", *"*worker" *thus *"wer".* Same with, "*herb*", "*herd*", and *"nerd"*._

Notis all the Question marks as well?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> See what you've done there? You've just fucked up again and exposed the failings of your barking phonetic system. 'Were' does not rhyme with 'here.' Or 'there.'



*YES! *you ar quite right,(for once) "*were*" does not rhyme with "*here*" or "*there*".


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Read the post mor carefully, fool.



Reed th poste mor kairfulee, fool


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> _"*were*" rhymes with, "*here*" *does it?* or maybe, "*there*"?
> "*Mere*", maybe?
> 
> *"Her", *"*worker" *thus *"wer".* Same with, "*herb*", "*herd*", and *"nerd"*._
> ...


I can't be arsed trying to make sense of this gibberish.

What the fuck does 'Notis' mean? Why have you capitalised 'Question'?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

English is not a phonetic language


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> I can't be arsed trying to make sense of this gibberish.
> 
> What the fuck does 'Notis' mean? Why have you capitalised 'Question'?



Hee meens 'noteiss' (notice).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> English is not a phonetic language



But it should be!


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Hee meens 'noteiss' (notice).


So he's fucked up again and proved how unworkable his own system is. Priceless!


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> I can't be arsed trying to make sense of this gibberish.
> 
> What the fuck does 'Notis' mean? Why have you capitalised 'Question'?



Ar you seriously pretending you can't read, "*Notis*"? No-tis = Notice. Simple.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> But it should be!



English cannot be a phonetic language because there's no such thing as ENGLISH. 
ENGLISH is a combination of many languages that have gradually integrated over several thousand years P/Q Celtic, Latin, West Saxon, Anglian, South Saxon, East Saxon, Old Norse, French, Yiddish (etc) to form the language that we speak and write today. To change the spelling of English words to a phonetic spelling mystifies the origins of the English language, and results in an insane confusion over the context and meaning of the words, as well as reducing the number of words available to use.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Hee meens 'noteiss' (notice).



Yor, "noteiss" looks mor like a long "e" so would be pronounced, "Not-Ice".


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> English cannot be a phonetic language because there's no such thing as ENGLISH.
> ENGLISH is a combination of many languages that have gradually integrated over several thousand years P/Q Celtic, Latin, West Saxon, Anglian, South Saxon, East Saxon, Old Norse, French, Yiddish (etc) to form the language that we speak and write today.



The language we speak is ENGLISH, it is what we call it. and the language we speak should be fonetized.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Yor, "noteiss" looks mor like a long "e" so would be pronounced, "Not-Ice".



Did no-one explain to you the wonder that is Magic E

It's a 'rule' that cannot be applied reliably, but generally works well enough for a 5 year old. 

Not 
Note

Rot
Rote

Notice how the addition of 'magic e' creates a long vowel.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Reed th poste mor kairfulee, fool



Reed the post mor cairfulee, fool


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Did no-one explain to you the wonder that is Magic E



We'v done *majic "e"*.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Did no-one explain to you the wonder that is Magic E
> 
> It's a 'rule' that cannot be applied reliably, but generally works well enough for a 5 year old.
> 
> ...



Exactly!! the "*ice*" bit in "*notice*" is short.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The language we speak is ENGLISH, it is what we call it. and the language we speak should be fonetized.



There is no 'should' about it. 

The language we speak is already phoneticised. 
We have 52 sounds, and each of those sounds is represented to the speaker through a phonetic method which tells the speaker how to pronounce any written word.

Written english cannot be altered in its spelling to a phonetic one. To do so would erase thousands of years and more of historicity, meaning and context.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Reed the post mor cairfulee, fool



Rede þ poste mor karefulee fool


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> So he's fucked up again and proved how unworkable his own system is. *Price*less!



"*Notice*"
and "*Price*" do not rhyme. The "*ice*" bit in both word is pronounced differently.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Exactly!! the "*ice*" bit in "*notice*" is short.



'Notice' is not an English word. It comes from the Latin 'notitia', and first known use (written, not spoken) was in 1400s.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Rede þ poste mor karefulee fool



In a way you ar just prooving my point. There ar dozens of ways to write the same words. Yors, tho, arn't very good attempts. and using a rune to represent "the" is just shit.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> "*Notice*"
> and "*Price*" do not rhyme. The "*ice*" bit in both word is pronounced differently.



Notice (notitia) is from the Latin and price is from Old French (pris).
They are pronounced differently because they are taken from two different (yet linked) languages.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 20, 2009)

editor said:


> 'Shoppe' is still a valid English word. It adds character and usefully conveys information about what kind of store it is. That's the kind of linguistic nuance that your idiotic plans would crush, of course.



Why? They could still spell it that way on their shoppe if they wanted to.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Ar you seriously pretending you can't read, "*Notis*"? No-tis = Notice. Simple.


It reads like 'Knot-Iss' to me, which - like many of your posts - is complete gibberish. 

Oh, and stop trying to project the laughable failures of your half-baked, madcap scheme on to others please.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 20, 2009)

THINK! said:


> In a way you ar just prooving my point. There ar dozens of ways to write the same words.


No. There are not dozens of ways to write the same words. We learn THE way to spell a word. We use the same spelling. Any mispelling is treated according to context (whether the person is dyslexic, or doesn't have English as a first language, or is a child who has begun to learn to write English).


> Yors, tho, arn't very good attempts. and using a rune to represent "the" is just shit.


That's not a rune, that's a letter from the Scandinavian 'fuþark' and has historical usage by peoples from at least the 2nd century onwards. It is only a rune if I use that letter in a certain way. 

There is only one accepted spelling of a word in the English language presently. You are reading that accepted spelling at this very moment. 

The reason you do not accept my attempts at alternate spellings is because you are aggressively attached to a your own preferred system of spelling which you have not fully developed. 

You keep changing your own rules which you present to us here. 

The spelling of a written language cannot be subject to the whim and fancy of one person. Your attempts to dictate alternative spellings for English show no understanding of the language or of its origins and evolution.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 22, 2009)

maomao said:


> Maomao has refuted this several times on this thread already actually and will refute it again. Despite what your dictionary may tell you (and I assume you're not using the OED because it wouldn't make this mistake) you are conflating three sounds which are distinguished in most dialects of English but not in the estuary accent that you speak with. I've already answered this in detail above and I'm not going to do it again.
> 
> And thank you for the flood of inane pms but seeing as they seem to mainly consist of the same insane word lists that you insist on posting up here rather than actually taking part in the conversation I won't be answering them.



Maomao, get out of my butt, you annoying cunt. *ALL* of those words on the “or” list would be spelt with the  SAMPA o:. There may be variations in pronunciation, but they *all* can be spelt with o:.
I have two dictionaries here that use IPA and the spelling pronunciation for, "taught", "tort" and "taut" are all the same  the two dictionaries at the library, Chambers and Bloomsbury, use different pronunciation guides, but also spell taught, tort and taut the same. I manage to get hold of an Oxford English Dictionary, it all so spelt tort and taut the same, but had only *taught: *_pp_. of TEACH, for that word. That's 4 dictionaries plus 1.

In Spelling Reform over 90% of words would not be affected by accent. Check the internet for examples. I read a piece of text that is a hundred years old, experimenting with spelling reform, accent didn't come into it.

I have tolerated you because first, I thought you were a woman, then because I thought, after you had given up doing  your Professor Higgins act (I'll name that accent in two...), you would actually start to debate the subject, Spelling Reform, not accents.

I thought you were genuinely interested in dyslexia but I now know that you only interest in dyslexia was to score points and try to become the Alpha male here. I should have known better when I read your puerile and self-loathing comments on your  Public Profile:

About maomao

Biography
Wanker
Location
Up your bum
Interest
wanking
Occupation :
Wanker

These are the comments of a 14 year old not of a grown man.

You ar, as you say, maomao, a *Wanker*!

I leave you with some stuff I’v taken off the Spelling Society site fron the kid’s section actually, which is about right for you:


*How long does it take an average English child to learn to spell well?
Answer *

12 years!


In fact 7 million British adults and 40 million US adults are ‘functionally illiterate’  (meaning for everyday purposes they're not able to read and write).  That's around 20% of all British and 20% of all American adults.
That means one 1 in 5 of us never do learn to spell properly. 


*How long does Italian take to learn to read and write?* 

2 years!

This Debate is now Over:


----------



## maomao (Aug 22, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Maomao, get out of my butt, you annoying cunt. *ALL* of those words on the “or” list would be spelt with the  SAMPA o:. There may be variations in pronunciation, but they *all* can be spelt with o:.
> I have two dictionaries here that use IPA and the spelling pronunciation for, "taught", "tort" and "taut" are all the same  the two dictionaries at the library, Chambers and Bloomsbury, use different pronunciation guides, but also spell taught, tort and taut the same. I manage to get hold of an Oxford English Dictionary, it all so spelt tort and taut the same, but had only *taught: *_pp_. of TEACH, for that word. That's 4 dictionaries plus 1.



I don't give a flying fuck what your fucking dictionary says you fucking retard and I don't care if the special education teacher at your school did tell you you've got a high IQ you''re blatantly as THICK! as two short planks and a couple of sandwiches short of the full picnic to boot. The majority of English speakers will pronounce an 'r', audibly and deliberately, in tort but not in taught. Why don't you go try talking to a Scot, an Indian, an American or someone from the west country? Why don't you do a poll on the matter* or is it beyond your fucking abilities? Or why don't you go keep sticking up lists of words that only sound the same in your fucking accent while the whole fucking world ignores you. Quite frankly with your attitude I would approve of a spelling reform to make it all a bit harder and then maybe you'd fuck off from here totally.

To clarify. Taught and tort will not be distinguished in the majority of English dictionaries as they're not distinguished in RP and I never said they were so you're barking up the wrong tree. However, most English speakers _will_ distinguish. However 'poor' and 'paw' _are_ distinguished in RP and last time I checked the OED (actually it was probably the SOD which would be a particularly appropriate dictionary for you you braindead cocksucker) they were. Furthermore, a large proportion of English speakers will also distinguish 'pore'.

You're a fucking joke if you think sticking up lists of words that _only sound the same to one section of English speakers_ will prove anything. And you're right, the debate is over, everyone else stopped taking you seriously a long time ago while I continued out of pity. But if you're going to start mouthing off at me you can join your braindead cunt friend Gmarthews and go fuck yourself analy with a large sharp knife while everyone ignores you.

*if you do bother doing this I would suggest using a more common word than 'tort'. Poor, paw, pore would be an acceptable sequence as all three are common words.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2009)

FFS, maomao, stop havering and mithering and say what you fucking *MEAN*, you fence-sitting cunt!!!


----------



## maomao (Aug 22, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> FFS, maomao, stop havering and mithering and say what you fucking *MEAN*, you fence-sitting cunt!!!



Yeah, I think I'm being a bit soft on the idiot.

And by the way:

UK ranks higher than Italy for literacy accoding to the UN.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2009)

maomao said:


> Yeah, I think I'm being a bit soft on the idiot.
> 
> And by the way:
> 
> UK ranks higher than Italy for literacy accoding to the UN.



And the same as Korea and Finland, GMart's favourite examples.


----------



## ajk (Aug 23, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I have tolerated you because first, I thought you were a woman,



lol wut

(spelt phonetically there)


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2009)

'Philosophy', from the greek, has the greek letter for 'f' in the original, and first came to us via the french who spelt it 'filosofie' in the C13th - but don't let facts get in the way guys eh? 

In fact a good question is why it has ever been spelt with a 'ph'... tho I suspect the usual selective reading/comment will omit that too...


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2009)

What about surnames? Some of them are hard to spell too. Should we make people change their names as well just to keep things consistent?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

I leav you with a bit of cut & paste:

Tim Radford, Science Editor, The Guardian. 21 december 1999.

Scientists have shown that a language creates its own geography within the human brain in a discovery which could have promising implications for dyslexia research.

Uta Frith of University College, London, reveals in Nature Neuroscience today that differences in the structure of languages lead to different strategies for pronouncing words, which may explain why dyslexia is a common problem in English-reading nations, but relatively unknown in Italy. Italian is simple and beautiful to sing, not just because of the alternation of consonants and vowels but because the rules for pronunciation and stress are consistent.

English, on the other hand is notorious for its inconsistencies - words such as cough, bough, dough and tough are classic examples - and George Bernard Shaw remarked bitterly that a word like "ghoti" could just as easily be pronounced as "fish": gh as in tough, o as in women, and ti as in nation. Brain scans taken while Italian and English-speaking volunteers looked at and read out words in their own language showed subtle differences in activity in precise locations in the brain.

Prof Frith found that when asked to read words and pronounceable non-words, English speakers took longer to begin reading each word, and were even slower when they had to apply a pronunciation to a made-up word. The fact that the native Italian speakers were quicker on the draw was consistent with the idea that Italians could rely on a sure set of rules for translating letters into sounds, whereas the English-speaking volunteers had to work out what the meaning might be before they could settle on a pronunciation.

Prof Frith believes, because of such differences, Italians use the left superior temporal region to read both words and experimental "nonwords", English speakers use the same hemisphere but slightly different areas. The difference may be to do with how the language is learned, she said. "Children learning to read and write in English do take a long time. I was involved in some earlier work comparing German-speaking and English-speaking children and the difference is very marked in the speed with which they can acquire their code for their language. 

"The second phenomenon has to do with dyslexia: this is quite a noticeable phenomenon in English-speaking countries but it is hardly thought of as a handicap in Italy."


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

editor said:


> What about surnames? Some of them are hard to spell too. Should we make people change their names as well just to keep things consistent?



I doubt this is a jenuine question, but I personally would just leav all Proper nouns as they ar, unless of course, that person actually wants to change the spelling of their name, that's up to them.

If you hav jenuinely read this thread you will know we hav done surnames etc. befor.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 25, 2009)

English is not one language - it is many languages.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

Fuck mine, I'll leav you with the whole page to read;
http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/dyslexia/reports.php


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I doubt this is a jenuine question, but I personally would just leav all Proper nouns as they ar, unless of course, that person actually wants to change the spelling of their name, that's up to them.
> 
> If you hav jenuinely read this thread you will know we hav done surnames etc.



I dowt this is a genuin kwestjun, but I personalee wud just leev all proper nouns as they ar, unless of corse, that person aktualee wants to change the spelling of there name, that's up to them.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'Philosophy', from the greek, has the greek letter for 'f' in the original, and first came to us via the french who spelt it 'filosofie' in the C13th - but don't let facts get in the way guys eh?
> 
> In fact a good question is why it has ever been spelt with a 'ph'... tho I suspect the usual selective reading/comment will omit that too...



It became 'philo' consistently in French _and_ English because people found it useful to mark all the occurences of this morpheme as being the same thing. Which it isn't in 'filo pastry' for example. Here's a list of words containing 'phil' where 'phil' consistently has the same meaning.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Fuck mine, I'll leav you with the whole page to read;
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/dyslexia/reports.php



Fuck mine, Isle leev u with th hole page to reed


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Prof Frith believes, because of such differences, Italians use the left superior temporal region to read both words and experimental "nonwords", English speakers use the same hemisphere but slightly different areas. The difference may be to do with how the language is learned, she said. "Children learning to read and write in English do take a long time. I was involved in some earlier work comparing German-speaking and English-speaking children and the difference is very marked in the speed with which they can acquire their code for their language.



So it's easy to learn how to read out a list of sounds. What about reading comprehension?

Also, the English language, regardless of transcription language, does not have consistent and predictable stress in the way that Italian does.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Fuck mine, Isle leev u with th hole page to reed



You ar rather prooving my point. Spelling is so inconsistent in Inglish that seems to be dozens ov ways to spell the same words.

*Fuck mien,* _(lie>lien[line]>mien)_ *I'll leev yoo* (_the name of the letter is "Yu" but that is not the sound it makes)_ *with the hol payj too reed.*

Yors was a pretty shit and insincere atempt.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You ar rather prooving my point. Spelling is so inconsistent in Inglish that seems to be dozens ov ways to spell the same words.
> 
> *Fuck mien,* _(lie>lien[line]>mien)_ *I'll leev yoo* (_the name of the letter is "Yu" but that is not the sound it makes)_ *with the hol[/i] payj too reed.
> 
> Yors was a pretty shit and insincere atempt.*


*

'Hol' would be a short 'o' surely. Like 'holiday'. That's not how I pronounce whole. IP's was better on the whole. I think the (whole) problem is you have no idea about phonetics. Go away, read some books, come back when you've got an argument.*


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> 'Hol' would be a short 'o' surely. Like 'holiday'. That's not how I pronounce whole. IP's was better on the whole. I think the (whole) problem is you have no idea about phonetics. Go away, read some books, come back when you've got an argument.



Also wtf with 'mien' ... I can think of three different ways of pronouncing that, and 'mine' isn't one of them.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> 'Hol' would be a short 'o' surely. Like 'holiday'. That's not how I pronounce whole. IP's was better on the whole. I think the (whole) problem is you have no idea about phonetics. Go away, read some books, come back when you've got an argument.



Try "*hoal*" (rhymes with"coal"), then. Notis'd you didn't comment on the other spellings. *payj v. page *for example. You stink of insincerity.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

cesare said:


> Also wtf with 'mien' ... I can think of three different ways of pronouncing that, and 'mine' isn't one of them.



*EXACTLY!!!!*



That's what we'v been going on about for nearly 50 pages!


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Try "*hoal*" (rhymes with"coal"), then. Notis'd you didn't comment on the other spellings. *payj v. page *for example. You stink of insincerity.



Well, the 'ay' diphthong isn't consistently or evenly distributed across different dialects of English so it would be a massive pain to deal with. The problem is that you don't understand what I just said so there's no point. And I can't be arsed explaining the concept for a fourth time.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> The problem is that you don't understand what I just said so there's no point. And I can't be arsed explaining the concept for a fourth time.


LOL!


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That's what we'v been going on about for nearly 50 pages!



Don't fucking shout at me, you nob.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THICK! yesterday:


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

Gmarthews ready to back him up:






(uniform of the academie francaise)


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

cesare said:


> Don't fucking shout at me, you *nob*.



We'v done "*Knob*", you'v spelt it wrong, you *knob!*


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> THICK! yesterday:



Ar you truely trying to pretend you ar a grown man of 35?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> Gmarthews ready to back him up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Isn't this mor like, closer to your own self-image?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 25, 2009)

Not at all you idiot. You've a legion of folks in favour of keeping the English that's developed organically and through choice.

And you've a pair of plums proposing significant, forced reform using some kind of largely arbitrary phonetic system that they'd insist that everyone else accept. Despite numerous flaws pointed out by countless people.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Ar you truely trying to pretend you ar a grown man of 35?



As opposed to the true marks of maturity? Posting up lists of words in giant bolded letters that don't actually support your point or make any sense in the context of the argument. Then refusing to take any notice of people who spend a lot of time trying to explain things to you in the hope that one day you might be able to participate in an adult conversation?

Hell no, fuck you, you're an ungrateful idiot and if you post here any more you will be mocked and insulted.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

tarannau said:


> .
> 
> ... proposing significant, forced reform using some kind of largely arbitrary phonetic system that they'd insist that everyone else accept. Despite numerous flaws pointed out by countless people.



As with the others, I know you havn't read the whole thread. One of the first things I said was reform would hav to be introjuced over a very long period of time, most of it would happen after we wer dead. Secondly, no-one is forcing you to adopt the new spellings, as I said befor, you will be free to use the old TO spellings if you want to. Arbitrary, it wouldn't be, that's what our spellings ar NOW, as has been pointed out by countless peeple.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Not at all. You've a legion of folks in favour of keeping the English that's developed organically and through choice.



Through choice? Nobody ask'd me. no-one is ask'd how they want to spell a word, they ar just told, at school and throughout life.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Secondly, no-one is forcing you to adopt the new spellings, as I said befor, you will be free to use the old TO spellings if you want to. Arbitrary, it wouldn't be, that's what our spellings ar NOW, as has been pointed out by countless peeple.



So we'd be free to spell as we want but it wouldn't be arbitrary? I think you need tocheck a dictionary:

Arbitrary: based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a ...


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> So we'd be free to spell as we want but it wouldn't be arbitrary? I think you need tocheck a dictionary:
> 
> Arbitrary: based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a ...



What? a consistent set of phonemes, arbitrary?


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What? a consistent set of phonemes, arbitrary?



You just said we'd be free to spell as we want. You would have a standard system to refer to but usage would be extremely arbitrary.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> You just said we'd be free to spell as we want. You would have a standard system to refer to but usage would be extremely arbitrary.



Nope, never said that, only prefer that if there is no other option. Thoz, "free spellings", would anyway, after a while become, standardize thru use. the mor popular ones being adopted and winning out over its rivals. Which is a long way to get to the same point that I want to get to. _After the colapse of Authority, a new Authriority always re-emerges_. It's a very long way to achiev the same thing.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Nope, never said that





THINK! said:


> Secondly, no-one is forcing you to adopt the new spellings, as I said befor, you will be free to use the old TO spellings if you want to.





Can you not even keep track of what you've said _in the past half hour_?????

Fucking idiot.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> Can you not even keep track of what you've said _in the past half hour_?????
> 
> Fucking idiot.



That's not a "free-for-all", you fucking idiot, that's a transition period between TO spelling and any improov'd spellings. We did this about 40 pages ago. Yor comments ar getting weaker and weaker, and mor and mor desperate,  and yor attempts at being pedantic, lamer and lamer.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> improov'd spellings


What the fuck is that word?!

How on earth would adding totally unnecessary punctuation marks improve the simplicity of a language?


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That's not a "free-for-all", you fucking idiot, that's a transition period between TO spelling and any improov'd spellings. We did this about 40 pages ago. Yor comments ar getting weaker and weaker, and mor and mor desperate,  and yor attempts at being pedantic, lamer and lamer.



You're bonkers.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> no-one is ask'd how they want to spell a word, they ar just told, at school and throughout life.


Just for the reocrd, would your 'improved' English see the removal of all capitalisation rules too?


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That's not a "free-for-all", you fucking idiot, that's a transition period between TO spelling and any improov'd spellings. We did this about 40 pages ago. Yor comments ar getting weaker and weaker, and mor and mor desperate,  and yor attempts at being pedantic, lamer and lamer.



I didn't say it would be a free for all you shitfucking retard. If you're not going to express yourself clearly you can expect to not be understood.

So you're saying we wouldn't be free to use old-fashioned spellings after your arbitrary period of arbitrary choice between two systems? Make up your mind. One minute you want to change a couple of spellings a year, the next you want us to be using 'a consistent set of phomenes' (whatever the fuck that means) and we will be having a 'transition period'. You moan like fuck about people telling you how to spell yet you want to eradicate a system the vast majority of people are completely happy with.

You take absolutely no fucking notice of structured criticisms of your argument, misrepresent others' positions and frequently divert from the debate to post up inanely enlarged lists of words that prove nothing except the fact that you do not understand the subject at hand.

You have provided no evidence other than a couple of links to a 'spelling reform' site (a bunch of nutters like yourself and certainly not an unbiased source) and at no time demonstrated any understanding of the arguments made against you or made any attempt to make an argument more complex than 'I'm dyslexic and I think it would be easier so it must be right'.

You're a joke, everyone here, except your similarly challenged friend Gmarthews has been laughing at you. You should be grateful to me as I at least have been bored enough to give you the chance of honest debate. But instead, after misrepresenting my position and demonstrating that you haven't understood a single fucking word I've said you turned round and abused me. Fuck yourself quite frankly. If you want to go away and do some research and come back with something that vaguely resembles a coherent argument and an ability to converse with other people rather than swamping them with inane lists then I'll be happy to debate it in an adult manner. However if you continue to post on this thread in this manner I will give you all the abuse and mockery I can muster.

Now either grow up or go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2009)

maomao said:


> I didn't say it would be a free for all you shitfucking retard. If you're not going to express yourself clearly you can expect to not be understood.
> 
> So you're saying we wouldn't be free to use old-fashioned spellings after your arbitrary period of arbitrary choice between two systems? Make up your mind. One minute you want to change a couple of spellings a year, the next you want us to be using 'a consistent set of phomenes' (whatever the fuck that means) and we will be having a 'transition period'. You moan like fuck about people telling you how to spell yet you want to eradicate a system the vast majority of people are completely happy with.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> It became 'philo' consistently in French _and_ English because people found it useful to mark all the occurences of this morpheme as being the same thing. Which it isn't in 'filo pastry' for example. Here's a list of words containing 'phil' where 'phil' consistently has the same meaning.



On that very page which you quote is the answer. The page gives the original greek for 'philo' as:

(φιλία)

That first letter is the greek letter 'phi', which is the letter the Greeks use for 'f'. It is true that this is the root for the spelling 'ph' in English, but this just shows the academic that it comes from greek historically and that is missing the point. 

ALL the words in front of you are phonetic to a great degree, otherwise you would not be able to read. There is no need to have a difference between 'philo' and 'filo' because of *context*. The same reason why you have no problem with 'right' as in being right and 'right' as in turning right. All those words which have love in common would still have the same history, but the story would continue rather than remain frozen in time... one wonders why you seem so against this idea.

English is mostly phonetic in spelling, but it has a multitude of different, confusing rules, such as the 'ph' one you highlight above. You think that it is important to keep this rule despite it being in contrast to the rule of words being spelt as they are said, I disagree.

Why do you feel that having this history is so valuable? To whom is it valuable?

Having to teach students all these little rules is obviously tedious and a waste of limited resources. It is an impediment to English being an easier language to learn and at worst it can put off a child completely from trying to learn to spell!

I appreciate that it is interesting to the high level student that 'ph' pronounced as an 'f' in English is from the Greek (mostly) - but I would prefer to see the word evolve towards a more phonetic form. There is no need to maintain the freeze on the evolution of word spelling. You seem reluctant to recognise that this has occurred and that it is having an impact on the present.

History is fine as an academic pursuit, and indeed there are lessons to learn - but the present is always more important.



editor said:


> I agree.



It is a sad reflection on yourself that you seem unable to apply the rules equally towards those you happen to agree with, and towards those you don't. This inadequacy makes a mockery of your own rules.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

*Notice, notis*

As I have stated before, I think that the vowel issues would need to be dealt with after the more obvious consonant issues. But this one shows the lack of English education in the UK.

A doubling of a letter shortens the vowel sound, as in 'hoping' and 'hopping'. This is the same with 'notice' which only has one 't' and so the vowel sound is long. If the vowel sound needed to be short then it would be a double 't as in 'lattice'.

I can't imagine that English could, should or would become purely phonetic, as it is an ask too far I suspect. This rule above and the 'majic E' rule that lengthens the vowel sound in 4 letter words are simple enough to keep IMO.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is a sad reflection on yourself that you seem unable to apply the rules equally towards those you happen to agree with, and towards those you don't. This inadequacy makes a mockery of your own rules.


maomao was responding to a post of THINK!'s where he'd been called a "fucking idiot" so I'd say I'm equally ignoring the naughty words being thrown around.

So, back on topic, tell me your thoughts on capitalisation and punctuation - would this remain the same under your phonetic system? And what about people's names? Some of those are very difficult to spell, so would you propose changing those too?





Gmarthews said:


> A doubling of a letter shortens the vowel sound, as in 'hoping' and 'hopping'.


I don't really know what you're on about, but what about 'hope' and 'hoop'?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

editor said:


> maomao was responding to a post of THINK!'s where he'd been called a "fucking idiot" so I'd say I'm equally ignoring the naughty words being thrown around.



If your new policy is to ignore all 'naughty' words, then I would suggest that you edit that part out of the rules. Otherwise you are making a mockery of them. 



editor said:


> So, back on topic, tell me your thoughts on capitalisation and punctuation - would this remain the same under your phonetic system? And what about people's names? Some of those are very difficult to spell, so would you propose changing those too?I don't really know what you're on about, but what about 'hope' and 'hoop'?



'hop', 'hoop' and 'hope' are three vowel sounds. The 'e' put on the end lengthens the vowel sound for each vowel... This and the doubling rule are both rules I would maintain, tho my general campaign is the removal of the multitude of rules surrounding spelling.

I am reluctant to comment on your issues when you have so blatantly ignored the vast number of points which I have made. Still capitalisation for proper nouns and punctuation would remain much the same. I suspect that once started, people would move their names towards a more phonetic form, but there would be no duty to do so.

The key question is whether you are open to the idea of changing spelling if it could be proved to help.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> If your new policy is to ignore all 'naughty' words, then I would suggest that you edit that part out of the rules. Otherwise you are making a mockery of them.


What are these rules are you referring to please? Could you quote the pertinent part please?



Gmarthews said:


> I suspect that once started, people would move their names towards a more phonetic form, but there would be no duty to do so.


If you believe families are going to give up thousands of years of history just because some idiots can't be bothered to try and spell them correctly, you're livng in cloud cuckoo land. Why do you think ancient languages like Welsh survive?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

editor said:


> What are these rules are you referring to please? Could you quote the pertinent part please?



No problem:



> 5. We're happy to host lively and robust debate but racists, bullies, sexist oafs, bigots and general all-round irritating arses are not welcome on these boards. *Over the top swearing, endless personal attacks and needlessly disruptive conduct is not permitted and posters who continue such behaviour after being asked to stop will be banned. *Threads that descend into personal insult-a-thons will be binned.



And you haven't even asked them to stop - so the posters who are continuing to do this can't even be accused of failing to stop...



editor said:


> If you believe families are going to give up thousands of years of history just because some idiots can't be bothered to try and spell them correctly, you're livng in cloud cuckoo land. Why do you think ancient languages like Welsh survive?



So the answer to the question was: No change at all, ever, under any condition...

And your reasons why etymology should remain frozen in its current state despite the obvious advantages in change?

And languages like Welsh exist because they are used not because their spelling is frozen in time...


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Why do you feel that having this history is so valuable? To whom is it valuable?
> 
> Having to teach students all these little rules is obviously tedious and a waste of limited resources. It is an impediment to English being an easier language to learn and at worst it can put off a child completely from trying to learn to spell!
> 
> I appreciate that it is interesting to the high level student that 'ph' pronounced as an 'f' in English is from the Greek (mostly) - but I would prefer to see the word evolve towards a more phonetic form. There is no need to maintain the freeze on the evolution of word spelling. You seem reluctant to recognise that this has occurred and that it is having an impact on the present.



Could you stop pretending that earlier conversations haven't occured please? It's not a question of 'history' or 'indicating that it's from the Greek. It's a question of preserving morphemes so they can be understood. So for instance if I was to say 'Gmarthews is a notorious paedophile' an English learner familiar with the two components of that word wouldn't even have to reach for a dictionary.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> ...an English learner familiar with the two components of that word wouldn't even have to reach for a dictionary.



As I have said all along, your concern for the advanced learners is admirable. But let us be frank - my concern is for the other 90% of English learners who are beginner and intermediate students of English both as their maternal language and as a second language.

Of course I recognise what you are referring to - I speak french and I remember noticing the shared roots of words that I learnt and it was somewhat interesting to know the history of the words - but you are overstating its importance. You are also assuming that etymology cannot continue with the evolution of form, which seems strange when the evolution of meaning continues unabated.

When it comes down to it most learners concern themselves with learning phrases, vocab and grammar and the history of form is of only passing interest until the highest level. To pretend otherwise would be just wishful thinking...

And you are still avoiding the main question which is: Why do you feel that changing the spelling of (say) 'magic' to 'majic' would be so injurous? The history of its form would have a recent chapter, but the rest of its history would be unaffected - and even if it changed a whole raft of words such as with the 'ph' in 'philosophy' - then this too would simply be a recent chapter in the history of those words while the history that you are so attached to would remain for the higher classes to look at.

Your problem seems to be that we are considering change, and that you seem unable to consider this to any degree. Most of the English language is already phonetic you know...? I have even given examples of inconsistency in the current etymological system and asked if you would consider a change in that (remember 'phoney' which is NOT from the usual root of 'phon' and which comes from a word with an 'f' on the front) - but you seem to have forgotten to answer conveniently...

Over and over THINK and I give examples of possible change - but we are arguing against a wave of conservatives who are unable to consider any change in the current system even when we find obvious flaws in it, and obvious cases where change would help.

I would say that it is pretty obvious that you are avoiding comment on the greater part of my posts because you are nervous about change and unwilling to consider it even rhetorically, (another ridiculous spelling which you are no doubt supporting...?)


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And you are still avoiding the main question which is: Why do you feel that changing the spelling of (say) 'magic' to 'majic' would be so injurous? The history of its form would have a recent chapter, but the rest of its history would be unaffected - and even if it changed a whole raft of words such as with the 'ph' in 'philosophy' - then this too would simply be a recent chapter in the history of those words while the history that you are so attached to would remain for the higher classes to look at.



I'm not avoiding it at all. I've answered it about nine times with a whole list of reasons that you then declared unimportant with minimal explanation and zero evidence. Because you're a jumped up dishonest self important little prick who has no idea how a conversation or a debate work.

This is you:







with your sword of spelling reform. Being braver than any of us.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

editor said:


> What the fuck is that word?!
> 
> How on earth would adding totally unnecessary punctuation marks improve the simplicity of a language?



We'v done that one, go and read the thread.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We'v done that one, go and read the thread.



Weev dun that won, go and reed th thred


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

*GEt It Right Peeple!!*

I hav never claim'd to hav invented a spelling scheme, l'v just point out the problems with our current spellings and show some obvious solutions. Consistency is what is lacking in our spellings. Take the long "a" it can be represented by several letter combinations (high-lighted):

p*ay*
p*ai*n
gr*ey*
cr*a*ne (majic "e")
r*ei*n
r*eig*n

and there is probably mor. *We only need one*. Which one would you pick?

someone else might say fuck that, we will go down the diacritic route, and hav a bar across the top:

*_
a*

another person might say we'll just raid another alfabet and use their letters
Greek for example.

Another might say that's just invent and draw up on of our own.

*{-}*

I'v never advocated a free-for-all as a solution, accurate spelling is important, free spelling would only be the last resort. There would, probably, be an institution similar to the Acamdie Francais; staff'd, initially by peeple from the OED and they would hav sixty years befor they had to sort out the difficult stuff. Both spellings would be concurrent, as we hav with “salable” and “saleable” now.


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I hav never claim'd to hav invented a spelling scheme, l'v just point out the problems with our current spellings and show some obvious solutions.


The main problem is your inability to use a spell checker.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

editor said:


> The main problem is your inability to use a spell checker.



Silly boy, I'm using this thread to demostrate some examples. Add something significant to to the debate, not just silly remarks from the side-line.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I hav never claim'd to hav invented a spelling scheme, l'v just point out the problems with our current spellings and show some obvious solutions. Consistency is what is lacking in our spellings. Take the long "a" it can be represented by several letter combinations (high-lighted):



Which suggests that you think everyone here is so thick they don't know English isn't spelled phonetically. Also, none of your 'obvious' solutions have worked. You haven't acknowledged any of the problems you've been presented with and have acted like a fucking patronising idiot throughout the thread. Fuck off back to Brimsdown and throw yourself in the River Lea you brainless waste of fucking space.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)




----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> So it's easy to learn how to read out a list of sounds. What about reading comprehension?
> 
> Also, the English language, regardless of transcription language, does not have consistent and predictable stress in the way that Italian does.



We learn words verbally first, what they mean second and how to spell them much layter. For instance, we learn to say the word, "ball" and what it means, long befor we learn how to spell it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We learn words verbally first, what they mean second and how to spell them much layter. For instance, we learn to say the word, "ball" and what it means, long befor we learn how to spell it.



Not true and doesn't make sense. Fuck off idiot.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> Posting up lists of words in giant bolded letters ...



Most peeple hav a tendency to skim and even skip when reading posts. High-lighting and enlarging ar ways to draw attention to important points.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Most peeple hav a tendency to skim and even skip when reading posts. High-lighting and enlarging ar ways to draw attention to important points.



Bollocks does it. It makes you look like you think you're talking to children.

Go and drown yourself cunt.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You ar rather prooving my point. Spelling is so inconsistent in Inglish that seems to be dozens ov ways to spell the same words.
> 
> *Fuck mien,* _(lie>lien[line]>mien)_ *I'll leev yoo* (_the name of the letter is "Yu" but that is not the sound it makes)_ *with the hol payj too reed.*
> 
> Yors was a pretty shit and insincere atempt.



Mien - pronounced meen - means 'dignified facial expression/manner or conduct'- originally french, poss. from  Breton 'min' 
mein - pronounced mine - means 'mine (belonging to, in possession of' - german. 
mine - pronounced mine - means 'mine'  - meaning - lots - look it up 
lien - prounounced lee-en - means 'legal term for retention of property in lieu of debt being paid. 
line - prounced line - meaning - lots: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=line

Yorz woz a pritty shit and insinseer atempt. 
hol as in holiday? hole as in hole! U hav no consistensee in yor aplikatshun


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> Not true and doesn't make sense. Fuck off idiot.



Ar you saying that a one year old baby doesn't learn how to say, "ball" quite a few years befor they learn how to spell, "ball"?


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Ar you saying that a one year old baby doesn't learn how to say, "ball" quite a few years befor they learn how to spell, "ball"?



And are you saying that a) they don't know what it means when they learn to say it and b) the same process applies to all vocabulary acquisition? I learned most of my vocabulary from books.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> And are you saying that a) they don't know what it means when they learn to say it and b) the same process applies to all vocabulary acquisition? I learned most of my vocabulary from books.



Most peeple learn their vocabulary from speech, which includes TV these days. How did you think peeple learn'd their language befor literacy?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I hav never claim'd to hav invented a spelling scheme, l'v just point out the problems with our current spellings and show some obvious solutions. Consistency is what is lacking in our spellings. Take the long "a" it can be represented by several letter combinations (high-lighted):
> 
> p*ay*
> p*ai*n
> ...


We don't only need one. Those words are all from different languages. English is not english. English is many languages.



> someone else might say fuck that, we will go down the diacritic route, and hav a bar across the top:
> 
> *_
> a*
> ...


Another might say - english is not english. English is french, german, breton, latin, greek, celtic, etc. WHO WOULD BE CORRECT? (Clue: IP is correct)


> I'v never advocated a free-for-all as a solution, accurate spelling is important, free spelling would only be the last resort. There would, probably, be an institution similar to the Acamdie Francais; staff'd, initially by peeple from the OED and they would hav sixty years befor they had to sort out the difficult stuff. Both spellings would be concurrent, as we hav with “salable” and “saleable” now.


And lo, the roots of this wonderful language we call english would be erased forever. No-one at OED would agree to this. Why would any english-language speaker/reader/teacher agree to this?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> And lo, the roots of this wonderful language we call english would be erased forever. No-one at OED would agree to this. Why would any english-language speaker/reader/teacher agree to this?



They already do. I'v met loads, One,  Bethan somebody, was actually some one who teaches peeple to be English teachers, another , just a few weeks ago, a teacher of young children, said, "anything that helps young childen to learn to read is a good thing".


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Most peeple learn their vocabulary from speech, which includes TV these days. How did you think peeple learn'd their language befor literacy?



They spoke languages that were understood by the next few villages and not much beyond that. They were not international languages with vast bodies of literature. They were also not societies where literacy was part of life from the earliest stage of education. You're not comparing like with like you fool.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 26, 2009)

I'll leav you with another "cut'n'paste":


Lingua Anglica.
Govind N Deodhekar.
[Govind N. Deodhekar migrated from Bombay to London in 1951 and taught Science and Maths in a South London School until his retirement in 1979.]

I started learning English, at about 10, when I first stepped into a secondary school in a small town near Bombay. I soon learnt that English written consonants had a fixed sound - but not always! Vowels had a system of sorts, as when the cat sat on the mat. But it seemed to break down ever so often and was a bewildering contrast with our well-defined Devnagri vowel-symbols. There was no way out of it I was told, but to learn each group of spellings and each eccentricity, separately. Luckily, I was good at memorizing and I survived.

It had never occurred to me that English children could find English spelling a handicap until I started teaching in England and came across the problem and saw the heroic struggles being waged by the remedial teachers and their pupils.

The need for reform of English spelling is obvious to every foreigner who tries to or has to learn the language. But the English intelligentsia 'don't want to know'. In any case, the English upper class has a tradition or a penchant for deliberate distortion of speech to mark itself off from the common people..."

http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j1/anglica.php


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I'll leav you with another "cut'n'paste":



Rather than actually attempting any sort of debate. Again. Wanker.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

THINK! said:


> They already do. I'v met loads, One,  Bethan somebody, was actually some one who teaches peeple to be English teachers, another , just a few weeks ago, a teacher of young children, said, "anything that helps young childen to learn to read is a good thing".



Anything that helps young children to learn to read is a good thing - but not changing the entire english language to fit your idea of spelling "improvement"!

Anything, such as: 
Parents reading books aloud to children for half-an-hour at bedtime.
Singing spelling-rhymes to help children remember.
Library vans to homes where no books exist except catalogues and gossip magazines.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> Rather than actually attempting any sort of debate. Again. Wanker.



Read this link, and then weep. You're right to feel hostile, maomao.

http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/advantages1.php#ns

I feel angry to see the spelling of 'would' changed to 'wood'.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Read this link, and then weep. You're right to feel hostile, maomao.
> 
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/advantages1.php#ns
> 
> I feel angry to see the spelling of 'would' changed to 'wood'.



Great link - spells 'without' as 'widhout' so I stopped there - you can always tell when people are at a loss when they exaggerate. Ridiculous! 

I love this thread - there is no attempt to address the issues that I raise, just the continual claim that at some point you have, and that we are ignoring the points you make. Actually I have taken each point given and addressed them completely. 

Previously I suggested that you were either fooling yourselves or trying to fool me by pretending to misunderstand, but now your complete inability to address the issues I have given, leads me to the sad conclusion that you are actually fooling yourselves, and that you haven't actually given my posts your full, unbiased attention. The points I've made have been very clear, but sadly what is also very clear is your inability to consider them seriously and to address them - all you do is avoid answering the key points, whereas I have been careful to address each one in turn.

One of the key points avoided over and over is whether you are happy to accept any change in spelling at all. Your answers dictate that 'No' you are not, but you do not seem able to state this, almost as if there is still part of you which knows that you are being ignorant. You haven't even acknowledged that 'magic' would be easier to spell as 'majic' - but of course that is also on your list of issues to avoid commenting on.

Still, enjoy your bigotry - you seem quite able to thinker-prove your way round any consideration of viewpoints which are different to your own, but I suggest you find other bigots to surround yourself with, it'll be easier for you to maintain your existing viewpoint then.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I love this thread - there is no attempt to address the issues that I raise, just the continual claim that at some point you have, and that we are ignoring the points you make. Actually I have taken each point given and addressed them completely.



No you haven't, you've dismissed them all off hand as 'not important' while you yourself only have one point and it's not a very good one.

You're a poor excuse for a human being and you should fuck off from here right now.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

Duplicate post.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 26, 2009)

Magic is spelled fine as magic. It is easily understood by non-english speakers as related to magie (french) and magie (german) magia (spanish) magia (italian) magia (latin) greek (magiea). Even the exceptionally phonetic spanish won't have a problem with spelling the english version. 

Magic would not be easier to spell as majic. To most Europeans (except maybe the French who use j for a soft g sound), majic would sound like mayic or mahic or maybe even maiiic. 'J' is not a letter which can easily replace a 'G' in European languages. In dutch mostly, j belongs after 'i' (ij) as a y sound. In Italian, 'gi' is used for the soft 'g' sound which is in the english word 'magic'. In Spanish, change the 'g' for a 'j' and to a Spanish ear, the word will be pronounced as 'mahic'.

No, it is better not to change the spelling of words. The Normans did that, and we unfortunately lost our yogh. 

I really do think that you're (pl.) being a bit Þicc (Gmarthews and Think!) and that your iudgments regarding any perceived superiority of phonetic spelling are wrong.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2009)

Invisibleplanet - you really have missed the point haven't you...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2009)

maomao said:


> No you haven't, you've dismissed them all off hand as 'not important' while you yourself only have one point and it's not a very good one.
> 
> You're a poor excuse for a human being and you should fuck off from here right now.



It's you who have dismissed all my posts out of hand - not even bothering to comment on the vast majority of points made. I have taken the trouble to comment on all your issues, even when you couldn't work out that accents still exist in languages which are more phonetic than English, I still calmly pointed this out over and over again.

I have provided scores of examples of where English is not phonetic, so you are just talking rubbish as usual.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Invisibleplanet - you really have missed the point haven't you...



Not at all. 




			
				Gmarthews said:
			
		

> One of the key points avoided over and over is whether you are happy to accept any change in spelling at all. Your answers dictate that 'No' you are not, but you do not seem able to state this, almost as if there is still part of you which knows that you are being ignorant. You haven't even acknowledged that 'magic' would be easier to spell as 'majic' - but of course that is also on your list of issues to avoid commenting on.



I have already stated - I am not happy to accept your proposed changes in spelling at all. 

I have already acknowledged that MAGIC would not be easier to spell as MAJIC and given exactly the reasons. 

You seem to think that J can replace G. This is not the case - we are speaking a mix of older Indo-European languages which and we call English and there are often two or more words we can use from at least two historic (older) European languages which have the same or similar meaning. 

Comprendez? Est-ce que vous comprenez? Do you comprehend? 
Understonda? Understande? Do you understand?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 27, 2009)

maomao said:


> ...couple of links to a 'spelling reform' site (a bunch of nutters...



Bunch of nutters? Charles Darwin was in favor of spelling reform, and was actually, the chair of the Spelling Society’s predecessor, The Spelling Reform Association.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 27, 2009)

A bit of simplified history for the very lazy:

http://www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk/html/history.html


----------



## maomao (Aug 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It's you who have dismissed all my posts out of hand - not even bothering to comment on the vast majority of points made. I have taken the trouble to comment on all your issues, even when you couldn't work out that accents still exist in languages which are more phonetic than English, I still calmly pointed this out over and over again.



What the fuck? You shameless lying turd. It was you who refused to acknowledge that having a regional accent in a language with a spelling system that favoured one particular accent might be a disadvantage. A point you continuallly dismissed without explanation. Have you gone mad and you now think you're me or something?

You should be shot you evil liar.


----------



## maomao (Aug 27, 2009)

THINK! said:


> A bit of simplified history for the very lazy:
> 
> http://www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk/html/history.html



Did you write that? It reads like it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 27, 2009)

maomao said:


> Did you write that? It reads like it.



It's not even a correct history of english spelling! It completely misses out the reforms by the Normans!

Timeline for Yogh
http://www.google.com/search?q=hist...DA&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2009)

maomao said:


> Did you write that? It reads like it.


It's appallingly written.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2009)

editor said:


> It's appallingly written.



It's the usual "interest group" nonsense, where problems are exaggerated in order to make the proposals more palatable. I googled "English spelling reform" and "simplifies English spelling", and about three quarters of the hits were to groups of Pooter-esque oddballs who talk at length about how their system would benefit the world (although these "benefits" appear to be rather slender), but don't really have any concrete proposals for implementing it.

It's like reading the history of Esperanto: Same lack of necessity, same justifications ("it'll make life easier for the less well-educated", "it'll facilitate communication" etc), same probable fate. Doomed to failure and destined to be the butt of jokes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 27, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's like reading the history of Esperanto: Same lack of necessity, same justifications ("it'll make life easier for the less well-educated", "it'll facilitate communication" etc), same probable fate. Doomed to failure and destined to be the butt of jokes.



Interestingly THINK! was proposing a sort of compulsory Esperanto for deaf people on another thread. You have to have a very odd view of what language actually _is_ to come up with stuff like that.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> Interestingly THINK! was proposing a sort of compulsory Esperanto for deaf people on another thread. You have to have a very odd view of what language actually _is_ to come up with stuff like that.



Don't misrepresent me, you wanker.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's not even a correct history of english spelling! It completely misses out the reforms by the Normans!
> 
> Timeline for Yogh
> http://www.google.com/search?q=hist...DA&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13



Reforms?
They forced their own spellings on the English, chuck'd out the three extra letters which the English had adopted from runic to suit their language, including yor Yogh, and introjuced the soft "g" and the soft "c". Reforms? it was a fucking disaster.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> Bollocks does it. It makes you look like you think you're talking to children.
> 
> Go and drown yourself cunt.



I am talking to children.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

Out of of interest, why did you think it appropriate to link to such a badly written article with a clearly dodgy grasp of history?

Hardly advanced your case, did it? Made you look desperate and undiscerning if anything


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Anything that helps young children to learn to read is a good thing - but not changing the entire english language to fit your idea of spelling "improvement"!
> 
> Anything, such as:
> Parents reading books aloud to children for half-an-hour at bedtime.
> ...



Wafflily, dreamy non-sense extremely typical of patronising Left-wing do-gooders with no experience of the real world.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

Yeah, because nobody's ever heard of people reading bedside stories to children or library vans, have they. You'd have to live in a 'liberal' cloud cuckoo land to believe that. Knobber.

Anyway THINK, leaving aside your laughable insults, just why did you think it appropriate to link to such an inaccurate and shoddy article?


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I am talking to children.



Lol. And you're forty five years old?

Here's a nice quote from the article you linked to:




			
				some spelling reform nutter said:
			
		

> Things were made slightly worse still around 1870 when the upper classes decided to start pronouncing the a in some words (ask, bath, pass) with a longer sound, as in cart. If this had been reflected in spelling, it would have enabled lower class people to learn to pronounce such words in the new way too and would have stopped being a class feature. This pronunciation has  since become the norm in standard English, but because it never changed any spellings, many
> dialects continue to use the earlier pronunciation.



Kind of sums up what it's all about.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

*Practical*

The whole history of the Alfabet is about practical solutions to problems, a tool to aid communication from the first time a Semitic tribe borrow’d the hieroglyphs from the Egyptians and adapted it to their language, this slowing moving north to end up with the Phoenicians, who incidentally could never hav call’d themselves, Phoenicians as they had no “ef” sound in their language, with their alphabet fully form’d (practical), then the Greeks borrowing the Phoenicians alphabet and  adapting and rejigging it for their own language (practical), then their version going west to their trading partners, the Etruscans, who again re-jigg’d it to suit their totally unrelated language (practical). They, themselves, ruled over a people who had set camp on the river Tigris layter call’d the  Romans, they again, adapted it to their own language, (practical), In the dark ages the English under the influence of Ckristain missionaries, adopted the Latin alphabet with three runes for their own language (practical). Layter three new letters wer added to the alphabet, J,V,W (for practical reasons), “J” was separated from the “I”, the “v” and “w” was separated from the U. Incidentally, Samuel Johnson didn’t separate the I and J and the u and w in his dictionary , all “J” words wer listed under I etc.. All thru out the alphabet’s history it has been used for a practical purpose, developed to suit the needs of people, not to be used to Worship the Past. it's a tool.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

Lol. Are you trying to make the writing in the article you linked to look good or are you having a crack at the world's longest sentence?

You come across as a bit 'special' if you know what I'm saying THICK!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Wafflily, dreamy non-sense extremely typical of patronising Left-wing do-gooders with no experience of the real world.



I'm talking from my own working class family experiences. When I was little, we had some books, but I and my sisters relied on the library van which came to our council estate to keep us supplied in novels and non-fiction. We would have had to have been millionaires to buy every book that we read! 

A public library is a marvellous resource for a community and has nothing to do with 'left wing do gooders'. Politics should not even come into the provision of libraries and library vans. Libraries and library vans are essential services to communities.

:smile:


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol. Are you trying to make the writing in the article you linked to look good or are you having a crack at the world's longest sentence?
> 
> You come across as a bit 'special' if you know what I'm saying THICK!



It's partly cribbed from wikipedia. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet

F for fail. The info that Think! wrote about the "Ecrustians" and the "dark ages" caused me to both laugh and cry


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Read this link, and then weep. You're right to feel hostile, maomao.
> 
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/advantages1.php#ns
> 
> I feel angry to see the spelling of 'would' changed to 'wood'.



That link, from an experiment from 1941 and others like The "Pyoneer" from 1908 (one hundred and one years ago) altho not elegant, do show that acsent does not affect spelling reform. The older version is actually easier to read, and they also show how fuck'd up and out of touch our spellings ar. *"Langauage planning is an art"*, not a science.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> That link, from an experiment from 1941 and others like The "Pyoneer" from 1908 (one hundred and one years ago) altho not elegant, do show that acsent does not affect spelling reform.



How can it possibly show that? And how can you claim that it shows that when you've consistently failed to understand the implications of accents when it comes to spelling (re: your mega list conflating 3 sounds which are distinct for most people)?

Idiot.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

Think!, can you explain how it could happen that despite the irregularities of the english language, I can read and write and spell perfectly well?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I'm talking from my own working class family experiences. When I was little, we had some books, but I and my sisters relied on the library van which came to our council estate to keep us supplied in novels and non-fiction. We would have had to be millionaires to buy every book we read!
> 
> A public library is a marvellous resource for a community and has nothing to do with 'left wing do gooders'. Politics should not even come into the provision of libraries and library vans. Libraries and library vans are essential services to communities.



I'm in a library now with one of the other contributors on this site. The only two customers here ar both on the computers, it is the same every day, and what children that do come here only come becoz of "Quest Seekers" (and it's junior version), where they get rewarded/prizes for reading a book, read two books, a prize, six books all together, three prizes. You wern't typical of yor estate I suspect. Most working class peeple around here don't seem to read anytyhing apart from gossip magizines and the Sun. Libraries ar great but they ar not the solution to illitracy.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

I was typical of my estate - all the kids queued up to get access to the library van - it was yellow and as nourishing to our minds as sunshine was to our bodies.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Think!, can you explain how it could happen that despite the irregularities of the english language, I can read and write and spell perfectly well?



Becoz you ar abuv average intelligence, and hav that sort of brain (aurally dominate), you ar a lovers of words, you find joy in them, you can probably speak a foriegn language too (maybe).


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

So your idea is to drag the language down to a lower common denominator, ruining the appeal to 'lovers of words', in the hope that new folks will miraculously show an interest because the spelling of words has changed marginally.

It's not a convincing approach, is it?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I was typical of my estate - all the kids queued up to get access to the library van - it was yellow and as nourishing to our minds as sunshine was to our bodies.



Well, I'v described this library. Even in the hieght of the Summer Holidays it has hardly any children in it and as of today, so far, it has had three, all went on the computers to play games.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

So your argument basically comes to some desperately shoddy articles that you link to on the internet, plus a personal observation in one library.

Genius.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Well, I'v described this library. Even in the hieght of the Summer Holidays it has hardly any children in it and as of today, so far, it has had three, all went on the computers to play games.



But you relate that to class, the implication being that working class kids are thick and need it to be made easier, rather than the last two decades' massive changes in technology and media. When I was a kid Lower Edmonton library was rammed on a Saturday morning. Are the libraries of welathier suburbs miraculously busier than the one you are in now. How will your vague and insubstantial proposal change the situation?


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

tarannau said:


> So your idea is to drag the language down to a lower common denominator, ruining the appeal to 'lovers of words', in the hope that new folks will miraculously show an interest because the spelling of words has changed marginally.
> 
> It's not a convincing approach, is it?



Nope, I was explaining why IV finds English spellings so easy and it is not dumbing down, it's making words easier to master and use, quicker and mor efficent, a beautiful set of tools, not the clumsey non-sense it is now.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's partly cribbed from wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
> 
> F for fail. The info that Think! wrote about the "Ecrustians" and the "dark ages" caused me to both laugh and cry



Nope, mostly from books I read, including, "The Alphabet",/David Sacks.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

Bollocks, if English is 'clumsy nonsense' how come many of the world's greatest literary feats are written in English? Equally English literature writing is in a far healthier state, both commercially and critically than the 'more phonemic' languages like Italian that you've focussed on.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Becoz you ar abuv average intelligence, and hav that sort of brain (aurally dominate), you ar a lovers of words, you find joy in them, you can probably speak a foriegn language too (maybe).



I disagree. I learned the usual way - spelling lists and tests, referral to dictionaries, and habit-forming repetition. I responded well to praise and kind correction. 

I had dedicated teachers who used chalk and talk and no technology. If I made a spelling mistake, I wrote out the correct spelling at the bottom of my work several times until the correct 'habit' was formed and it became second nature to use the non-phonic spelling. 

I learned no phonics at all but we began reading books which were simple (Janet and John). Thankfully, I was not in a school who used ITA.

We had no literacy hour as such and the nuances of the english language was taught (passed on)  throughout all subjects - RE, History, Geography, Music, etc. 

The more complicated workings of english grammar and english literary analysis were not taught until I reached high school, for which we had a separate english lesson dedicated to teaching english grammar and dictation/listening.

We did not learn any foreign languages until high school (latin, french in the first year, spanish in the second year, and an option to learn german in fourth year.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Nope, I was explaining why IV finds English spellings so easy and it is not dumbing down, it's making words easier to master and use, quicker and mor efficent, a beautiful set of tools, not the clumsey non-sense it is now.



Efficient, not efficent. You cannot remove the 'i' after the 'c' - you have affected the sound of the word - your spelling causes it to be read 'eff-i-sent' not 'effishent'. 

Words are not easier to master using your method. You're forgetting about all the existing writers and speakers of english. Children have not suddenly become unteachable where english is concerned. Please do not insult their intelligence (I was a child once).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Bollocks, if English is 'clumsy nonsense' how come many of the world's greatest literary feats are written in English? Equally English literature writing is in a far healthier state, both commercially and critically than the 'more phonemic' languages like Italian that you've focussed on.



We'v dicussed why English is a major langauge, and it has nothing to do with being a "superior language", and every thing to do with having an Empire, commerce and one of it colonies, America, being successful in its own right.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

That doesn't follow. English partially appeals, from an author's point of view, from the multitude of options and tonalities in the vocabulary.

By dumbing that and regulating the language, you'll remove much of the beauty and expression.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's partly cribbed from wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
> 
> F for fail. The info that Think! wrote about the "Ecrustians" and the "dark ages" caused me to both laugh and cry



I think this post just shows the Shibbolethic nature of English spelling and of the peeple using this forum.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> We'v dicussed why English is a major langauge, and it has nothing to do with being a "superior language", and every thing to do with having an Empire, commerce and one of it colonies, America, being successful in its own right.



We-vuh disk-ussd y Ing-lish iz a magior languich, and it haz nuh-thing too doo with bee-ing a soo-pee-ree-or languich, and ev-ur-ee-thing too doo with ha-ving an Em-pyre, com-erse and won of its col-on-ees, Am-air-ika, bee-ing suck-sess-full in its oen rite.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Efficient, not efficent. You cannot remove the 'i' after the 'c' - you have affected the sound of the word - your spelling causes it to be read 'eff-i-sent' not 'effishent'.
> 
> Words are not easier to master using your method. You're forgetting about all the existing writers and speakers of english. Children have not suddenly become unteachable where english is concerned. Please do not insult their intelligence (I was a child once).



That was a genuine mis-spelling which agains show the total non-sense that is English spelling. Efficient set of tools= Efficient spelling.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's partly cribbed from wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
> 
> F for fail. The info that Think! wrote about the "Ecrustians" and the "dark ages" caused me to both laugh and cry



If i had cribb'd it from that site i would hav spelt "Etrusans" correctly, instead of trying to spell it from memory. Again, it proovs my point, English spelling is fuck'd up.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I think this post just shows the Shibbolethic nature of English spelling and of the peeple using this forum.



Shibbolethic nature is to do with sound of the speaker of a word spoken, not the spelling or visual appearance of a word. 

If you then derive spelling from phonemes (sound), you will create a zillion different ways to spell the same word based on the accent or dialect of the speaker. Spelling would see more problems and not less. So-called illiteracy would see an increase, not a decrease.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> If i had cribb'd it from that site i would hav spelt "Etrusans" correctly, instead of trying to spell it from memory. Again, it proovs my point, English spelling is fuck'd up.



Again you're talking inconsistent nonsense. You've already said that reforms wouldn't affect proper nouns, unless we're going to start phoneticising people's names.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> If i had cribb'd it from that site i would hav spelt "Etrusans" correctly, instead of trying to spell it from memory. Again, it proovs my point, English spelling is fuck'd up.



Your english spelling is fucked up. You are consciously trying to alter the spellings you know to be correct, and applying an even worse method. 

The result is a mess - for you, for any reader. 

Stop swimming against the tide and just do what I did - learn the correct spelling, correct mistakes in your spelling, repeat until accepted spelling becomes second nature for you. 

Correct spelling is Estruscans. Write it out by hand at least 3 times (10 for good measure).


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> If i had cribb'd it from that site i would hav spelt "Etrusans" correctly, instead of trying to spell it from memory. Again, it proovs my point, English spelling is fuck'd up.



Interesting example of exactly why the way you've been spelling in this thread just makes you look stupid. You've replaced the 'e' in '-ed' with an apostrophe for no discernable reason while not recognising that the final sound in fucked is a 't'. Thus proving that even in your micro-brain you are interpreting English sppelling at the morphemic (treating all '-ed's the same regardless of pronunciation) rather than the phonemic level.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> Interesting example of exactly why the way you've been spelling in this thread just makes you look stupid. You've replaced the 'e' in '-ed' with an apostrophe for no discernable reason while not recognising that the final sound in fucked is a 't'. Thus proving that even in your micro-brain you are interpreting English sppelling at the morphemic (treating all '-ed's the same regardless of pronunciation) rather than the phonemic level.



As I said, he's having to consciously change the way he spells to accommodate this peculiar adopted spelling system. 

Unlearning takes alot of concentration. I would struggle with that too.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> As I said, he's having to consciously change the way he spells to accommodate this peculiar adopted spelling system.
> 
> Unlearning takes alot of concentration. I would struggle with that too.



It's a control issue. He's had (real) problems with reading and writing due to dyslexia. By telling everyone else that they're wrong and that it's the world that needs to change he can convince himself that he is actually the most intelligent person on this thread (see his IQ claims and comical 'how do dyslexics with lower IQs than me cope?' statements). Unfortunately, due to his problems with reading and writing he doesn't have the self awareness in a written medium to realise that he's come across as a complete fool. I was sincere in my offer earlier to debate the subject with him fairly if he could actually enter into debate and show some evidence of basic research on the subject but he seems to have stuck me on ignore and reverted to sticking up links C&Ps and oddly written histories of the alphabet rather than actuallly communicating with the people on the thread.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's a control issue. He's had (real) problems with reading and writing due to dyslexia. By telling everyone else that they're wrong and that it's the world that needs to change he can convince himself that he is actually the most intelligent person on this thread (see his IQ claims and comical 'how do dyslexics with lower IQs than me cope?' statements). Unfortunately, due to his problems with reading and writing he doesn't have the self awareness in a written medium to realise that he's come across as a complete fool. I was sincere in my offer earlier to debate the subject with him fairly if he could actually enter into debate and show some evidence of basic research on the subject but he seems to have stuck me on ignore and reverted to sticking up links C&Ps and oddly written histories of the alphabet rather than actuallly communicating with the people on the thread.



He is definitely intelligent (you're right) but of course that doesn't mean he's correct and he's using his intelligence the wrong way, possibly because he's been sucked in by these phonemic spelling-reform twits. 

Despite his dyslexia, he spells correctly most of the time. 

His mispellings (the non-deliberate ones) aren't a problem, and he can always use a spellchecker for important documents.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2009)

Dis fred is bollix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2009)

maomao said:


> Interestingly THINK! was proposing a sort of compulsory Esperanto for deaf people on another thread. You have to have a very odd view of what language actually _is_ to come up with stuff like that.



I remember the thread, and also remember that his ideas were de-constructed and found wanting just as his ideas have been on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Don't misrepresent me, you wanker.



Esperanto was an attempt at an international spoken and written language. Your idea for an "international sign language" would be on similar principles.
He's not misrepresenting you at all.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Your english spelling is fucked up. You are consciously trying to alter the spellings you know to be correct, and applying an even worse method.
> 
> The result is a mess - for you, for any reader.
> 
> ...



The correct spelling is, *Etruscans*. 

Write it out by hand at least 3 times (10 for good measure).


----------



## THINK! (Aug 29, 2009)

There seems to bae a lack of vision here. We could be raiding other alfabets for other letters. We could, for instance, use the Greek letter Psi, for our consonant "Y", seperating it from the vowel Y. It looks similar enuff to be regonised as a "Y", yet different enuff not to be mixed up with vowel Y. This is exactly what happen'd with our letter, "J", being seperated from the letter "I".

Five simple changed words, ax, ar, hav, giv, gon, you won't loose the etymology, they'r unaffected by acsent, and they'r very easy to use.

I want to use every word that I'v ever heard, that's not possible if you don't know how to pronouce them and I get pronunciation from the spelling, that means I always hav to refer to the pronunciation guide, spelling should giv you the pronunciation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2009)

No it shouldn't.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 29, 2009)

maomao said:


> Interesting example of exactly why the way you've been spelling in this thread just makes you look stupid. You've replaced the 'e' in '-ed' with an apostrophe for no discernable reason while not recognising that the final sound in fucked is a 't'. Thus proving that even in your micro-brain you are interpreting English sppelling at the morphemic (treating all '-ed's the same regardless of pronunciation) rather than the phonemic level.



"Grab" past tense "Grabbed", but it is pronounced "Grabd", not "Grab-ed". I'm using an old formula that Shapespear used, if the, "ed" part is sounded then then I leav it it in, as in, "waited" if it not sounded, like in "grabbed", I leav the "e" out but use an ' to show its missing, as in the film title of a few years ago, "Gridlock'd". I am aware that "fucked" and "stopped" etc. ar sounded as finishing in a "t", but decided to stick the formula.

Language planning is an art-


----------



## THINK! (Aug 29, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No it shouldn't.



Then what is it for?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2009)

Different question altogether - and one that's got nothing to do with what i said. If you think 'spelling' (ugh) exists to tell you how to pronounce things then you're already dead.


----------



## THINK! (Aug 29, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> As I said, he's having to consciously change the way he spells to accommodate this peculiar adopted spelling system.
> 
> Unlearning takes alot of concentration. I would struggle with that too.



I actually find my spellings easier to use, they flow, no stopping, thinking, "how is that word spelt?", and trying to look it up in a dictionary and oftentimes, failing. It's TO spellings  that ar difficult to know. Take pro*nun*ciation, you would think it would follow on from, "*pronounce*":i.e. Pronounce >Pro*noun*ciation


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I actually find my spellings easier to use, they flow, no stopping, thinking, "how is that word spelt?", and trying to look it up in a dictionary and oftentimes, failing. It's TO spellings  that ar difficult to know. Take pro*nun*ciation, you would think it would follow on from, "*pronounce*":i.e. Pronounce >Pro*noun*ciation



No, because then people would think the word had something to do with pronouns.


----------



## Cid (Aug 30, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I actually find my spellings easier to use, they flow, no stopping, thinking, "how is that word spelt?", and trying to look it up in a dictionary and oftentimes, failing. It's TO spellings  that ar difficult to know. Take pro*nun*ciation, you would think it would follow on from, "*pronounce*":i.e. Pronounce >Pro*noun*ciation



But that's how you say it... It's (relatively) phonetic. Way to go genius.

Reminds me of this earlier in the thread:



THINK! said:


> It the same with "sauce" and "source". Incidentally, they should be spelt "sorz".



Who the fuck pronounces it that way?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2009)

Cid said:


> But that's how you say it... It's (relatively) phonetic. Way to go genius.
> 
> Reminds me of this earlier in the thread:
> 
> ...



Someone who's fixated on sores?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 31, 2009)

:faißparm:


----------



## maomao (Aug 31, 2009)

It really would help THICK!'s case a lot if he had the _slightest fucking clue_ about how to represent English phonemically.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> :faißparm:



Fays-parm?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 1, 2009)

Fuck me, I've been on holiday for 10 days and this megalolzthread is _still going_?

Here's a thought for the phonetic-lovers: rather than change spelling, which will be all but impossible, why not change pronounciation?  If you are that bothered by having a phonetic spelling system, simply change the way you say the words to make it fit your view of the way spelling should work.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 1, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Fuck me, I've been on holiday for 10 days and this megalolzthread is _still going_?
> 
> Here's a thought for the phonetic-lovers: rather than change spelling, which will be all but impossible, why not change pronounciation?  If you are that bothered by having a phonetic spelling system, simply change the way you say the words to make it fit your view of the way spelling should work.



genius


----------



## kabbes (Sep 1, 2009)

I thought so 

Simpler and less demanding of the skeptics.  It doesn't need expensive reprinting costs, pronounciation changes over time anyway and there is no need for some dictatorial central body.  Plus it's ultimately democratic and non-region dependent.

I have solved the problem.  Thread over.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2009)

Not so Kabbes. Twedeldee and Tweedledumber  will be back with endless lists and misrepresentations


----------



## Gmart (Sep 2, 2009)

maomao said:


> It was you who refused to acknowledge that having a regional accent in a language with a spelling system that favoured one particular accent might be a disadvantage. A point you continuallly dismissed without explanation.



Again, we already have a received pronunciation in the dictionaries. If someone were to discriminate against someone due to their accent that is their free choice and I see no relevance to the general point that words should primarily be spelt as they are said by the majority.



invisibleplanet said:


> I have already acknowledged that MAGIC would not be easier to spell as MAJIC and given exactly the reasons.
> 
> You seem to think that J can replace G. This is not the case - we are speaking a mix of older Indo-European languages which and we call English and there are often two or more words we can use from at least two historic (older) European languages which have the same or similar meaning.
> 
> ...



So again you skip round the issue and insist that history is more important than the present. I acknowledge the roots of these words, of course but that is not more important than this basic principle.



invisibleplanet said:


> Stop swimming against the tide and just do what I did - learn the correct spelling, correct mistakes in your spelling, repeat until accepted spelling becomes second nature for you.



It is hard enough to learn how to spell those words which are phonetic in spelling let alone spending valuable lesson time learning each and every exception. 

I can illustrate the idea, yet again, quite simply. I was talking to a co-teacher today and she told me how she wasted a lot of time yesterday looking for a word I had used: 'cynical'. She had tried to look it up in the dictionary and she started at 's' - went to 'c' and then got stuck on 'i' which is the next sound in the word.

Imagine if I came to you and stated that we should have a rule where every 'm' would be spelt by an 'nh' combination - that is what you are supporting - sure it could work and many could learn the new rule - but that doesn't stop it being a waste of time - the letter 'm' exists already so we should use that. Perhaps we could have a silent 'j' on the front of every word with a Spanish root - how ridiculous!

The reason why this thread has gone on so long is because the opposition would love to lay it to rest but the basic principle comes up again and again and try as they like to put things above it in importance - it is, and will remain to be the key point about spelling - words wouldn't make any sense at all if they didn't relate to how they are said. And we should not be scared of changing our own language to improve it. If we did it in tandem with the other English speaking countries then even better...

This thread is funny - I leave it for a week or so, expecting at least some discussion only to come back to just general abuse and avoidance.

The opposition here knows that this kind of problem happens no doubt over and over - which is probably why they so desperately avoid the discussion, pointlessly going on about accents as if they were relevant. Accents of course exist in all languages, and the idea that they would be compromised in any way is just rubbish.

The cockney accent, along with all the others would persist even if the language went totally phonetic - an extreme position that neither THINK  nor myself are taking. In fact many accents are based on vowel sounds and all that would happen would be that those in 'accent' areas would simply learn a different sound to go with the symbol.

Still if the only way you can 'win' an argument is to deliberately avoid any discussion and to then just arbitrarily declare yourselves the winner - then I would suggest that you may be fooling yourselves, but you ain't fooling me.

And what happened to the comments to my points made about the letter in Greek at the beginning of their word for 'philosophy'? It is their letter 'f' but of course this is not commented on again...


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2009)

> Still if the only way you can 'win' an argument is to deliberately avoid any discussion and to then just arbitrarily declare yourselves the winner - then I would suggest that you may be fooling yourselves, but you ain't fooling me.



This is exactly what you do. Make a long post once every few days declaring yourself the only correct poster on the thread and not responding properly to any of the criticisms made against you. Then THICK! turns up, posts a lot of incomprehensible nonsense and the thread descends into chaos until you decide it's time for you to appear again. You're a liar and a fucking joke.



> Again, we already have a received pronunciation in the dictionaries. If someone were to discriminate against someone due to their accent that is their free choice and I see no relevance to the general point that words should primarily be spelt as they are said by the majority.



There are many words I can find you five or more 'dictionary' pronunciations for. I don't know what 'a received pronunciation' means. Recieved Pronunciation is the proper name of one dialect of English.



> pointlessly going on about accents as if they were relevant. Accents of course exist in all languages, and the idea that they would be compromised in any way is just rubbish.



It's only irrelevant to you because you speak a dialect of English very close to  RP (though not the same as shown by your inability to distinguish certain sounds).



> In fact many accents are based on vowel sounds and all that would happen would be that those in 'accent' areas would simply learn a different sound to go with the symbol.



No, because as I've demonstrated several times sounds are not evenly distributed between dialects. It's not the case that speakers with a different accent simply replace one vowel sound with another. Frequently they will distinguish two sounds where we have one or conflate two of our vowels as one. Or as is the case in Scottish have 3 vowels where we have two with the sounds unevenly distributed between the three.



> If someone were to discriminate against someone due to their accent that is their free choice



That's just a remarkably stupid thing to say. A spelling system based on one system of pronunciation obviously implies that that system is the standard and all others are non-standard.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And what happened to the comments to my points made about the letter in Greek at the beginning of their word for 'philosophy'? It is their letter 'f' but of course this is not commented on again...



Forgot this one. Because it came to English via Latin. What relevance does ancient Greek spelling possibly have to modern English?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2009)

Maybe marthews isn't aware of the differences between ancient Greek and modern Greek.

Anyway marthews, as I said, just start pronouncing your words differently.  It'll be a lot easier and it might even catch on!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Again, we already have a received pronunciation in the dictionaries. If someone were to discriminate against someone due to their accent that is their free choice and I see no relevance to the general point that words should primarily be spelt as they are said by the majority.


Who and where is this majority? Americans in America? 


> So again you skip round the issue and insist that history is more important than the present. I acknowledge the roots of these words, of course but that is not more important than this basic principle.


The history of english is important. It is important, if you are teaching english as a foreign language, to ensure your pupils know something of the history of english, and that it derives from several languages. You should also teach them the history of the letters, which would then include the history of the introduction of the letter J as the latest addition to the letter-set we call the alphabet. 

You want to change the whole world because you are basically a teacher without the stamina or nouse to guide your pupils in the correct manner. 

Teach your pupils the history of english language and they will understand better. 

Teach them how to work through an english dictionary so they don't become 'stuck' when a word is not spelled how they imagined. 


> It is hard enough to learn how to spell those words which are phonetic in spelling let alone spending valuable lesson time learning each and every exception.


The basic problem here is that you are being a lazy teacher. You consider the learning of each and every exception as a waste of valuable lesson time.

The basic principle, as you describe, it is entirely subjective on your part. 


> I can illustrate the idea, yet again, quite simply. I was talking to a co-teacher today and she told me how she wasted a lot of time yesterday looking for a word I had used: 'cynical'. She had tried to look it up in the dictionary and she started at 's' - went to 'c' and then got stuck on 'i' which is the next sound in the word.


It is indeed cynical of you that you insist that your opinion on spelling is valid. We should change the whole world because you are having trouble teaching english to Korean people. The word 'cynical' comes through the latin 'cynicus' from the greek 'kynikos'. Do you propose also to alter the way we pronounce greek to fit your idea of phonemic perfection? 


> Imagine if I came to you and stated that we should have a rule where every 'm' would be spelt by an 'nh' combination - that is what you are supporting - sure it could work and many could learn the new rule - but that doesn't stop it being a waste of time - the letter 'm' exists already so we should use that. Perhaps we could have a silent 'j' on the front of every word with a Spanish root - how ridiculous!


As you know, in english, the 'j' replaced an 'i' at the beginning of a word and was initially pronounced as a 'y'. In spanish, the j is not silent, - it is like the 'ch' sound in 'loch'. It is the 'h' in 'hola' which is silent. The 'v' has a 'b' sound as in 'vent' (=wind, pronounced 'bent'). You cannot change the way people across Spain speak in order to make your teaching of spanish as a foreign language more easy for you. 


> The reason why this thread has gone on so long is because the opposition would love to lay it to rest but the basic principle comes up again and again and try as they like to put things above it in importance - it is, and will remain to be the key point about spelling - words wouldn't make any sense at all if they didn't relate to how they are said. And we should not be scared of changing our own language to improve it. If we did it in tandem with the other English speaking countries then even better...


The reason this very silly thread has gone on for so long is because you have not listened properly to the solid reasons against your subjective suggestions to turn english into a phonemic language. You keep throwing in wild, inconsistent ideas about adopting greek letters which are frankly great in ancient greek, but very silly for modern english.


> This thread is funny - I leave it for a week or so, expecting at least some discussion only to come back to just general abuse and avoidance.


You give out enough abuse, then complain about robust criticism. You see reasoned responses as avoidance. You expect abbuse, but I will give you a home truth. I will tell you that you are not yet equipped with the stamina or faculties to help your students learn english. Your personal failings cause you to suggest changes to world around you rather than the way in which you teach the english language.  


> The opposition here knows that this kind of problem happens no doubt over and over - which is probably why they so desperately avoid the discussion, pointlessly going on about accents as if they were relevant. Accents of course exist in all languages, and the idea that they would be compromised in any way is just rubbish.


Accents exist despite written languages. The one accent you have failed to account for, is the way english is spoken by the non-English, e.g. someone with a Korean accent will pronounce the written english in a very different way to someone with a Spanish accent. Written classical Chinese was a universal literary language that was read across China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan, but pronounced differently by readers in each of these countries. However within China itself, classical written Chinese was pronounced differently, depending on regional pronunciation. 

You would do better as a teacher to remember that you are teaching a literary language and not a spoken language to you pupils. You are teaching them to both read and speak english. You are not teaching them only to speak it, for if that were the case there would be no need for any writing at all and it would not matter how a word was spelled because they would be learning aurally, and repeating your sounds. 


> Still if the only way you can 'win' an argument is to deliberately avoid any discussion and to then just arbitrarily declare yourselves the winner - then I would suggest that you may be fooling yourselves, but you ain't fooling me.


Speaking about your self, again. How tedious  


> And what happened to the comments to my points made about the letter in Greek at the beginning of their word for 'philosophy'? It is their letter 'f' but of course this is not commented on again...


It was worth nothing, so no-one commentates. Es war wert nichts, so kein kommentieren. 

e2a: I see people have now commented. However, it's still suggestion of no-worth.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 2, 2009)

maomao said:


> This is exactly what you do. Make a long post once every few days declaring yourself the only correct poster on the thread and not responding properly to any of the criticisms made against you. Then THICK! turns up, posts a lot of incomprehensible nonsense and the thread descends into chaos until you decide it's time for you to appear again. You're a liar and a fucking joke.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's just a remarkably stupid thing to say. A spelling system based on one system of pronunciation obviously implies that that system is the standard and all others are non-standard.


The bottom line is that Gmarthews is a lazy teacher, who is teaching a literary language to non-english people. Instead of changing the way in which he teaches this literary language, he is trying to change the entire language.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 2, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Fuck me, I've been on holiday for 10 days and this megalolzthread is _still going_?
> 
> Here's a thought for the phonetic-lovers: rather than change spelling, which will be all but impossible, why not change *pronounciation*?  If you are that bothered by having a phonetic spelling system, simply change the way you say the words to make it fit your view of the way spelling should work.




Did you mean: pronunciation ?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Who and where is this majority? Americans in America?


It might even be Indians in India, actually.  Prepare to start pronouncing your "w"s as "v"s.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Not so Kabbes. Twedledee and Tweedledumber  will be back with endless lists and misrepresentations



Prescience is a curse


----------



## THINK! (Sep 2, 2009)

Pro*nun*ciation



ViolentPanda said:


> No, because then people would think the word had something to do with pronouns.



rather than nuns ?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 2, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Pro*nun*ciation
> 
> 
> 
> rather than nuns ?



As in 'enunciation' (the act of speaking), of which pronunciation is a component.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2009)

Lol, Gmarthews has made his statement for the week and will return 4 days later to claim none of his points have been answered. Meanwhile the idiot THICK! runs amok and the people are distracted by the fun and games.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 2, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's a control issue. ... By telling everyone else that they're wrong and that it's the world that needs to change he can convince himself that he is actually the most intelligent person on this thread ... I was sincere in my offer earlier to debate the subject with him fairly if he could actually enter into debate and show some evidence of basic research on the subject but he seems to have stuck me on ignore and reverted to sticking up links C&Ps and oddly written histories of the alphabet rather than actuallly communicating with the people on the thread.



that's a quite a bit of projection there , maomao. It's you that seems to need to convince himself and other people that he is the most intelligent on this thread, i hav no problem with intelligent people, I enjoy their company, It was one of the things I enjoy'd about University. You, on the other hand, hav only one claim to fame and desperately feel the need to try maintain the position you achiev'd back in primary school You wer unpopular at school and loath'd in fact, but you despaerately clung to the fact, " but I'm mor intelligent than them!? I'm better than them!!". You claim to hav debated this subject, but the truth you only wanted to squash it. You feel a loss of status and fear a greater one if spelling refrom was actually implemented You ar, as you say, a Wanker, a nerd, a person with a personaility problem, a thirty-five year old Virgin. Enjoy yor life, Ugly-boy, with your cod-psychiatry.  *X*


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2009)

Except none (or very little  ) of that is true. I didn't make any comments on your personality or life outside this debate, only connected your dyslexia to your attitude to language (you showed a similar misunderstanding of what language actually is on your esperanto for deaf people thread).

I have however frequently commented that you're a fucking idiot, that's not psychology it's just stating the fucking obvious quite frankly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Pro*nun*ciation
> 
> 
> 
> rather than nuns ?



It's all about context. A fact you can't seem to assimilate.


----------



## Cid (Sep 2, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Again, we already have a received pronunciation in the dictionaries. If someone were to discriminate against someone due to their accent that is their free choice and I see no relevance to the general point that words should primarily be spelt as they are said by the majority.



Wiki says "About two percent of Britons speak with the RP accent in its purest form", probably not totally accurate, but let's say it's about right. 2% of 60,000,000 is 1.2 million. So:

UK population: 60m
US population: 304m
Canada: 33m
AUS population: 21m
NZ population: 4m
Ireland: 4m

So 426m who definitely speak it as a primary language.

That makes RP a dialect spoken by 0.27 percent of English speakers. I've probably missed out a few countries with English as the primary language, not to mention the countries where it is an official language... If those were included (another 1,860,000,000 speakers to round down) we would be talking 2,285 million people, of which 1.2m represent 0.05%.

Not a majority. Not by any definition.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2009)

Cid said:


> That makes RP a dialect spoken by 0.27 percent of English speakers. I've probably missed out a few countries with English as the primary language, not to mention the countries where it is an official language... If those were included (another 1,860,000,000 speakers to round down) we would be talking 2,285 million people, of which 1.2m represent 0.05%.
> 
> Not a majority. Not by any definition.




They're actually arguing in favour of estuary English as both of them are unable to distinguish _paw/pore/poor_. So probably as many as 3 or 4% of English speakers.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 3, 2009)

Once again the opposition refuses or fails to get the point - I am only interested in changing the spelling on those words which are consistent with all speakers of English - so, for example, you will never find a speaker of English who doesn't pronounce 'magic' with a hard 'g' - they always pronounce it with a 'j' sound - which is why it should be spelt 'majic' and which is why the accent issue which the opposition tries so hard to continue is such a red herring.

I have tried hard to produce examples which are consistent with all speakers of English all thru this thread.

The reason why this thread has continued so long is because the opposition knows in their heart of hearts that words are generally spelt as they sound - even tho they don't seem to be honest enough to state this and to address this issue...


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The reason why this thread has continued so long is because the opposition knows in their heart of hearts that words are generally spelt as they sound - even tho they don't seem to be honest enough to state this and to address this issue...


Don't project your fantasies on to others please.


----------



## newme (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The reason why this thread has continued so long is because the opposition knows in their heart of hearts that words are generally spelt as they sound - even tho they don't seem to be honest enough to state this and to address this issue...



No its gone on so long because people, especially on this board, have a habit of vehemently opposing bullshit ideas. If you had given in after one page it would have petered out long ago. Just see any conspiracy theory thread for an example, its continuance is fuelled by the theorist, not the opposition, as when theres no one to argue with it dies out.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is hard enough to learn how to spell those words which are phonetic in spelling let alone spending valuable lesson time learning each and every exception. in...



You'd have a hell of a time with Mandarin writing, where nothing is phonetic, and it's just all those little picture representations.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 3, 2009)

editor said:


> Don't project your fantasies on to others please.



Are you suggesting that words in English are not spelt as they sound?

This is why I love this thread - the urge to abuse leads the opposition to say the most stupid things imaginable!!

The vast majority of English is spelt as it sounds - the same as most other languages - this is why the opposition reduces itself to abuse so often - they know this is true...

For example, the sentence above has 32 words and 23 of them definitely start with the letter of their sound, not including 'th', which would put it up to 28...

A classic example of someone's agenda leading them to the absurd because they refuse to consider the other side...

And no comment on 'cynical' as expected except:



maomao said:


> Forgot this one. Because it came to English via Latin. What relevance does ancient Greek spelling possibly have to modern English?



Which is ironic considering that your whole position is putting such spurious history as more important than the general rule of spelling words as they sound. Only moments ago you were arguing that it was fine to keep the 'ph' in 'philosophy' coz it refers to its historical origins in Greek and tho even the Greeks spell the word with an 'f' - we should spell it with a 'ph' to pay tribute to the Greek root.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2009)




----------



## Gmart (Sep 3, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You'd have a hell of a time with Mandarin writing, where nothing is phonetic, and it's just all those little picture representations.



There is nothing to stop them trying, after all that is exactly what the Koreans did 300 years ago, still as this thread is testament to - the resistance to change is greater now than then - still it could be done and the vast amount of time they dedicate to learning each and every character would be saved at school.

The opposition here would argue that this would betray the history of the language - but I would argue that it would be a continuance of the story of their language and would go down in history as a visionary step...


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Which is ironic considering that your whole position is putting such spurious history as more important than the general rule of spelling words as they sound. Only moments ago you were arguing that it was fine to keep the 'ph' in 'philosophy' coz it refers to its historical origins in Greek and tho even the Greeks spell the word with an 'f' - we should spell it with a 'ph' to pay tribute to the Greek root.



Stop lying and misrepresenting arguments we've had 10 times already please you dishonest prick.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


>



That _is_ a phonetic syatem of writing Johnny.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> There is nothing to stop them trying, after all that is exactly what the Koreans did 300 years ago, still as this thread is testament to - the resistance to change is greater now than then - still it could be done and the vast amount of time they dedicate to learning each and every character would be saved at school.



They've tried several times. Chinese has too many homophones, it really doesn't work.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 3, 2009)

maomao said:


> They've tried several times. Chinese has too many homophones, it really doesn't work.



Are they unable to communicate verbally? I suspect that they are - and that context enables them to understand homophones. If so, then there is the possibility of change even if like English it is unlikely.

And are you OK? That was the first post without the random insults you seem so keen on - feeling ill??


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2009)

You disingenuous fuck, marthews.  You've already stated that you DO want to change vowel sounds too and that it is just a matter of timing.  Stop pretending that it is all about nothing more than the letter "j".


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Are they unable to communicate verbally? I suspect that they are - and that context enables them to understand homophones. If so, then there is the possibility of change even if like English it is unlikely.



Formal Chinese speech is very difficult to understand without written accompaniment. Formal writing would become impossible.

You prick.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 3, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Are they unable to communicate verbally? I suspect that they are - and that context enables them to understand homophones. If so, then there is the possibility of change even if like English it is unlikely.
> 
> And are you OK? That was the first post without the random insults you seem so keen on - feeling ill??





Romanising Mandarin would be impossible.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Romanising Mandarin would be impossible.



They did try actually, after the revolution. But it was ridiculous. They only have 400 possible syllables.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

Once again, the magic>majic idea comes from non-native speaker of english who is Lithuanian, lived in Germany and was educated in both Germany and Lithuania. She teaches english as a foreign language, and wants to change spelling to match her pronunciation of english. Her suggestions are inconsistent, e.g. Change>chainge, magic>majic, giraffe>jiraffe. She wants changes in the spelling of english based on phonemic proununciation. AFAIK, both Think! and Gmarthews have used her work, Gmarthews without sourcing her as the origin. 
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...pelling+of+magic+to+majic&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

Cid said:


> But that's how you say it... It's (relatively) phonetic. Way to go genius.
> 
> Reminds me of this earlier in the thread:
> 
> ...



Did you mean: pronunces ?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Your english spelling is fucked up. You are consciously trying to alter the spellings you know to be correct, and applying an even worse method.
> 
> The result is a mess - for you, for any reader.
> 
> ...



The correct spelling is, *Etruscans*. 

Write it out by hand at least 3 times (10 for good measure).


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Once again, the magic>majic idea comes from non-native speaker of english who is Lithuanian, lived in Germany and was educated in both Germany and Lithuania. She teaches english as a foreign language, and wants to change spelling to match her pronunciation of english. Her suggestions are inconsistent, e.g. Change>chainge, magic>majic, giraffe>jiraffe. She wants changes in the spelling of english based on phonemic proununciation. AFAIK, both Think! and Gmarthews have used her work, Gmarthews without sourcing her as the origin.
> http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...pelling+of+magic+to+majic&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk



You ar an (*&^%, IV. Magic with a "*j*" is so obvious that any normal person with the normal amount of ima*j*ination would see that one. That's your (plural) problem, *repress'd peeple with no imajination *or vision who fear any chan*j*e, this tiny, little subject actually scares you.

"*Change*" has two things wrong with it = the soft "g" and the lack of a clear long "a".. Which one do you solv first? Change>Chanje or >Chainge


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

That list by Bell is foul. 

She wants to change spelling - literally erase the history of our language and remove the ability to discern etymology. 

Bell's respellings are crazy - she wants to change BOTH to BOATH, and MOST to MOAST, and ONCE to WUNCE, and ONLY to ONELY. 

She wants COLOUR to be CULLER, but we already have a word CULLER and TWO to become TOO, but we already have 'too' (also, aswell) too and NONE to become NUN (and where will NUNS be if that happens?). 

She wants WORM to become WERM and WORK to become WERK (no good if you're not Liverpudlian), and OVEN to become UVN. 

She wants WOMAN to become WOOMAN and MOUSTACHE to become MUSTASH, COURT to become CORT and CAUGHT to become CAUT (cowt). 

She hears english as someone used to Russian, Lithuanian and German, rather than take any notice of english.

The worst, for me, is wanting BREAK to become BRAKE (so we'd have two brakes) and BREAKFAST to become BREKFAST, which completely loses the potential to discern the meaning of the word 'breakfast' as in breaking a fast. 

As you can see, it's a completely wrongheaded way to approach spelling reform, which would create more confusion than the confusion it pretends to be remedying.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The correct spelling is, *Etruscans*.
> 
> Write it out by hand at least 3 times (10 for good measure).



You passed that test. Well done.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> That list by Bell is foul.
> 
> She wants to change spelling - literally erase the history of our language and remove the ability to discern etymology.
> 
> ...



Masha Bell is not a young lady, as I remember it, and she came to England when she was about 14. That's about 40-50 years of English and she probably came to the English language with fresh eyes and saw ther obvious flaws immediately. I know a Finnish girl who has the same opinion of English spelling, finds them totally baffling and confusing and a little bit annoying.

Langauage planning is an art. I wouldn't go too far in changing the spellings, they hav to resemble the old spellings as far as i'm concern, it just about putting thee evolution back into spelling.

*Breakfast*, I had to be told that breakfast meant (to "break a fast"), rather being just the werd for the morning meal,, not knowing as a kid what, "fast" (in that sense) meant.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

I leav you with this, IV:


fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2009)

old research is old.

Fascinating though it was, that looks fuck ugly and dismisses etymology. Plus I bet you an ESL person wouldn't have a rats chance in hell of reading it


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I leav you with this, IV:
> 
> 
> fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
> ...



If the human mind does not read every letter itself, but the word as a whole, then how will changing entire systems of spelling, rather than the order of letters between the beginning/end, make english easier to read?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> old research is old.
> 
> Fascinating though it was, that looks fuck ugly and dismisses etymology. Plus I bet you an ESL person wouldn't have a rats chance in hell of reading it



It's true - an ESL person does struggle with that sentence of jumbled letters.

IP (invisible - planet, _not_ in visibleplanet)


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> If the human mind does not read every letter itself, but the word as a whole, then how will changing entire systems of spelling, rather than the order of letters between the beginning/end, make english easier to read?



But doesn't it rather fuck up your idea of sacred spellings that must never be chaynj'd?
You managed to read it.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> If the human mind does not read every letter itself, but the word as a whole, then how will changing entire systems of spelling, rather than the order of letters between the beginning/end, make english easier to read?


It's also true, however, that the quoted paragraph has been REALLY carefully written to make it still readable.  I remember when it first came out (oooh, years and years and years ago), I had a discussion about it in which I took standard sentences and jumbled the letters myself in the manner described -- and nobody could understand one bloody word of it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It's also true, however, that the quoted paragraph has been REALLY carefully written to make it still readable.  I remember when it first came out (oooh, years and years and years ago), I had a discussion about it in which I took standard sentences and jumbled the letters myself in the manner described -- and nobody could understand one bloody word of it.



Reyv ogod pinto


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Reyv ogod pinto


To be fair, it does say that you have to keep the same first and last letters.

Bynnod taht pniot hwveeor, three is almpe sopce to cganhe and malgne stcnnees bonyed roontigicen


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Reyv ogod pinto



Hav you really read it? First and last letters remain the same, the internal ones jumbled up.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

Surely, it shows how quickly human beings can adapt. And I'm curious about the 45 out of a hundred that can't read it. It means that peeple hav mor than one approach to reading, IV.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Hav you really read it? First and last letters remain the same, the internal ones jumbled up.



If spelling is not important, then why do you want to change it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> If spelling is not important, then why do you want to change it.



Because he wants to control it.


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2009)

Wow.  I come back from 2 weeks away and this is still going huh?



THINK! said:


> *Breakfast*, I had to be told that breakfast meant (to "break a fast"), rather being just the werd for the morning meal,, not knowing as a kid what, "fast" (in that sense) meant.



Maybe this explains why you dismiss the value of a discernable etymology - an embarassing level of ignorance.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

*UN literacy figures*: Ar you seriously claiming that Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the World?, that's just Communist propaganda. These figures ar their various governments own figures, and it is unlikely that the same test was done in each country. Also of the top fifteen countries in that list, 14 wer Communist. It's just propaganda. Stalin claim'd to hav totally  eradicated illiteracy in his country, when Allied soldiers came into contact with Russian soldiers in the WWII, they found wide-spread illiteracy amongst the russian soldiers and only about 1/3 could read and write.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 3, 2009)

Corax said:


> Wow.  I come back from 2 weeks away and this is still going huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this explains why you dismiss the value of a discernable etymology - an embarassing level of ignorance.



For a child of seven?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2009)

PMSL

The UN are commies now/


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> For a child of seven?



Yes.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
> 
> *UN literacy figures*: Ar you seriously claiming that Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the World?, that's just Communist propaganda. These figures ar their various governments own figures, and it is unlikely that the same test was done in each country. Also of the top fifteen countries in that list, 14 wer Communist. It's just propaganda. Stalin claim'd to hav totally  eradicated illiteracy in his country. When Allied soldiers came into contact with Russian soldiers in the WWII, they found wide spread illiteracy and only about 1/3 could read and write.



Well it was a better measure than the quote you gave which compared how long it takes someone to learn to use an alphabet in one language with how long it took a child to achieve high level literacy in another.

I agree it's unlikely the same test was used as they are measures of literacy in _different fucking languages you idiot._

Also, I'm sure the Poles will be happy to hear that they live in a communist country. Lol, you really are a prick.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 3, 2009)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> You ar an (*&^%, IV. Magic with a "*j*" is so obvious that any normal person with the normal amount of ima*j*ination would see that one. That's your (plural) problem, *repress'd peeple with no imajination *or vision who fear any chan*j*e, this tiny, little subject actually scares you.
> 
> "*Change*" has two things wrong with it = the soft "g" and the lack of a clear long "a".. Which one do you solv first? Change>Chanje or >Chainge



Poor THINK! So blithely stupid that he accuses anyone who doesn't agree with him of being "repressed", or of lacking imagination.

Face it, you and Marthews, with your inability to accept that you might not be right, are the ones who are repressed and lack imagination.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

THINK! said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
> 
> *UN literacy figures*: Ar you seriously claiming that Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the World?, that's just Communist propaganda.



You're a complete idiot.
Even the CIA fact-book acknowledges that Cuba has just about the highest literacy rate in the world, but a daft bugger like you dismisses a fact you don't like as "Communist propaganda".

They have such a high literacy rate because after the revolution they decided to concentrate on literacy as a building block to people being able to realise their full potential (for the good of the revolution, obviously. They weren't altruists). That's why Cuba is supplying many Latin American countries with doctors, nurses and teachers: Because their decisions on basic education around 50 years ago have paid off, and now many of the Latin American countries they're assisting are instituting similar programmes themselves.


You may have an IQ of 137, but you appear to *know* sweet fuck-all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> PMSL
> 
> The UN are commies now/



THINK! = Dick Cheney?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well it was a better measure than the quote you gave which compared how long it takes someone to learn to use an alphabet in one language with how long it took a child to achieve high level literacy in another.
> 
> I agree it's unlikely the same test was used as they are measures of literacy in _different fucking languages you idiot._
> 
> Also, I'm sure the Poles will be happy to hear that they live in a communist country. Lol, you really are a prick.



Anyone who doesn't tow the THINK! line = dangerous Communist subversive propagandist.

You Red scum. 

And me too!


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You may have an IQ of 137, but you appear to *know* sweet fuck-all.



I think there was a decimal point missing from that tbh.


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Face it, you and Marthews, with your inability to accept that you might not be right, are the ones who are repressed and lack imagination.



Quite.  I honestly find such a narrow, un-nuanced view of language to be a little depressing.  Something that grants me such joy is clearly a closed book to some others.  I never realiised that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2009)

maomao said:


> That _is_ a phonetic syatem of writing Johnny.



Darn!


----------



## Gmart (Sep 4, 2009)

maomao said:


> Stop lying and misrepresenting arguments we've had 10 times already please you dishonest prick.



It is not misrepresenting your position, you are just contradicting yourself when you state history as both important and not important.

It is YOU who are refusing to engage, not I. I have stated the case well but you refuse to address the issues you consider inconvenient - for example the fact that the word for 'philosophy' starts with an 'f' in Greek, which is its root. The very act of having it start with 'ph' in English, instead of an 'f' may be valued by the academic community, but the average man on the street would prefer that it was spelt as it sounds the same as most other words...



maomao said:


> Formal Chinese speech is very difficult to understand without written accompaniment. Formal writing would become impossible.
> 
> You prick.



I doubt the Chinese have to take a pad with them everywhere...

Thank goodness you started the insults again, I was starting to get the impression you were starting to think!!



invisibleplanet said:


> Once again, the magic>majic idea comes from non-native speaker of english who is Lithuanian, lived in Germany and was educated in both Germany and Lithuania. She teaches english as a foreign language, and wants to change spelling to match her pronunciation of english. Her suggestions are inconsistent, e.g. Change>chainge, magic>majic, giraffe>jiraffe. She wants changes in the spelling of english based on phonemic proununciation. AFAIK, both Think! and Gmarthews have used her work, Gmarthews without sourcing her as the origin.
> http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...pelling+of+magic+to+majic&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk



It is an obvious conclusion, and I don't need to quote anyone - I have come to these conclusions myself.

And I note that still you refuse to acknowledge that 'majic' would be easier to spell - but if I were you, I would be avoiding it too...



ViolentPanda said:


> Face it, you and Marthews, with your inability to accept that you might not be right, are the ones who are repressed and lack imagination.



Face it VP it is YOU who is refusing point blank to consider my points rationally. I would have more respect for you if you acknowledged that indeed words are generally spelt as they sound, and that English is particularly difficult in this way in comparison with many other languages and that this would be corrected ideally even if it is unlikely to happen soon.

Unlike you I have considered the other point of view and tho I can see the merit of maintaining a history in words thru their spelling - I consider it as LESS important than the basic principle of spelling words as they sound. Ironically we could have both. If we changed the 'ph' at the front of 'philosophy' to an 'f', then its history would still come from the Greek...


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is not misrepresenting your position, you are just contradicting yourself when you state history as both important and not important.



Well, I've never said either so it's two misrepresentations now. 



> I doubt the Chinese have to take a pad with them everywhere...



No, though you'll often find them sketching a character with finger on hand if the listener isn't sure. All television is subtitled and academic talks generally require some sort of written accompaniment. There's a considerable gap between the spoken and literary languages, something which is true but to a far lesser extent in English. But of course you don't care because you want to reduce the language to what suits a level 2 English class best. I bet you're a shit teacher.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 4, 2009)

maomao said:


> I bet you're a shit teacher.



Well they seem to think I am wonderful, as do the kids tho I work them quite hard.

Whenever you insult me I just know that if you were honest you would accept what I am saying.

I have never been to China and so i cannot comment. I am happy to accept your view of this but as ever your post doesn't actually comment on the issue at hand. So what if the Chinese language has so many homophones that they often need to write down a character to illustrate a point?

I am more interested in the 'philosophy' point I have made countless times now, and which you are refusing to address. It is this refusal which shows me how wary you are to take up the subject - scared to recognise that you are supporting the elite academics at the cost of the illiterate...


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I am more interested in the 'philosophy' point I have made countless times now, and which you are refusing to address. It is this refusal which shows me how wary you are to take up the subject - scared to recognise that you are supporting the elite academics at the cost of the illiterate...



Well I actually argued the point in detail, including that word specifically, about two weeks ago, but seeing as you paid little attention to what I said, blatantly didn't understand the parts you did bother replying to and then misrepresented what I had said I really can't be bothered doing it again. I'd much rather just call you a deluded lying idiot because that's what you are.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

maomao said:


> It is consistent, y changes to an 'i' when a suffix is added unless the y is stressed. Always.



You call that consistent?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

editor said:


> I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.



That's becoz you'r an idiot.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

maomao said:


> *Father and bath* both contain the same long 'a' sound without an 'r' after the vowel though. Should a speaker of Northern English be expected to remember which 'a's are lengthened by speakers of the UK prestige dialect and which are not. What about 'plastic'? Most southerners use an 'a' as in 'cat' but this is regularly pronounced by the upper classes and older BBC presenters with an 'ar' as in 'car'. Which spelling should I be using?



Those two words, (Father and bath) wern't on my list. What's wrong with the way "plastic" is spelt now? It's perfectly accepatable as it is now, dick-head.


----------



## Cid (Sep 4, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And I note that still you refuse to acknowledge that 'majic' would be easier to spell - but if I were you, I would be avoiding it too...



You have already been told that the soft 'g' is present in most romance languages, whereas 'j' in any language I can think of does not have the same sound as the English 'j'.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

maomao said:


> Except none (or very little  ) of that is true. ...



Ar seriously claiming you ar not a virgin? You do know that molesting little boys doesn't count?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

Cid said:


> You have already been told that the soft 'g' is present in most romance languages, whereas 'j' in any language I can think of does not have the same sound as the English 'j'.



So fucking what? Each country, language, adapted the alfabet, which they didn't invent, to their own language, "*c*" equals a "*j*" in Turkish for example.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> You passed that test. Well done.



Bollocks, Planet, you just spelt it wrong.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> If spelling is not important, then why do you want to change it.



If spelling is not important, then *why not* change it?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a complete idiot.
> Even the CIA fact-book acknowledges that Cuba has just about the highest literacy rate in the world, but a daft bugger like you dismisses a fact you don't like as "Communist propaganda".
> 
> They have such a high literacy rate because after the revolution they decided to concentrate on literacy as a building block to people being able to realise their full potential (for the good of the revolution, obviously. They weren't altruists). That's why Cuba is supplying many Latin American countries with doctors, nurses and teachers: Because their decisions on basic education around 50 years ago have paid off, and now many of the Latin American countries they're assisting are instituting similar programmes themselves.
> ...



The reason Cuba has so many Doctors, Nurses teachers becoz there nothing else you can be, all the resouces wer put into training for those sort of jobs and ended up with an excess of them, too many doctors, not enough jobs. Cuba has little else to offer except some Black Boxers and cigars, everything is gear towards what the Government wants and there is no real Private sector to escape to. If you put all yor resourses into one area you will get results, this has nothing to do with illiteracy, these sort of peeple would not hav had a problem commanding their langauge no matter where they had been born and would hav been destined to do this sort of jobs what ever country they liv'd in. Many of our doctors come from countries they hav much lower literacy rates than our, countiries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example, doctor's numbers and illiteracy and Doctors working abroad don't seem to be connected, Toss Pot.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 4, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> PMSL
> 
> The UN are commies now/



Nope, dopey, just those Governments. *X*


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Those two words, (Father and bath) wern't on my list. What's wrong with the way "plastic" is spelt now? It's perfectly accepatable as it is now, dick-head.



All your answer proves is that you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 4, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The reason Cuba has so many Doctors, Nurses teachers becoz there nothing else you can be, all the resouces wer put into training for those sort of jobs and ended up with an excess of them, too many doctors, not enough jobs. Cuba has little else to offer except some Black Boxers and cigars, everything is gear towards what the Government wants and there is no real Private sector to escape to. If you put all yor resourses into one area you will get results, this has nothing to do with illiteracy, these sort of peeple would not hav had a problem commanding their langauge no matter where they had been born and would hav been destined to do this sort of jobs what ever country they liv'd in. Many of our doctors come from countries they hav much lower literacy rates than our, countiries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example, doctor's numbers and illiteracy and Doctors working abroad don't seem to be connected, Toss Pot.



And if the US stopped the embargoes et al it could become a mini China and build a successful story upon similar capitalism guided by commies lines...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 4, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> That list by Bell is foul.
> 
> She wants to change spelling - literally erase the history of our language and remove the ability to discern etymology.
> 
> ...



*Vomits*
Would make English look more German..


----------



## Corax (Sep 4, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Those two words, (Father and bath) wern't on my list. What's wrong with the way "plastic" is spelt now? It's perfectly accepatable as it is now, dick-head.



'Posh' folks pronounce it plar-stick, dick-head.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 4, 2009)

Plahstik, Fahther, bahth, pahth.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 5, 2009)

Cid said:


> You have already been told that the soft 'g' is present in most romance languages, whereas 'j' in any language I can think of does not have the same sound as the English 'j'.





kabbes said:


> You disingenuous fuck, marthews.  You've already stated that you DO want to change vowel sounds too and that it is just a matter of timing.  Stop pretending that it is all about nothing more than the letter "j".




I have stated many times that ideally I would like to see the vowel sounds addressed, but that this should not happen until the consonant sounds have been dealt with - and seeing as we all agree that it will be a cold day in hell when that happens, my preference is really irrelevant - while the opposition focussing on vowel sounds shows 1) how they can't disprove the case with consonant sounds only and 2) can't resist the strawman attack that vowel sounds represent. 

Also it shows that they misunderstand the irrelevance of accent issues when I am stating that I am primarily interested in examples which are consistent for ALL speakers of English, such as the 'j' sound in 'tragic'...

It may well be the case that the 'g' is pronounced as a 'j' in other languages, but this just shows that ALL languages need to grasp this nettle and slowly allow their languages to evolve towards a more phonetic form.

And the reason why we should complicate our language by having a 'ph' for each 'f' sound which comes from Greek - despite the original greek having their letter for an 'f' has NOT been addressed.

I appreciate that the opposition consider the maintenance of this history in the words as more important than keeping spelling phonetic tho - I just have different priorities - if the opposition would accept my right to having different priorities we could agree to disagree - but I suspect that they are too young/stupid to do this and are stuck in a black/white world where everything is either right or wrong with no room for different opinions etc...

I think they are perfectly within their rights to support the dedication of resources to the maintenance of history in words. No doubt it hinders the effectiveness of education but if that is their priority, then that is their right - I just disagree!!

I personally think that the spelling can move towards a more phonetic spelling because it is more important to have a simple spelling system rather than maintaining the multitude of little rules that complicate literacy classes.

It is just a waste of time to state that sometimes a 'j' is a 'j' and sometimes it is a 'g' - and that the student needs to learn each and every word separately to get it right. The same goes for when an 'f' sound is spelt as an 'f' or a 'ph' - it is a waste of educational time - an issue which the opposition is avoiding no matter how many times I state it.

Once again I would like to state that the consonant sounds which are consistent with all English speakers should be changed first - there are precisely ZERO English speakers who pronounce 'magic' with a hard 'g' - and the same goes for the 'z' sound at the end of 'goes' - thus there is no need to keep these spellings and we would be making English easier to learn by getting rid of them - another point which the opposition is avoiding comment on. We would also be strengthening English as an international language too, aswell as probably helping a high percentage of dyslexics too...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

<pretend pork lover mode>Njom, njom. Jerez y Jamon! </pretend pork lover mode>


----------



## Gmart (Sep 5, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> <pretend pork lover mode>Njom, njom. Jerez y Jamon! </pretend pork lover mode>



I'll take this as a 'No Comment'...

Still at least you have stopped *pretending *to constructively comment on this thread, and I applaud the step into the surreal - much more entertaining...


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

Corax said:


> 'Posh' folks pronounce it plar-stick, dick-head.



So? They pronounce "Saint John" as _*sin jin *_and Magdalen College as _*Maldling Colege*_, it just shibbolethic non-sense.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

you'r a *"nob", **Core-axe*


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

maomao said:


> All your answer proves is that you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said.



I understood your question,. It was a just a weak attempt to derail this thred.


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I understood your question,. It was a just a weak attempt to derail this thred.



It wasn't a question, and it was a direct response to what you had said earlier. You're the one who constantly derails. Answering posts from earlier at random interspersed with massively enlarged nonsensical posts and C&Ps from crazy people. You're incapable of sensible communication.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I'll take this as a 'No Comment'...
> 
> Still at least you have stopped *pretending *to constructively comment on this thread, and I applaud the step into the surreal - much more entertaining...


Illiterate loiterer! 

Thou art a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.

If thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for the wise know well enough what monsters you make of them.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> So? They pronounce ... Magdalen College as _*Maldling Colege*_



Maudlin (mawdlin), actually.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 5, 2009)

maomao said:


> It wasn't a question, and it was a direct response to what you had said earlier. You're the one who constantly derails. Answering posts from earlier at random interspersed with massively enlarged nonsensical posts and C&Ps from crazy people. You're incapable of sensible communication.



Still ignoring all the points I have made I notis Maomao... 

So, while you are deluding yourself that you are a constructive addition to this thread, perhaps you could tell me why we should not use the letter 'f' for a word from the greek, when the greeks themselves spell it with an 'f'...

And IP - your ability to avoid actual engagement is impressive, but not admirable...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

... an infinite and endless liar ...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

... who art by no means valiant;
For thou dost fear the soft ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And IP - your ability to avoid actual engagement is impressive, but not admirable...



I imagine he's had enough of your endless lying and misrepresentation. I don't get what your game is tbf. Everybody following the thread can see your arrant lying. It's quite pathetic tbf.


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So, while you are deluding yourself that you are a constructive addition to this thread, perhaps you could tell me why we should not use the letter 'f' for a word from the greek, when the greeks themselves spell it with an 'f'...



Have already answered the point generally and deconstructed that word specifically several times thank you. If you can't be bothered to keep track of the thread then I suggest you either fuck off or follow my earlier suggestion of what to do with a carving knife.


----------



## Corax (Sep 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> So? They pronounce "Saint John" as _*sin jin *_and Magdalen College as _*Maldling Colege*_, it just shibbolethic non-sense.



So once again, your 'phonetic' spelling system is only phonetic for your selected group.

You fucking segregationalist fash scum shitwad.

Btw - 'nob, 'knob' 'n0b' or whatever is a slang insult.  AFAIC the spelling of slang words is pretty irrelevant.  You fukwistle.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Maudlin (mawdlin), actually.



Trust you to know that.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

Corax said:


> So once again, your 'phonetic' spelling system is only phoetic for your selected group.
> 
> You fucking segregationalist fash scum shitwad.
> 
> Btw - 'nob, 'knob' 'n0b' or whatever is a slang insult.  AFAIC the spelling of slang words is pretty irrelevant.  You fukwistle.



*Coreaxe*, if you don't know that I don't want to reflect acsent, but just want some mor consistent spelling system (all the countries in the World contain acsents, but most hav a better spelling system) after 56 'payjiz' ov "Debate", then we hav three choices:

You havn't read the thred.
You don't understand want we hav written about.
You're a idiot.

you'r a *"nob", **Core-axe*


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

Core-?
Mor?
=consistent spelling system?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Core-?
> Mor?
> =consistent spelling system?



IV, i taking the piss out of his, "corax", he/she spells it that way, a lojical spelling, yet, is opposed to any kind of spelling reform, even tho he is using. You should hav realized that.


----------



## Corax (Sep 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *Coreaxe*, if you don't know that I don't want to reflect acsent, but just want some mor consistent spelling system (all the countries in the World contain acsents, but most hav a better spelling system) after 56 'payjiz' ov "Debate", then we hav three choices:
> 
> You havn't read the thred.
> You don't understand want we hav written about.
> ...



No kitten, _you_ haven't understood.  Your 'consistency' is based upon pronunciation.  If you still haven't grasped that after... blah blah blah


----------



## THINK! (Sep 5, 2009)

Corax said:


> No kitten, _you_ haven't understood.  Your 'consistency' is based upon pronunciation.  If you still haven't grasped that after... blah blah blah



No Wanker, just a consistent set of alfabetical rules. Simple.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 5, 2009)

THINK! said:


> No Wanker, just a consistent set of alfabetical rules. Simple.



"Rules" that change as and when you feel like it, that aren't actually consistent, that you can't explain as consistent rules that others can follow and which aren't actually rules at all?


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Core-?
> Mor?
> =consistent spelling system?



Consistent spelling system? Even if you take his posts and respell them correctly they're barely fucking English. The man's a fool and a joke.


----------



## Corax (Sep 6, 2009)




----------



## Cid (Sep 6, 2009)




----------



## Gmart (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Have already answered the point generally and deconstructed that word specifically several times thank you. If you can't be bothered to keep track of the thread then I suggest you either fuck off or follow my earlier suggestion of what to do with a carving knife.



Another avoidance post - you have failed completely to address the point made becoz, it would seem, you have no answer. 

I can answer for you - when we take a word from the Greek, then if they spell it with an 'f', we should spell it with an 'f' too. To change the spelling to ingrain the history in the word for no other reason than as a sop to the academics, shows that your priority is for these same academics, rather than the people trying to learn and spell English. 

Although you are (understandably) reluctant to state specifically you preference for the academic community over and above this strata of society, it is obvious. 

Thus the invention of an additional rule that any 'ph' spelling which is pronounced as an 'f' shows the root of the word as greek, is entirely down to people such as yourself being totally unconcerned for those in society who have to therefore learn your invented rule just so that they are accepted into a job (for example) etc. It is also a waste of valuable education time.

The same goes for ANY of the vast myriad of invented rules which ingrain history into our words to the detriment of a phonetic spelling system.



DotCommunist said:


> I imagine he's had enough of your endless lying and misrepresentation. I don't get what your game is tbf. Everybody following the thread can see your arrant lying. It's quite pathetic tbf.



I struggle to find any post of yours which even pretends to engage in the discussion on this thread. Although others seem not to be thinking logically enough to recognise the issue and the negative aspects of their standpoint - you seem unable to do anything other than abuse. It is not a 'game' for me - it is logic. Most words are spelt phonetically - your name starts with a 'd' sound and is spelt as such - if I suggested an invented rule that meant that it were NOT to be spelt with a 'd' you would think it crazy, quite rightly.

I suggest that you think more and abuse less - I am quite happy to take the abuse coz sticks and stones etc - and it usually shows that the poster is unable to address the points I have taken such pains to make. Your inability to address _anything _is starting to suggest that you are unable to comment, and that your abuse is just the result of an inability to walk away from a topic you don't understand.


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Another avoidance post - you have failed completely to address the point made becoz, it would seem, you have no answer.



Lol. What part of 'I have answered that question several times already' don't you understand you fucking imbecile? How is it avoiding anything to point out that _we have already had this fucking conversation and I can't be arsed going through it all again just because you've decided to pretend it never happened_.

Your post is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Which if you had either read or understood this thread you would know. The only reason I'm still posting here is because I find your dishonesty and misrepresentation highly offensive.  You really are a nasty, lying cunt with all the self awareness of a pebble. Please either read the fucking thread or just fucking fuck off.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 7, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> "Rules" that change as and when you feel like it, that aren't actually consistent, that you can't explain as consistent rules that others can follow and which aren't actually rules at all?



What ar you talking abut, you Dimwit? Where hav I not been consistent? The rules we hav now ar the inconsistent ones! Consonants that aren't constant, diphthongs that ar wrong, silent letters,  invisible letters, obscure converluted grammatical rules that change all the time and arn't consistent. Fuck, mine you'r defending rubbish.


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What ar you talking abut, you Dimwit? Where hav I not been consistent?



The spellings that you use in your posts aren't consistent and just make you look stupid.

ETA: 'abut' lol. U r indeed 'a butt'.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> The spellings that you use in your posts aren't consistent and just make you look stupid.
> 
> ETA: 'abut' lol. U r indeed 'a butt'.



If i used that spelling somewhere, it's just a typo-


----------



## THINK! (Sep 7, 2009)

DOTCOM, if you and I wer in an American prison, you'd definately be my Bitch, in fact, if you wer in an American prison, you'd *definately* be someone's Bitch, being pass'd around and sold on. I never "met" such as meek person as you in my life as you, my little man-midget, you'v got a lot of problems and you ain't going to solv them here.


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> DOTCOM, if we wer in an American prison, you'd definately be my Bitch, in fact, if you wer in an American prison, you'd *definately* be someone's Bitch, being pass'd around and sold on. I never "met" such as meek person as you in my life as you, my little man-midget, you'v got a lot of problems and you ain't going to solv them here.



Being insulted by a 45 year old who posts like a deranged and retarded teenager is more amusing than offensive. Can you do me next please?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Being insulted by a 45 year old who posts like a deranged and retarded teenager is more amusing than offensive. Can you do me next please?



Yes, certainly, but do i need to do you?, you unhappy chap,? you do yourself. Up your Bum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I struggle to find any post of yours which even pretends to engage in the discussion on this thread. Although others seem not to be thinking logically enough to recognise the issue and the negative aspects of their standpoint - you seem unable to do anything other than abuse. It is not a 'game' for me - it is logic. Most words are spelt phonetically - your name starts with a 'd' sound and is spelt as such - if I suggested an invented rule that meant that it were NOT to be spelt with a 'd' you would think it crazy, quite rightly.
> 
> I suggest that you think more and abuse less - I am quite happy to take the abuse coz sticks and stones etc - and it usually shows that the poster is unable to address the points I have taken such pains to make. Your inability to address _anything _is starting to suggest that you are unable to comment, and that your abuse is just the result of an inability to walk away from a topic you don't understand.



A long time ago in a galaxy far far away I tried to talk the issue through with you, but much like everyone other than moamoa, your passive aggresive style of lying and misrepresentation and constantly shifting your points meant I'm not going to debate with you. It's fruitless. One wonders what you are getting out of this? other than being shown up as an arse obv.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> DOTCOM, if we wer in an American prison, you'd definately be my Bitch, in fact, if you wer in an American prison, you'd *definately* be someone's Bitch, being pass'd around and sold on. I never "met" such as meek person as you in my life as you, my little man-midget, you'v got a lot of problems and you ain't going to solv them here.



*yawn*

you'd have been shanked for being a dick way before you got to demonstrate your rapist tendencies


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> moamoa


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2009)




----------



## Corax (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Being insulted by a 45 year old



It's _how_ old?  Fuck me, I thought it was the arrogant nearsighted 'I'm the first to ever realise this and the rest of the world are idiots' shit of an adolescent.  That someone past puberty is producing this bollocks is stupifying.


----------



## Cid (Sep 7, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What ar you talking abut, you Dimwit? Where hav I not been consistent? The rules we hav now ar the inconsistent ones! Consonants that aren't constant, diphthongs that ar wrong, silent letters,  invisible letters, obscure converluted grammatical rules that change all the time and arn't consistent. Fuck, mine you'r defending rubbish.



You want to change grammar now?


----------



## Gmart (Sep 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol. What part of 'I have answered that question several times already' don't you understand you fucking imbecile? How is it avoiding anything to point out that _we have already had this fucking conversation and I can't be arsed going through it all again just because you've decided to pretend it never happened_.
> 
> Your post is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Which if you had either read or understood this thread you would know. The only reason I'm still posting here is because I find your dishonesty and misrepresentation highly offensive.  You really are a nasty, lying cunt with all the self awareness of a pebble. Please either read the fucking thread or just fucking fuck off.



So yet again you avoid the questions which I posed quite clearly. Just continually claiming to have addressed the points doesn't make it true. It is YOU who is doing the avoiding - I have slowly and methodically addressed and destroyed all your arguments so completely that you are reduced to insults as ever. 

Your argument is as I describe it. That you fail to recognise this shows how little thought you have put into you attempted rebut. 

I suggest that you re-read (if you read them in the first place) my last few posts and answer the points which I made. I also suggest that you think about what I say, rather than just reacting to what YOU are thinking about.



DotCommunist said:


> A long time ago in a galaxy far far away I tried to talk the issue through with you, but much like everyone other than moamoa, your passive aggresive style of lying and misrepresentation and constantly shifting your points meant I'm not going to debate with you. It's fruitless. One wonders what you are getting out of this? other than being shown up as an arse obv.



What makes me laugh with you is that you seem to truly believe that you have discussed this issue. You and Maomao are like Cartman in 'Fishsticks'...

You tried originally to make this a class issue (as always ), and then when I pointed out that your position is supporting the academic elite you just dropped the whole subject. It is a testament to your inflexibility that you persist in your viewpoint when faced with this fact...


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So yet again you avoid the questions which I posed quite clearly. Just continually claiming to have addressed the points doesn't make it true. It is YOU who is doing the avoiding - I have slowly and methodically addressed and destroyed all your arguments so completely that you are reduced to insults as ever.
> 
> Your argument is as I describe it. That you fail to recognise this shows how little thought you have put into you attempted rebut.
> 
> I suggest that you re-read (if you read them in the first place) my last few posts and answer the points which I made. I also suggest that you think about what I say, rather than just reacting to what YOU are thinking about.



You filthy *lying* prick. I hope you die of syphilis.


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2009)

Do I really have to do this? I find it really distressing that you can persist in lying and deluding yourself to that extent. I'm trying to think how to do it in as few words as possible because I really don't want to give you the time of day.

Your posts above state that my only argument is that preserving etymology in spelling is something to do with history or 'paying homage to ancient Greek' when I have said several times that has nothing to do with it.

Preserving morphemes in spelling aids English learners at all but the most basic levels, encourages reading comprehension (unlike phonetic systems which make reading sounds easy but discourage comprehension) and provides a level playing field for speakers of different dialects. Phonemic spelling makes learning quicker at an early stage _for speakers of the dialect being represented_, and either causes language fragmentation (speakers of different dialects will end up with different written languages) or discrimination against speakers of different dialects (English being the most widely spoken language in the world and having far more dialect variation than Italian or Korean. The only remotely comparable language in terms of variation would be Chinese, a country where kids are forced to speak a standardized language at school and they write slogans on the wall reminding everyone to speak standard mandarin).

Where the fuck have I mentioned history you lying deluded cocksucker?


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> So yet again you avoid the questions which I posed quite clearly. Just continually claiming to have addressed the points doesn't make it true. It is YOU who is doing the avoiding - I have slowly and methodically addressed and destroyed all your arguments so completely that you are reduced to insults as ever.



I don't think anyone will agree with your skewed misreading of the thread. Frankly you're a delusional arse who continually misrepresents the thread and the views of others. You're a desperate, unpleasant liar with little wit or intelligence.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Do I really have to do this? I find it really distressing that you can persist in lying and deluding yourself to that extent. I'm trying to think how to do it in as few words as possible because I really don't want to give you the time of day.



You can leave this thread whenever you wish.

OK, I will try and take all the points you make one at a time - something which you refuse to do for the points I make:



maomao said:


> Your posts above state that my only argument is that preserving etymology in spelling is something to do with history or 'paying homage to ancient Greek' when I have said several times that has nothing to do with it.



That is not quite true - you are arguing that the 'ph' in words with a historical link to greek makes it easier for students of English. Although we disagree on how much it helps - in that I think it only helps the higher students, and you feel that it helps all but 'the most basic levels':



maomao said:


> Preserving morphemes in spelling aids English learners at all but the most basic levels,



These morphenes can be just as helpful if they are phonetic, so this is not an argument against phonetic spelling - it is an argument for morphemes which are of course helpful. So for example - 'unbreakable' has 3 morphemes and they are phonetic - so in what way does this mean that we shouldn't have a more phonetic spelling system? Of course it doesn't - it is just you trying to change the subject because you don't wish to address the actual point, which is that it helps everyone to have the spelling system as more phonetic, morfemes and all...



maomao said:


> encourages reading comprehension (unlike phonetic systems which make reading sounds easy but discourage comprehension)



Bollocks! - Why would it make comprehension more difficult? The word 'morfeme' is just as understandable, as is the word 'majic'!! Again you are trying to change the subject to morphemes, when we are talking about phonetic spelling. So if we use happy and put -ness on the end to change it into a noun, then if both morphemes are phonetic, then there is no change.



maomao said:


> and provides a level playing field for speakers of different dialects.



I have been at pains to ensure that all my examples are consistent with ALL speakers of English, a fact which you have neither commented on nor acknowledged. Anyway people with different dialects already look at the words which do not relate to what they say. So when they look at the word 'goes' then they see the letter 's' but they say the letter 'z', which is already confusing.



maomao said:


> Phonemic spelling makes learning quicker at an early stage _for speakers of the dialect being represented_,



How many times do I have to pick you up on this one? For a start - ALL my examples are consistent for ALL English speakers NOT just those with a particular accent, and having a more phonetic spelling system would help ALL learners of English. The only time when the etymology helps learners is at a high level - when I learnt french it did not help at all that the spelling showed that the word came from Greek - but it sure as hell hindered my pronunciation that it was not pronounced as it was spelt. Later I noticed what you are referring to, but by then I was fluent.



maomao said:


> and either causes language fragmentation (speakers of different dialects will end up with different written languages)



Refer to answer above - I am only interested in words which are consistent for ALL speakers of English - I am saying it more than once in the hope that you actually notice it. The argument to change _vowel _sounds is affected by the accent issue because the vast majority of accentual differences are vowels - and as I have said I would like to see this change too - but the argument is no where near as straightforward as the argument for changing the consonants - which is probably why you seem so reluctant to comment on that...



maomao said:


> or discrimination against speakers of different dialects (English being the most widely spoken language in the world and having far more dialect variation than Italian or Korean.



Less likely to have a discrimination problem then. We ALREADY have discrimination against those who do not learn the vast number of little rules so that they can spell 'properly' - this idea would help to mitigate this discrimination - it is by no means certain that there would be a sudden rise in discrimination against those who do not speak RP.



maomao said:


> Where the fuck have I mentioned history you lying deluded cocksucker?



Your continued support for keeping (for example) the spelling 'ph' for all the words with an 'f' from the greek is a support for history in words - whether you mention it or not, that is your position, insults and all.


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Your continued support for keeping (for example) the spelling 'ph' for all the words with an 'f' from the greek is a support for history in words - whether you mention it or not, that is your position, insults and all.



No it's not.

So you are admitting that there was more to my argument than your fucking pathetic lying misrepresentation above? Why did you feel it was necessary to lie then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You tried originally to make this a class issue (as always ), and then when I pointed out that your position is supporting the academic elite you just dropped the whole subject. It is a testament to your inflexibility that you persist in your viewpoint when faced with this fact...



I pointed out the elitism inherent in your flawed and bizarre plan, you said 'no it isn't' twedledee posted a bizarrely formatted rant and then two pages later you shifted position and claimed I had said something I hadn't. Repeat ad nauseum.

You must be a nightmare to work with. When was the last time you ever admitted you might be wrong? About anything?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2009)

g-man, why do you think that you've not persuaded _a single person_ on this thread of the worth of your suggestions despite the opportunity offered for you to explain them at great length and then to respond to any criticisms? 

And why is every single poster but think! claiming that you're a misrepresenting dishonest twister?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> *yawn*
> 
> you'd have been shanked for being a dick way before you got to demonstrate your rapist tendencies



But *you* would definately get raped.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2009)

LOL you have a wank fantasy and you felt the need to share it.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2009)

That's about your level THINK. Stick to spouting the witless prison rape jokes like a juvenile 8 years old with a tartrazine impairment.

Gawd knows you haven't a fucking clue when it comes to language, logic or reason.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2009)

Lol. Rayp iz funny as fuck!


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> You must be a nightmare to work with.



He probably can't get a job in this country. Most career ESL teachers can't. Most of us come back and finish our education/get a proper job.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2009)

Is english your second language btw Gmarthews? It would explain a few things.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 8, 2009)




----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 8, 2009)

Lǐbābālì woad please.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> No it's not.
> 
> So you are admitting that there was more to my argument than your fucking pathetic lying misrepresentation above? Why did you feel it was necessary to lie then?



Excellent avoidance again


----------



## Gmart (Sep 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> He probably can't get a job in this country. Most career ESL teachers can't. Most of us come back and finish our education/get a proper job.



I am a qualified teacher of both maths and English, and I have no problem getting a job in any country worldwide, including the UK. Still I note with interest your decision to start insulting me rather than address the points I made.

I suggest that if you wish to talk about morphemes, that you either point out exactly why making them phonetic would be such a 'bad' idea - or maybe start a thread of your own...

Either way, I gave you the curtesy of taking _exactly _what you wrote, and addressing each one in turn. Your inability to do this for my posts speaks volumes.



> Why did you feel it was necessary to lie then?


My description of your position was accurate - your inability to recognise this suggests a lack of comprehension on your part not mine.


----------



## newme (Sep 9, 2009)

this has to be one of the longest running troll threads ever.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 9, 2009)

newme said:


> this has to be one of the longest running troll threads ever.



I agree - I think they're trolling too - it is obvious that it would be easier to have the English Spelling system without the vast array of 'little' rules such as: a 'ph' is an 'f' sound etc.

I have suspected for some time that the opposition here recognises the point made and even tho it is obvious that it would probably not happen in our lifetimes - IDEALLY it would help strengthen English as an international language and of course help those learning English and a high proportion of dyslexics. 

The etymology of the words would persist of course - ie the story of the words would continue, but the academics would have to look up that 'apostrophe' comes from the Greek - rather than having the 'ph' as an immediate indicator.

It has not been helped by the mods reluctance to give warning on the levels of abuse. If the opposition had been given such a warning, maybe they would have left the thread earlier - unfortunately they were not and were implicitly allowed to abuse with impunity as a substitute for rational debate on the points made.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2009)

You have yet to explain the following:

1. Why English needs strengthening as an international language. 

2.  How creating a 2 tier education system will help disadvantaged kids.

3. How making the spelling system totally different to any other European language will help Europeans learn it.

You have failed to make it clear what you actually want; ranging from changing all the 'ph' words to changing a few words a year. America has higher dyslexia rates than the UK, so arguing that these small changes would make a difference is going to need some backing up.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I suggest that if you wish to talk about morphemes, that you either point out exactly why making them phonetic would be such a 'bad' idea - or maybe start a thread of your own...



I have several times. Brushing aside a complex question about whether phonemic spelling creates a prestige dialect, backed up with examples of the effects of this in Korean and Chinese, with nonsensical non-answers such as 'accents exist in other languages' and 'people are free to discriminate if they wish' is not debate. It's waffle and has constantly been exposed as such. If you had any self awareness at all you'd realise this.



> Either way, I gave you the curtesy of taking _exactly _what you wrote, and addressing each one in turn. Your inability to do this for my posts speaks volumes.



No, I've debated your points and you've brushed mine off with nonsensical non statements based on second hand experiences of other people learning languages that you don't understand. You only have one point yourself. Phonemic spelling speeds up learning at an early stage. You haven't properly acknowledged any of the disadvantages you just keep coming out with the same old arrogant pile of wank. 



> My description of your position was accurate - your inability to recognise this suggests a lack of comprehension on your part not mine.



No it wasn't. You claimed that my only argument was history and something weird about 'paying homage to ancient Greek'. It was a lie and a misrepresentation. You are an extremely arrogant, dishonest person. And a cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2009)

side note: It's courtesy. From courtly and indicative of respectful and honourable behaviour. 

Curtesy leads one to think of the art of curtsying. I mention it not to mock a typo but to once again state the importance of etymology.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I am a qualified teacher of both maths and English, and I have no problem getting a job in any country worldwide, including the UK.



What's qualified? Do you have a PGCE? And why is English capitalised but not 'maths'?


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It has not been helped by the mods reluctance to give warning on the levels of abuse. If the opposition had been given such a warning, maybe they would have left the thread earlier



Lol.  'The opposition'. You really do have a massively over inflated sense of self importance don't you. It's not against the rules of this forum to call a twat a twat. People round here enjoy honest debate which you're apparently entirely incapable of. Which is why you can draw so much abuse on a pretty unimportant thread on a boring subject on a pretty inconsequential bulletin board.


----------



## Cid (Sep 9, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


>







Tones...


----------



## Gmart (Sep 10, 2009)

Cid said:


> You have yet to explain the following:
> 
> 1. Why English needs strengthening as an international language.
> 
> ...



1) it doesn't _need _strengthening, but it would be improved in its utility...

2) We already have a 2-tier education system... making the spelling system simpler would help those on the lower tier to catch up with those on the higher tier, and would limit the elitist abuse that Dotelitist engages in above.

3) It would NOT be '_totally_' different, it would just be another European language with its existing roots, but which has properly anglicized the words it has adopted. By stopping halfway, it complicates the language learning - words should be spelt as they are said - simple as - and nothing anyone has said here has addressed this key fact.



Cid said:


> You have failed to make it clear what you actually want; ranging from changing all the 'ph' words to changing a few words a year. America has higher dyslexia rates than the UK, so arguing that these small changes would make a difference is going to need some backing up.



I would like to see a change in whatever form possible - if we were able to do it overnight I would consider it - but I suspect it would be logistically difficult - so I would be happy to simply have an alternative spelling possible to use - so in the same way as 'recognise' and 'recognize' are both acceptable I would want to have 'magic' and 'majic' acceptable.



maomao said:


> I have several times. Brushing aside a complex question about whether phonemic spelling creates a prestige dialect, backed up with examples of the effects of this in Korean and Chinese, with nonsensical non-answers such as 'accents exist in other languages' and 'people are free to discriminate if they wish' is not debate. It's waffle and has constantly been exposed as such. If you had any self awareness at all you'd realise this.



The idea of prestige accents is another issue - tho I understand your hope to change the subject - if we say that we did what I wanted and that suddenly there was discrimination against those with RP, then this shows how ridiculous your argument is in a world with 1.8 billion English speakers.

The opposition has argued that RP does not include accents and produced this as an argument against having 'majic' as an alternative spelling - it is ridiculous as all my examples are consistent for all native speakers.



maomao said:


> No, I've debated your points and you've brushed mine off with nonsensical non statements based on second hand experiences of other people learning languages that you don't understand. You only have one point yourself. Phonemic spelling speeds up learning at an early stage. You haven't properly acknowledged any of the disadvantages you just keep coming out with the same old arrogant pile of wank.



Just calling my points an 'arrogant pile of wank' is not an adequate response in a reasonable debate - it might be adequate for you, but that just shows how logically inept you are. 

Must try better!!

I have stated my case over and over, while you have avoided my key points, concentrating only on the subjects YOU are interested in. Note how your last answer was based on morphemes - I commented on what you said, but now your answer comes back without ANY reference to morphemes. Why? Because you are avoiding the issue over and over, floundering in deeper and deeper water without the apparent critical thinking skills to swim with.



maomao said:


> You claimed that my only argument was history and something weird about 'paying homage to ancient Greek'. It was a lie and a misrepresentation. You are an extremely arrogant, dishonest person. And a cunt.



Your insistence to keep the history in the spelling of words as an aid to higher students is elitist. Your dismissal of my argument as 'something weird' shows clearly how little you decided to consider my posts.



DotCommunist said:


> side note: It's courtesy. From courtly and indicative of respectful and honourable behaviour.
> 
> Curtesy leads one to think of the art of curtsying. I mention it not to mock a typo but to once again state the importance of etymology.



It is exactly this form of elitist abuse which we are talking about - maybe you should consider changing your name to Dotelitist? The message was communicated successfully. 

It is also a good example of distraction - you cannot address the issues I raise and so you jump on the only spelling mistake I made. A better example of your problem I could hardly have invented myself.



maomao said:


> What's qualified? Do you have a PGCE? And why is English capitalised but not 'maths'?



Yes, I have a PGCE, tho I note that you cannot address the points I made and so you are trying to find another way to 'win' - and if you look up maths and English - you will find that English has a capital letter as a proper noun, while maths does not. I hope for your sake that you are NOT an English teacher with a mistake like that...



maomao said:


> Lol.  'The opposition'. You really do have a massively over inflated sense of self importance don't you. It's not against the rules of this forum to call a twat a twat. People round here enjoy honest debate which you're apparently entirely incapable of. Which is why you can draw so much abuse on a pretty unimportant thread on a boring subject on a pretty inconsequential bulletin board.



It IS against the forum rules to engage in constant abuse, as I quoted earlier. Just because the forum mods are not interested in doing their jobs, while refusing to remove this part of the rules, just shows their own ineptitude. 

I am waiting in vain for the 'honest' debate you refer to - all I see is you squirming as you try desperately to avoid the subject. We could quite happily agree to disagree - but you seem unaware of the need to do this sometimes - people ARE allowed to have different priorities you know, and you feel that the history in words is of much greater use in comparison to the advantages in phonetic spelling than I do. But you seem unable to simply tolerate the difference in opinion and continue to abuse because you cannot address the points that I make.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The idea of prestige accents is another issue - tho I understand your hope to change the subject - if we say that we did what I wanted and that suddenly there was discrimination against those with RP, then this shows how ridiculous your argument is in a world with 1.8 billion English speakers.
> 
> The opposition has argued that RP does not include accents and produced this as an argument against having 'majic' as an alternative spelling - it is ridiculous as all my examples are consistent for all native speakers.



This is the problem. When you do try to deal with other people's arguments your posts _just don't make fucking sense_. Why are prestige accents another issue when it's an inevitable consequence of phonemic spelling? Why would there be discrimination against speakers of the prestige accent? What on god's earth does 'the opposition has argued that RP does not include accents' even mean? It's like trying to have a conversation with a fucking random word generator. A random word generator with a vastly over inflated sense of self importance. That's also a cunt.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> This is the problem. When you do try to deal with other people's arguments your posts _just don't make fucking sense_. Why are prestige accents another issue when it's an inevitable consequence of phonemic spelling? Why would there be discrimination against speakers of the prestige accent? What on god's earth does 'the opposition has argued that RP does not include accents' even mean? It's like trying to have a conversation with a fucking random word generator. A random word generator with a vastly over inflated sense of self importance. That's also a cunt.



Simply put - All speakers of English pronounce 'magic' as 'majic' and so accents are NOT relevant. 

Certainly other languages are so small that the equivalent of RP can discriminate against those without - but this is not the case with 1.8 billion speakers worldwide.

The examples of changes I have given would NOT cause a prestige dialect because they are consistent for ALL speakers of English. It is your inability to recognise this which is the problem - there would be no one to discriminate against because EVERYONE pronounces 'magic' as 'majic'.

At the moment it is acceptable to spell 'recognise' and 'recognize' - 'sulphar' AND 'sulfar' - so it would not be a problem to have more words with such alternatives.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 10, 2009)

It is not acceptable to spell 'recognise' as 'recognize' unless you are using American english.

It is not acceptable to spell 'sulphur' as 'sulphar' or 'sulfar' because it is spelt 'sulphur', unless you are using American english, in which case they use 'sulfur' instead of 'sulphur'.

It will never become acceptable to spell 'magic' as 'majic', since to do so would ignore the european languages (romance) from whence the word 'magic' (magie, magia) is derived. European english speakers would not find it easier to pronounce magic as 'majic' because to them it would be pronounced 'mayic' or 'mahic'. 

In IPA, J is pronounced like the Y in the english Yes. You cannot replace a soft 'g' sound with a 'y' sound.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Simply put - All speakers of English pronounce 'magic' as 'majic' and so accents are NOT relevant.



That's not your point though. You don't want to change one word. 'The opposition' (lol) can't be expected to deal with ever moving goalposts. You either have an argument or you don't. I would happily let you spell 'magic' as 'majic' if you would fuck off after that, it would be a small price to pay.



> Certainly other languages are so small that the equivalent of RP can discriminate against those without - but this is not the case with 1.8 billion speakers worldwide.



Well you've got fuck all hope of a phonemic representation that could make sense to all speakers of _International English_ anyway. Your best bet would be 3 or 4 different systems (US and British English already compete for the money that English generates as a second language anyway) which would ultimately fragment the language into 3 or 4 different languages.



> The examples of changes I have given would NOT cause a prestige dialect because they are consistent for ALL speakers of English. It is your inability to recognise this which is the problem - there would be no one to discriminate against because EVERYONE pronounces 'magic' as 'majic'.



Not true, you've been caught out several times with examples that didn't work out for everyone (for example long vowels spelled with an 'r' that neither you or I pronounce). So much so that you now say you 'don't want to do vowels' (though in the next post you'll normally say that we should do vowels). Your own phonological awareness is so poor that you couldn't work out what was wrong with dictionary.com's phonetic key and previously told us that 'aesthetic' was spelled wrong because it should be pronounced with a 't' not a 'th'. You don't have the mental tools to deal with this conversation Gmarthews. You're an idiot prick.



> At the moment it is acceptable to spell 'recognise' and 'recognize' - 'sulphar' AND 'sulfar' - so it would not be a problem to have more words with such alternatives.



It's already a very small problem. Increasing alternative spellings would make the problem bigger.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 1) it doesn't _need _strengthening, but it would be improved in its utility...
> 
> 2) We already have a 2-tier education system... making the spelling system simpler would help those on the lower tier to catch up with those on the higher tier, and would limit the elitist abuse that Dotelitist engages in above.
> 
> ...



Says the fool who wants to press what would basically be a linguistic hegemony of 'words to be spelt how I speak'. Grand scale narcissism. And, as I said it was not to mock but to once again point out why etymology matters.

Nice to see you messing with my username though, it's amusing that he who bleats hardest about insults and forum rules isn't afraid to mess with usernames and be insulting when he feels it necessary.


----------



## Cid (Sep 10, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 2) We already have a 2-tier education system... making the spelling system simpler would help those on the lower tier to catch up with those on the higher tier, and would limit the elitist abuse that Dotelitist engages in above.



Sorry but that's just evasion. Yeah, our education system has two tiers but what you are proposing is 2 distinct tiered education systems which will be _much_ harder to move between. You'd have to know precisely fuck all about how young people learn and develop to think otherwise.


----------



## oryx (Sep 10, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I still vaguely remember a book with a squirrel... sort of greenish cover...



Bandy's First Jump?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

as immortalised by Julian Cope.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 10, 2009)

I must say that I'm loving the image of DC as an pipe-toting elitist mind.

The monocle's in the post my dear boy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2009)

I've ordered a case of Balsamic vinegar and contracted a cleaner now that I am a paid up member of the bourgeois scum.


----------



## Cid (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome, you can join me in the champagne socialists club, leather chairs, good whiskey, an open fire and cigars from our comrades in Havana.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 11, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well you've got fuck all hope of a phonemic representation that could make sense to all speakers of _International English_ anyway. Your best bet would be 3 or 4 different systems (US and British English already compete for the money that English generates as a second language anyway) which would ultimately fragment the language into 3 or 4 different languages.



There would be no fragmentation as all my examples are consistent with all speakers of English. It made me LOL when you said:



maomao said:


> Not true, you've been caught out several times with examples that didn't work out for everyone



only to have to use a vowel example:



maomao said:


> (for example long vowels spelled with an 'r' that neither you or I pronounce).



So where is the example for consonants? Everytime you use a vowel example - you show that I am right to concentrate on consonants... And even if you managed to find an obscure consonant example, it would merely add weight to my examples, which are so many more times numerous.



maomao said:


> So much so that you now say you 'don't want to do vowels' (though in the next post you'll normally say that we should do vowels).



I have said on countless occasions that I want to do the consonants first - the vowels would be too difficult, though I am not against it idealogically.



maomao said:


> Your own phonological awareness is so poor that you couldn't work out what was wrong with dictionary.com's phonetic key



As I said at the time - I have seen that method used in other English teaching books abroad, and have no problems understanding it.



maomao said:


> and previously told us that 'aesthetic' was spelled wrong because it should be pronounced with a 't' not a 'th'.



It should indeed be spelt with a 't' - the necessity to teach the 'th' as sometimes pronounced 't' as well as the voiced and voiceless versions make it 3 sounds. What a waste of valuable education time it is to teach yet another 'little' rule.



maomao said:


> You don't have the mental tools to deal with this conversation Gmarthews. You're an idiot prick.



It is _you _who can't discuss logically without resorting to personal abuse and this suggests that you are handicapped by your lack of education/intelligence. I blame your education, and your family - you seem to have little or no idea about critical thinking.



maomao said:


> It's already a very small problem. Increasing alternative spellings would make the problem bigger.



It is not a problem tho really if you are honest. I mean I know you wish it were - but it isn't - would be convenient for you if it were.

Cid - the whole point of this idea is to ensure that literacy is for all - the vast number of 'little' rules which currently need to be learnt to become 'literate' fall heavily on the poorer part of the population who have the worst schooling. It would help everyone to be able to become literate more easily - and thus it would NOT exacerbate the current divide, it would help.

When Korean went more phonetic all those years ago, it was to stop the elites taking advantage of the poor, as ever - which is why your position and others on this thread is so laughable. It is sobering when you finally recognise that you are fighting on the wrong side - like the leftwingers who are actually authoritarians.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It should indeed be spelt with a 't' - the necessity to teach the 'th' as sometimes pronounced 't' as well as the voiced and voiceless versions make it 3 sounds.



You're the only person in the world who pronounces it with a t then. You've even been linked to a sound recording of it on a dictionary site and you insisted that you heard a 't'. That's what I meant by lack of self awareness. 

And 'r' is a consonant.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 11, 2009)

maomao said:


> You're the only person in the world who pronounces it with a t then. You've even been linked to a sound recording of it on a dictionary site and you insisted that you heard a 't'. That's what I meant by lack of self awareness.
> 
> And 'r' is a consonant.



'r' is a consonant, but the sound it makes is a vowel sound.

You've found an example where I pronounce it differently to RP - well done, I've learnt something, now can you address the vast number of examples I have given where every English speaker pronounces it the same?

There are ample examples of words where it is not spelt as it is said by ALL English speakers (eg 'magic', 'phone' etc)


----------



## tarannau (Sep 11, 2009)

You are a certifiable idiot Marthews. People have explained things to you very patiently, but you seem to be some kind of moronising filter or vacuum that sucks in relevant posts and spits out misrepresentative dumbo oversimplifications that include nonsensical words like elitist.

Actually you're not just an idiot. You're a persistent fool who continually lies.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 11, 2009)

tarannau said:


> You are a certifiable idiot Marthews. People have explained things to you very patiently, but you seem to be some kind of moronising filter or vacuum that sucks in relevant posts and spits out misrepresentative dumbo oversimplifications that include nonsensical words like elitist.
> 
> Actually you're not just an idiot. You're a persistent fool who continually lies.



And you just insult from the sidelines, without actually addressing any point precisely. Which bit of my last post did you think was a lie? 'r' is a consonant, but when combined with a vowel it becomes a vowel sound. I am astonished at the lack of education this thread is showing up.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 11, 2009)

When people make points you ignore them, fly in the face of reason and blatantly misrepresent their words with sneering toss about elitism. It's a fucking nonsense bothering with an lying idiot like you.

How's your campaign doing in winning hearts and minds for language reform? Even the ludicrous THINK, your only supporter, seems to have given up, tired by the ill thought out, one track bollocks that you only seem capable of.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 11, 2009)

tarannau said:


> When people make points you ignore them, fly in the face of reason and blatantly misrepresent their words with sneering toss about elitism. It's a fucking nonsense bothering with an lying idiot like you.
> 
> How's your campaign doing in winning hearts and minds for language reform? Even the ludicrous THINK, your only supporter, seems to have given up, tired by the ill thought out, one track bollocks that you only seem capable of.



I was looking for examples, not baseless accusations. My logic is as good as it was at the beginning of this thread - in that words are generally phonetic already and I am just trying to make them MORE phonetic. The only arguments against have been:

that accents exist and so RP would discriminate against those with different accents.
the reason why these words are not phonetic is because historical flags have been left in - IMO words being phonetic is more important than leaving historical flags in, and less elitist because it helps _all _students and not just the higher level students and academics.

I have constantly stated that I am primarily concerned with the consonant sounds, rather than vowel sounds - tho this has constantly been ignored - and I get the abuse...


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> 'r' is a consonant, but the sound it makes is a vowel sound.[/
> 
> You've found an example where I pronounce it differently to RP - well done, I've learnt something, now can you address the vast number of examples I have given where every English speaker pronounces it the same?



No, it's a consonant for most speakers but not for you or in RP.

When you give English classes do you pronounce aesthetic with a 't'? Do little bits of spit come out of your mouth when you do?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 11, 2009)

Magic ( magie, magia) is said similarly and spelled the same by all European english speakers. Even non-english speakers (european) spell magic in their languages with a 'g'. The non-english persian root 'mogh-' is similar enough to easily grasp the etymology. 

We cannot change the 'g' in magic to a 'j' sound.
The j' sounds ('y/ch/dz') are just as complicated as the 'g' sounds. It's easier to learn this word is spelt 'magic' and sounds like 'madzhik' than to change an entire language to fit your flawed sound=spell scheme by replacing the g with a j.


----------



## Cid (Sep 11, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Cid - the whole point of this idea is to ensure that literacy is for all - the vast number of 'little' rules which currently need to be learnt to become 'literate' fall heavily on the poorer part of the population who have the worst schooling. It would help everyone to be able to become literate more easily - and thus it would NOT exacerbate the current divide, it would help.



I love the way you can be so patronising and yet so fuckwitted at the same time... 

What you are proposing is two distinct education systems; one in which you learn standard written English, one in which you learn Phonetic (or phonemic) written English... SWE and PWE. 

Ok, so why am assuming that people will continue to learn SWE, after all your magnificent changes will render it redundant surely?

Well no, they won't. Very few professions would be able or willing to make the switch... No-one is going to translate the enormous number of obscure texts that form the backbone of most industries. It just can't be done. That's if they wanted to in the first place, in many cases it can be quite useful to have the weird but nuanced distinctions that are common in English... Moving on there are professions which require researching records, none of which are going to be translated, nor would you want them to be as the potential for losing accuracy is enormous.

Then there's academia, which you an Think! seem to think of as some kind of obscure elitist institution. Except that more people than ever are attending university, and the proportion coming from state schools is edging ever closer to the ratio of state : private educated school pupils (88% of university students state educated, so 12:88 at uni, 7:93 in the school system). Obviously a lot of these are coming from the better state schools or higher income levels, but I'm not for a second arguing that our education system is perfect (or even particularly good). There are very few subjects you can study without being literate in SWE, again it comes down to the current texts that are too obscure to be translated, and the old texts which you wouldn't want to translate anyway. That's in fields where the language is less important too, obviously with any of the humanities there's no way you could do it.

So lets say we have a pupil on the bottom rungs, in our current system he is marginalised, and may well end up as one of the 'long-term unemployed'. Our current system is shit. 

All things being equal exactly the same thing will happen with your system, only our leaver would probably never have got round to learning SWE and would be stuck with the less respected PWE system. Learning SWE would become increasingly hard as he grew older and he would basically be excluded from many professions. Of course he would be anyway today, but again I think we need to make massive improvements to our education system. If he has the misfortune to be learning at the same time as the changes are coming in he's going to be doing it in a portacabin with 50 other pupils as the government struggles to deal with the language change.

Even in a top private school an intelligent but dyslexic pupil is going to have problems. They will be segregated from their fellow pupils, even though they may not want to be. They will find it much harder than they do now to catch up with their reading of SWE because they're basically trying to learn a different language at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I think phonetic systems can help with learning, but yours is so totally unrefined that it's a joke. Take majic, rather than confusing every European language user by spelling it like that, why not just use an accented g to indicate when it's hard? It would make it easy to switch to SWE and would be a piece of piss to integrate into the keyboard (just alt-g or something). 

Your methods are as weird and illogical as your pronunciation of 'aesthetics' or Think!'s sores.



> When Korean went more phonetic all those years ago, it was to stop the elites taking advantage of the poor, as ever - which is why your position and others on this thread is so laughable. It is sobering when you finally recognise that you are fighting on the wrong side - like the leftwingers who are actually authoritarians.



Oh right, and Korea is some egalitarian paradise now is it?

e2a: I fear I may have waffled a bit there...


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 11, 2009)

:Gmarthews:


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 11, 2009)

Just checking if the new facepalm smiley is working.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

THINK! said:


> The reason Cuba has so many Doctors, Nurses teachers becoz there nothing else you can be...


Really?
Care to explain that to the thousands of civil, electrical and mechanical engineers that they turn out, or other techies?
Idiot.


> ....all the resouces wer put into training for those sort of jobs and ended up with an excess of them, too many doctors, not enough jobs.


Wrong again. If you knew even a little about what you're discoursing on, you'd be aware that Cuba, like the Philippines, *deliberately* trains an excess and allows them to work abroad, because it brings in hard currency. It's called "economic pragmatism". 


> Cuba has little else to offer except some Black Boxers and cigars...


...that'll be news to Cuba's industrial sector.


> ...everything is gear towards what the Government wants and there is no real Private sector to escape to.


You're not particularly _au fait_ with the subject, are you?


> If you put all yor resourses into one area you will get results, this has nothing to do with illiteracy, these sort of peeple would not hav had a problem commanding their langauge no matter where they had been born and would hav been destined to do this sort of jobs what ever country they liv'd in.


Bag of arse.


> Many of our doctors come from countries they hav much lower literacy rates than our, countiries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example, doctor's numbers and illiteracy and Doctors working abroad don't seem to be connected, Toss Pot.


Those doctors are doctors mostly because of their social class position, you dolt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> *Vomits*
> Would make English look more German..



Yeah, but it'd only *look* that way. It wouldn't have the true "sticklebrick language" utility that German has.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

THINK! said:


> So? They pronounce "Saint John" as _*sin jin *_...


Tell it to the Spencer family. It's their fault.
And by the way, it's "pronounced" *sin-jun*, not "sin-jin".


> and Magdalen College as _*Maldling Colege*_, it just shibbolethic non-sense.


Wrong again, it's pronounced "maudlin".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I imagine he's had enough of your endless lying and misrepresentation. I don't get what your game is tbf.


Have you seen that episode of "South Park" where Kanye West doesn't get the "gay fish" joke Jimmy made up, and which Cartman has convinced himself he helped write, and that Jimmy is trying gyp him out of the credit?
GMart has the same problem as Cartman. He turns stuff around in his head so that it's the rest of the world that's wrong, rather than him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Trust you to know that.



People who do the Sun crossword "know that".


----------



## Corax (Sep 15, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> When Korean went more phonetic all those years ago, it was to stop the elites taking advantage of the poor, as ever


Well, that was a roaring fucking success wasn't it?



maomao said:


> You're the only person in the world who pronounces it with a t then.


I was fucking puzzled by that bit.  I can only conclude that he's fucking illiterate.



Gmarthews said:


> My logic is as good as it was at the beginning of this thread


Yep, no arguments there.



Gmarthews said:


> IMO words being phonetic is more important than leaving historical flags in, and less elitist because it helps _all _students and not just the higher level students and academics.


You unpleasant, patronising sack of shit.  You have this image of some sort of retarded intellectual underclass wandering about walking into pane-glass windows and mumbling _I don't unnerstan' masser, is too complicated_.  Etmology's not fucking rocket science, and the proportion of people unable to understand the concepts must be tiny.  And *guess what*?  Etymology *helps people to understand the meanings of words they don't know*, because they can see common roots and extrapolate meaning from them.  But you'd rob language of that, and essentially destroy people's ability to learn by that method.  You think that's the preserve of some notional elite apparently.  You blinkered, close-minded, infatile cunt.


----------



## Corax (Sep 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He turns stuff around in his head so that it's the rest of the world that's wrong, rather than him.



Don't he fucking just.  I remember being like that.  When I was a stroppy teenager with fuck all awareness.  Like I said above, he's fucking infantile.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> Don't he fucking just.  I remember being like that.  When I was a stroppy teenager with fuck all awareness.  Like I said above, he's fucking infantile.



Maybe he's taking on the characteristics of his students?


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you seen that episode of "South Park" where Kanye West doesn't get the "gay fish" joke Jimmy made up, and which Cartman has convinced himself he helped write, and that Jimmy is trying gyp him out of the credit?
> GMart has the same problem as Cartman. He turns stuff around in his head so that it's the rest of the world that's wrong, rather than him.



To the extent that he already said that everyone else on this thread was being like Cartman in Fishsticks.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 16, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, it's a consonant for most speakers but not for you or in RP.
> 
> When you give English classes do you pronounce aesthetic with a 't'? Do little bits of spit come out of your mouth when you do?



This shows how much you allow your own agenda to get in the way of logic - it is obvious that 'er' represents the schwa sound frequently in English - and that is the most common vowel sound we have.

And the 'aesthetic' example shows how much we need the changes I am suggesting - it might be easy for English speakers to get round this kind of mistake, but those learning English would not find it so easy.



maomao said:


> To the extent that he already said that everyone else on this thread was being like Cartman in Fishsticks.



VP's comment and his failure to notice my usage of it shows how little he pays attention to the actual text of this thread.

I have methodically shown over and over that I simply have a different set of priorities than the opposition here - it is not that I don't understand their logic - I just believe that:

1) People would be more open to change than the opposition thinks.
2) The benefits would far outweigh the costs that the opposition constantly repeats.
3) People are allowed to have different priorities while understanding the issue at hand - it is called tolerance...
4) Having the history in the words that we do does not help more than the top 20% odd of those who learn English - the opposition feel that this figure is far higher.
5) Making English more phonetic/simple would help the vast majority (80% at least) of English learners - the opposition feels that the figure is far lower.
6) The existing English speakers would have no problems adapting to a more phonetic/simple system of spelling.
7) And 'magic' has a 'j' sound in it - the same as 'sound' starts with an 's' sound at the beginning - the principle is quite simple really...


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> This shows how much you allow your own agenda to get in the way of logic - it is obvious that 'er' represents the schwa sound frequently in English - and that is the most common vowel sound we have.



No, for the majority of English speakers that 'r' is a consonant made with the tongue against the roof of the mouth just like the 'r' in 'rimming' or 'rat'. You're incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong about anything aren't you?


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I have methodically shown over and over that I simply have a different set of priorities than the opposition here - it is not that I don't understand their logic - I just believe that:



You haven't methodically shown anything at all. The only things you've repeatedly demonstrated is that you don't have even the most basic understanding of the subject at hand, that you are incapable of understanding that you're own way of speaking English is not particularly representative of the language as spoken by the majority of native speakers and that you are stupid and arrogant enough to insist that your own pronunciation of a word is correct even when shown you are wrong. 

Your posts in this thread rarely even make sense. The debate hasn't been about phonemic spelling for a long time, it's about your idiocy, dishonesty and arrogance. You thought you'd let it sink but because it got bumped last night you just had to come back and insist you were right again. You're a fucking joke.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 16, 2009)

*Game, Set and Match*



maomao said:


> No, for the majority of English speakers that 'r' is a consonant made with the tongue against the roof of the mouth just like the 'r' in 'rimming' or 'rat'. You're incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong about anything aren't you?



You're amazing - you seem incapable of thought - it is obvious to anyone who has studied English that the letters 'er' represent the vowel sound, /ə/. In the same way as it is a /ɑ/ with the letter 'a'. Which is why when you go on to say:



maomao said:


> The only things you've repeatedly demonstrated is that you don't have even the most basic understanding of the subject at hand,



It is so laughable. Is this what you do every time you come up against someone who points out that you are wrong. I would be prepared to accept that you have different priorities (as you blatantly have), but for you to continue to suggest that I am uneducated in this matter merely shows how desperate you are.



maomao said:


> that you are incapable of understanding that you're own way of speaking English is not particularly representative of the language as spoken by the majority of native speakers and that you are stupid and arrogant enough to insist that your own pronunciation of a word is correct even when shown you are wrong.



Which shows how little you have read my posts. I have given example after example of words which are consistent for ALL speakers of English. That you continue to try and paint this as me trying to impose my accent on others shows how desperate you are to disprove me, while not actually having the capacity to do so. 

There is not a single native English speaker who fails to pronounce 'magic' with a 'j' in the middle - and your inability to address this also shows how fruitless your defense is.



maomao said:


> Your posts in this thread rarely even make sense.



My posts make perfect sense if you actually read them.



maomao said:


> The debate hasn't been about phonemic spelling for a long time,



I am continually bringing the debate back to phonemic spelling, over and over...



maomao said:


> You thought you'd let it sink but because it got bumped last night you just had to come back and insist you were right again.



This is an example of you guessing at someone else's motive - I simply didn't check Urban for the last few days...



maomao said:


> You're a fucking joke.



At least I take what you write and comment on as much as possible - you simply ignore ALL the points I make.

I love how you try and paint my position as 'idiocy' and even 'dishonest'. It is almost as if you forget that there is an institution which has been in existence for nearly 100 years, which shares my belief. Here is the page again for the various campaigns and efforts to change the spelling of the English language.

And here is the institution.

Note that its membership secretary and treasurer is John Gledhill, a professor of linguistics at Coventry University. 

Here is an interview with him - a quick quote:



> there is a lot of research over all the world that shows that dyslexia is a particularly English-speaking phenomenon. Most other countries that have regular spelling haven't [much] dyslexia. There was some research last year that showed that Italian people have about 1/5th - or something like that - the rates of dyslexia that English-speaking nations do.



Sounds very much like what THINK and I have been going on about for pages and pages...

For completion, here is the report into dyslexia.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> You're amazing - you seem incapable of thought - it is obvious to anyone who has studied English that the letters 'er' represent the vowel sound, /ə/. In the same way as it is a /ɑ/ with the letter 'a'.



Do you honestly not believe me? Are you really that far up your own arse? Have you ever heard an American, a Scot, an Indian or someone from the west country speak English? Why don't you check the phonetic script on your oh so reliable dictionary.com? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents


----------



## Corax (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And the 'aesthetic' example shows how much we need the changes I am suggesting - it might be easy for English speakers to get round this kind of mistake, but those learning English would not find it so easy.



*You're pronouncing it wrong.*


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is so laughable. Is this what you do every time you come up against someone who points out that you are wrong. I would be prepared to accept that you have different priorities (as you blatantly have), but for you to continue to suggest that I am uneducated in this matter merely shows how desperate you are.



I don't think you're uneducated, I think you're an arrogant fool. You write with the arrogance of a public school boy so I'm sure you had at least an adequate educational background. Whether it did you any good or not is another question as you are completely unable to accept and learn from new information and absolutely convinced that you are right about everything. Even if you do bother reading the link in my post above you'll either drop the subject, declare it unimportant or continue to insist that you're right anyway. The chances of you admitting you're wrong about anything are zero.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Note that its membership secretary and treasurer is John Gledhill, a professor of linguistics at Coventry University.


He's not a professor of linguistics, he's an academic registrar (though he does have a PhD in Dutch spelling lol). Did you write that wikipedia page or something?


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I love how you try and paint my position as 'idiocy' and even 'dishonest'. It is almost as if you forget that there is an institution which has been in existence for nearly 100 years, which shares my belief.



No, I'm calling *you* a dishonest idiot. *Your* approach to argument is fundamentally dishonest and *you* do not have the mental faculties to take part in a conversation honestly. *You* tell lies constantly and *you* frequently make posts that resemble the English language but on closer inspection make little sense.

What the fuck does that have to do with the Spelling Society? Or are you their official representative now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2009)

Corax said:


> *You're pronouncing it wrong.*



*No he isn't. He's pronouncing it INCORRECTLY!*


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2009)

Wrong can be an adverb.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 16, 2009)

dwyer and marthews having an argument would be like crossing the streams in ghostbusters.

*shudders*


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> He's not a professor of linguistics, he's an academic registrar (though he does have a PhD in Dutch spelling lol). Did you write that wikipedia page or something?



Even when confronted with a professor of linguistics telling you that this idea is logical, you and the rest of the opposition just ignore and shout.

What an example you all are.

I pronounce aesthetic 'wrong' indeed - as I made clear in my last post - that I have pronounced it wrong for so long, shows the problem precisely.

As you refuse to address the points that I have made, and the ones in the interview with a professor on the subject, then you once again move into the realms of unreasonable.

This thread has merely shown how determined the agenda-led are - even when logic and evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

I wonder, did you even read the interview, or the evidence on dyslexia - any of you?


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Even when confronted with a professor of linguistics telling you that this idea is logical, you and the rest of the opposition just ignore and shout.



This is John Gledhill:

A bureaucrat not a professor.



> I pronounce aesthetic 'wrong' indeed - as I made clear in my last post - that I have pronounced it wrong for so long, shows the problem precisely.



Yes, it does show the problem. Your problem. Several months ago now you were shown how it was pronounced, even linked to a sound file. You promptly ignored this and continued to believe you were right all along. You are incapable of learning.



> I wonder, did you even read the interview, or the evidence on dyslexia - any of you?


Did you read my link? Or understand my post?


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

He is still a doctor and I'd rather go on the authority of an examiner at the Institute of Linguists than you. I wonder what yr authority is - a degree? and some experience, but no member of the Institute of Linguists I suspect... You still refuse to address the issues I have raised, and refuse (not surprisingly) to address the links I gave to the reports stating that dyslexia is an English phenomena etc. 

You are not fooling anyone by your halfarsed attempt to distract - you are simply running scared from a society which has ample authority to trump your dubious one. A more honest response would be to retreat with your tail between your legs - Note that no one else has addressed the links either - you have been shown up...

And your link - laughable again - trying to get the accent angle back up again - tho if someone has a different angle, they'll just have another sound for that symbol - it doesn't negate that 'er' represents the schwa sound and no amount of waffle or distracting links will change this.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 17, 2009)

Actually GMarthews, people are pointing and laughing at your wriggling.

So far you've invented credentials (Professor of Linguistics) for your source, failed to apologise for your boneheaded mistake and inability to read and then you have the flaming dtemerity to come up with the precious 'he is still a doctor' line, like a desperate man struggling for a liferaft.

It's pathetic nonsense, that's for sure


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And your link - laughable again - trying to get the accent angle back up again - tho if someone has a different angle, they'll just have another sound for that symbol - it doesn't negate that 'er' represents the schwa sound and no amount of waffle or distracting links will change this.


This sentence as a whole doesn't make sense. The bit that almost makes sense isn't true ('er' does not represent schwa for the majority of English speakers, you're too far up your own arse to acknowledge this). Is 'angle' meant to be 'accent'? Why should you be allowed to direct the area of debate when you time and time again prove yourself incapable of understanding what other people are saying.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> He is still a doctor and I'd rather go on the authority of an examiner at the Institute of Linguists than you. I wonder what yr authority is - a degree? and some experience, but no member of the Institute of Linguists I suspect...



He's got a PhD in Dutch spelling which is amusing considering the pain in the arse Dutch spelling is. They have two conflicting systems, one used by schools and state publications and another used by a set of publishers who've boycotted the former. Sounds great fun.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 17, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> We cannot change the 'g' in magic to a 'j' sound.
> The j' sounds ('y/ch/dz') are just as complicated as the 'g' sounds. It's easier to learn this word is spelt 'magic' and sounds *like 'madzhik' *than to change an entire language to fit your flawed sound=spell scheme by replacing the g with a j.



What language do you speak? French?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> People who do the Sun crossword "know that".



I would very much doubt that-


----------



## THINK! (Sep 17, 2009)

Corax said:


> Don't he fucking just.  I remember being like that.  When I was a stroppy teenager with fuck all awareness.  Like I said above, he's fucking infantile.



You didn't say, "infantile", you said "infatile". ?

but it was only a typo really not worth commenting on , oh, unless it's one of the opposition, in that case, make it the whole purpose of yor life.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 17, 2009)

fail fale


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2009)

Guys, since only two people are arguing in favour of the proposition, it's fair to say that they've lost the debate.  Continuing this is only giving the impression that there is credibility to it.  You'll be a lot happier if you just ignore it and stop.  It'll die on its arse rather rapidly if you do.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Y but it was only a typo really not worth commenting on , oh, unless it's one of the opposition, in that case, make it the whole purpose of yor life.


"Yor"? Jeez, you can't even get your stupid, made up phonetic spellings right.


----------



## Corax (Sep 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Guys, since only two people are arguing in favour of the proposition, it's fair to say that they've lost the debate.  Continuing this is only giving the impression that there is credibility to it.  You'll be a lot happier if you just ignore it and stop.



It's also making Frodo and Samwise look more and more ridiculous - that's incentive enough to continue surely!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2009)

You know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs...


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs...



No. I don't know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2009)

ericjarvis said:


> No. I don't know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs.


Do you really not know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs?


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

ericjarvis said:


> No. I don't know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs.



The pig gets dirty and you both get covered in mud.

Personally I enjoy futile arguments with arrogant idiots. Bit of a breakfast ritual for the last few weeks.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> The pig gets dirty and you both get covered in mud.


No, you _both_ get dirty and the pig enjoys it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> No, you _both_ get dirty and the pig enjoys it.


Lol.  Typo.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Do you really not know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs?



Really. Never seen the phrase before. Or it could be a problem with my whatist...thingy...unforgettery.


----------



## Corax (Sep 17, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You know what they say about mud-wrestling with pigs...



It's not so much mud-wrestling though.  It's more poking them with sticks through the fence and laughing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2009)

THINK! said:


> I would very much doubt that-



What you doubt is absolutely irrelevant. What is *true* is what matters.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> He's got a PhD in Dutch spelling which is amusing considering the pain in the arse Dutch spelling is. They have two conflicting systems, one used by schools and state publications and another used by a set of publishers who've boycotted the former. Sounds great fun.



Your own link states that he is an an examiner at the Institute of Linguists. His Phd may be in dutch spelling, but what is his MA and degree in? To be an examiner at the IOL, then he would need at least a degree in linguistics, and probably in his MA too - whatever the case, he is well and truly more qualified than you and the others here.

Far from floundering I am rolling on the floor laughing at you lot.

You don't even have the grace to leave the thread when it is obvious that you have lost all the arguments - you can't address the points made in the interview link above, because all his points are echoing mine and Think's, but your egos won't let you leave - how pathetic 

Any further discussion without addressing these points just shows the delusional world that you live in - a triumph of hope over knowledge.

None of you can give a single reason why the word 'doubt' should maintain its spelling with a 'b' - silent and no doubt showing some ridiculous history which is irrelevant to the vast majority of learners of English, who are more interested in pronouncing it correctly so that they can communicate.

Unfortunately it would seem that communication is less important for you than maintaining history in words - you are free to have different priorities of course even if you seem unaware of them...


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> it is obvious that you have lost all the arguments


You really think so?  Care to test opinion on that with a poll?



Gmarthews said:


> Unfortunately it would seem that communication is less important for you than maintaining history in words - you are free to have different priorities of course even if you seem unaware of them...



Which neatly ignores this:



> You have this image of some sort of retarded intellectual underclass wandering about walking into pane-glass windows and mumbling I don't unnerstan' masser, is too complicated. Etmology's not fucking rocket science, and the proportion of people unable to understand the concepts must be tiny. And guess what? Etymology helps people to understand the meanings of words they don't know, because they can see common roots and extrapolate meaning from them. But you'd rob language of that, and essentially destroy people's ability to learn by that method. You think that's the preserve of some notional elite apparently.


What?  Have you ignored a point that doesn't neatly fit with your PoV?  well I never...


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> a triumph of hope over knowledge.


Lol. You really are a deluded twat. What the fuck knowledge do you have exactly? You've dropped the Korean is better line since it became apparent that despite living there you know fuck all about Korean. The only example you've got left is that 'magic is pronounced with a 'j'' because on every other point you've been shown up as not understanding what you're talking about. Everyone except the banjo playing rapist thinks you're a fool.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> You really think so?  Care to test opinion on that with a poll?


I think you (or someone else) may need to take the initative here.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2009)

If only tptb allowed callout threads.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I think you (or someone else) may need to take the initative here.



Apparantly my effort somehow broke the rules


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

editor said:


> "Yor"? Jeez, you can't even get your stupid, made up phonetic spellings right.



What the fuck ar you talking about, you fucking idiot?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

I think you spelled that wrong THINK.  It's 'wat' and 'talkin'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What the fuck ar you talking about, you fucking idiot?



He's talking about the undisputed (among the rational, anyway) fact that you're inconsistent. He probably hasn't realised yet what an absolute idiot you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> I think you spelled that wrong THINK.  It's 'wat' and 'talkin'.



Like I said, he's inconsistent.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> I think you spelled that wrong THINK.  It's 'wat' and 'talkin'.



try 'Wot'.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said, he's inconsistent.



Where am I inconsistent, divvy prick?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

editor said:


> "Yor"? Jeez, you can't even get your stupid, made up phonetic spellings right.



*or* put a Y' in front of it and you get-
*Yor*


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's talking about the undisputed (among the rational, anyway) fact that you're inconsistent. He probably hasn't realised yet what an absolute idiot you are.



A 47 year old man whio i had thought was ugly skinny 17 year old boy just out of six-form and wanting to hav a go at the World that had made him so unhappy.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> try 'Wot'.



The irony is you can't see the problem here.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> try 'Wot'.



But I pronounce it _'wut'_...

Oh my, what _are_ we going to do?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> The irony is you can't see the problem here.



That's *yor* problem, just impliment alfabetical rules, don't try to reflect acsent.

your perfect "your" with ou in the middle:
bout coup doum dour doux foul four gout hour jouk loud loup lour lout moue noun nous pouf pour pout roue roup rout roux souk soul soup sour sous tour tout your

no consistency. get it?-


if you don't get this, you ar truely thick, peeple.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

So anyone can spell anything anyway they like.

Brilliant!


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> So anyone can spell anything anyway they like.
> 
> Brilliant!



I don't think there is lor against that now, but that's not what i'm talking about, just consistent use of the alfabet.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

so what wot, wat or wut (or what for that matter)?

How do you decide?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

Giv or give
Hav or have
Wer or were
Gon or gone
Ax or axe
you deside?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

So anyone can pick any spelling?


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> So anyone can pick any spelling?



I would prefer a regulated slow reform, but if we wer forced to, no change was forthcoming a free-for-all to fuck up the pompous system.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

So you'd like to replace what you think is an arbitrary system of spelling with a different arbitrary system of spelling.

ok.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> *or* put a Y' in front of it and you get-
> *Yor*



we've been through this. That doesn't work for most English speakers for whom or and your don't rhyme. But you can't grasp the concept that you might be wrong about something.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> we've been through this. That doesn't work for most English speakers for whom or and your don't rhyme. But you can't grasp the concept that you might be wrong about something.



and you don;'t seem to grasp that, "*your*", doesn't work on any level. i refer you to my list previous. that dipthong is *inconsistent*. thus useless.


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> So you'd like to replace what you think is an arbitrary system of spelling with a different arbitrary system of spelling.
> 
> ok.



What is arbitrary about it. a complete set of phonemes -used consistently!


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> we've been through this. That doesn't work for most English speakers for whom or and your don't rhyme. But you can't grasp the concept that you might be wrong about something.



Look maomoa we all know you'v got a degree in acsents you can stop going on about it now.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Look maomoa we all know you'v got a degree in acsents you can stop going on about it now.



I don't and I never said that. And I don't think non estuary speakers here need a degree to know what doesn't sound the same for you. And no-one needs so much a GCSE to know you're a thick cunt.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> and you don;'t seem to grasp that, "*your*", doesn't work on any level. i refer you to my list previous. that dipthong is *inconsistent*. thus useless.



That's the consistent and proper spelling for most English accents actually. 'Ou' = short oo to contrast 'oo' for long oo followed by an 'r'. Which is how it is pronounced by most English speaking people.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> So you'd like to replace what you think is an arbitrary system of spelling with a different arbitrary system of spelling.



Bingo!

Fuckin hell.  Samwise makes Frodo look _smart_.

Speaking of Frodo, we've still not had any response to this:



> You have this image of some sort of retarded intellectual underclass wandering about walking into pane-glass windows and mumbling I don't unnerstan' masser, is too complicated. Etmology's not fucking rocket science, and the proportion of people unable to understand the concepts must be tiny. And guess what? Etymology helps people to understand the meanings of words they don't know, because they can see common roots and extrapolate meaning from them. But you'd rob language of that, and essentially destroy people's ability to learn by that method. You think that's the preserve of some notional elite apparently.


Come on Frodo, I'm waiting.

_*drums fingers*_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> Where am I inconsistent, divvy prick?



Throughout the thread.

And if you really cared about your ridiculous quest for "phonetic" spelling, you'd carry it over to your other posts on Urban, but you don't, do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2009)

THINK! said:


> A 47 year old man whio i had thought was ugly skinny 17 year old boy just out of six-form and wanting to hav a go at the World that had made him so unhappy.



Your words are those of a self-righteous pizza-faced teenager, so it's an easy mistake for anyone to make.


----------



## Cid (Sep 19, 2009)

Still no answer to my previous post, so will go over it again;



Cid said:


> What you are proposing is two distinct education systems; one in which you learn standard written English, one in which you learn Phonetic (or phonemic) written English... SWE and PWE.
> 
> Ok, so why am assuming that people will continue to learn SWE, after all your magnificent changes will render it redundant surely?
> 
> Well no, they won't. Very few professions would be able or willing to make the switch... No-one is going to translate the enormous number of obscure texts that form the backbone of most industries. It just can't be done. That's if they wanted to in the first place, in many cases it can be quite useful to have the weird but nuanced distinctions that are common in English... Moving on there are professions which require researching records, none of which are going to be translated, nor would you want them to be as the potential for losing accuracy is enormous.



How is your new spelling system going to deal with this? Is it just fine by you that people are excluded from an enormous number of careers because of an accident of birth?



> Then there's academia, which you an Think! seem to think of as some kind of obscure elitist institution. Except that more people than ever are attending university, with a high proportion coming from state schools. Obviously a lot of these are coming from the better state schools or higher income levels, but I'm not for a second arguing that our education system is perfect (or even particularly good). At any rate some 32% (87,000 people) of applicants come from low socio-economic groups. There are very few subjects you can study without being literate in SWE, again it comes down to the current texts that are too obscure to be translated, and the old texts which you wouldn't want to translate anyway. That's in fields where the language is less important too, obviously with any of the humanities there's no way you could do it.



So those 87,000, plus the numerous dyslexic people or anyone who hasn't had the benefit of learning SWE should be barred from the majority of degree subjects?



> So lets say we have a pupil on the bottom rungs, in our current system he is marginalised, and may well end up as one of the 'long-term unemployed'. Our current system is shit.
> 
> All things being equal exactly the same thing will happen with your system, only our leaver would probably never have got round to learning SWE and would be stuck with the less respected PWE system. Learning SWE would become increasingly hard as he grew older and he would basically be excluded from many professions. Of course he would be anyway today, but again I think we need to make massive improvements to our education system. If he has the misfortune to be learning at the same time as the changes are coming in he's going to be doing it in a portacabin with 50 other pupils as the government struggles to deal with the language change.
> 
> ...


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2009)

THINK! said:


> What is arbitrary about it. a complete set of phonemes -used consistently!



you're going to need a few new letters!


----------



## THINK! (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> you're going to need a few new letters!



*YES *

(or a consistent set of dipthongs)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## THINK! (Sep 22, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> words are those of a self-righteous pizza-faced teenager, _*so it's an easy mistake for anyone to make*_.



Yes, it is.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 23, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> you're going to need a few new letters!



Not really - I am fine with the /ʃ/ sound being represented by the combination 'sh'. 

If all the /ʃ/ sounds were spelt as 'sh' then it would be a lot easier.

I note that after the interview and the evidence I posted which pointed out that dyslexia is predominantly found in English speaking countries _*and *_that this has been traced to the very inconsistencies in spelling we have been pointing out. Suddenly everyone is very quiet...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Not really - I am fine with the /ʃ/ sound being represented by the combination 'sh'.
> 
> If all the /ʃ/ sounds were spelt as 'sh' then it would be a lot easier.
> 
> I note that after the interview and the evidence I posted which pointed out that dyslexia is predominantly found in English speaking countries _*and *_that this has been traced to the very inconsistencies in spelling we have been pointing out. *Suddenly everyone is very quiet.*..



you aren't going to address Cids post then?

yes the silence is deafening


----------



## maomao (Sep 23, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> you aren't going to address Cids post then?
> 
> yes the silence is deafening



He's not going to address anything. Anything he doesn't understand is dropped straight away and he moves onto something new. There is actually an argument against his link (that he only understands to the extent that he knows it supports his argument) but what's the fucking point when you're dealing with a lying imbecile?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Not really - I am fine with the /ʃ/ sound being represented by the combination 'sh'.
> 
> If all the /ʃ/ sounds were spelt as 'sh' then it would be a lot easier.
> 
> I note that after the interview and the evidence I posted which pointed out that dyslexia is predominantly found in English speaking countries _*and *_that this has been traced to the very inconsistencies in spelling we have been pointing out. Suddenly everyone is very quiet...



This is what is known as a "coincidence", or, as I suspect you and the village idiot would like to spell it, "cowinsidans".


----------



## Gmart (Sep 24, 2009)

I thought Cid was joking, after all his points are based on the assumption that SWE and PWE are completely different, whereas actually SWE is already 60% (odd) of PWE.

Still I should have known that the opposition would miss this logic, and gather round - so here's my response:

Learning a phonetic system of spelling, which is almost exactly the same as the standard system is not going to produce two conflicting systems.



> Very few professions would be able or willing to make the switch



ie lots of texts would need to be translated into PWE, which you consider to be too large a job, and so assume that the texts would be left as SWE.

Certainly texts would need to be translated in time, but initially we would have a world where most people understand SWE, and PWE would only slowly but surely be introduced thru the schools. So it is a moot point that all these texts would suddenly need to be translated - this would happen over time quite naturally as more and more of the population moves over to PWE. New editions would automatically be printed in PWE - there would be no need to print new editions in SWE as PWE would be so easy to understand, that all existing spellers of SWE would easily click into the new system.

So generally you are painting the situation as somewhat extreme.


> Is it just fine by you that people are excluded from an enormous number of careers because of an accident of birth?



Oh you are so dramatic. But of course this would not happen because PWE is so simple and so close to our existing system that it would not cause the problems you describe. The vast majority of words would not change at all. It takes only a few hours to learn the spelling system of Korean, and it would be the same as that for English. As time goes by, the need for SWE would reduce, but even if it didn't, the simplicity of PWE would leave the same time we have now to teach SWE (which I hope we are all agreed takes much longer).

There would then be an obvious incentive to switch to PWE, so that this time is not wasted.



> There are very few subjects you can study without being literate in SWE, again it comes down to the current texts that are too obscure to be translated, and the old texts which you wouldn't want to translate anyway.



This is the same point again tho. So I'll refer you to the above. Note that we already have a body of work which was printed in old English.



> So those 87,000, plus the numerous dyslexic people or anyone who hasn't had the benefit of learning SWE should be barred from the majority of degree subjects?



Hardly, it would take very little time to learn PWE in the form I envisage, and as I say they would also learn SWE while it is applicable. 



> They will find it much harder than they do now to catch up with their reading of SWE because they're basically trying to learn a different language at the same time.



Again you are trying to paint PWE as completely different to SWE - and yet we both know that English is already 60% (odd) PWE, so your point falls down there.



maomao said:


> He's not going to address anything. Anything he doesn't understand is dropped straight away and he moves onto something new. There is actually an argument against his link (that he only understands to the extent that he knows it supports his argument) but what's the fucking point when you're dealing with a lying imbecile?



I am still waiting for the opposition to address the points made by both myself and the links I gave, which you have ignored over and over.

There is no reason why we shouldn't endeavor to maintain the phonetic spelling of English - our inaction to do so has created the dyslexia problem we have, and we are doing the dyslexics a disservice by failing to address this issue. At the same time we are making English harder to learn for other nations, and as the dominant global language this wasteful for 'them', just for the sake of keeping history in our spelling. As has been pointed out, this history will be in the words pronunciation anyway, so there is really no need. 

I also recognise that ideally this should be done with the rest of the English speaking world - and only on issues which are consistent for ALL native speakers, such as the examples I have given. 

I suspect that different areas having a slightly different sound for each vowel sound would not be that bad - but it is no doubt a can of worms, and as I have said many times, this could be left for later if the problem continues. However, we have few if any problems from the fact that the North of England pronounces 'bath' with an /æ/ sound, while the south pronounces it with a /ɑ/ sound - so the attempt to paint the consequences as dramatically disastrous is just wishful thinking on the part of the opposition - in fact I think that people would warm to the idea greatly especially when they realize that the blight of dyslexia would be solved, that English would be strengthened as an international language and that we would free up lots of valuable time in education.

Doesn't it concern any of the opposition that your position enshrines dyslexia in the English speaking world for all time?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2009)

You know what g? Go for it. Set up a separate spelling system for written english. Do your best to promote it. Write a fucking dictionary of words spelt how you speak. I think you could even make some cash out of the idea. And when it's time for the parson to say the words your idea will be interred in the graveyard of shit ideas alongside Esperanto and Thalidomide for pregnant women.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 24, 2009)

You really are useless, you add nothing to the debate, and just insult.

*puts Dotcommunist onto ignore*


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 24, 2009)

And you are intellectually lazy and incapable of debate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2009)

Great I'm on ignore, Gmarts highest accolade


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Great I'm on ignore, Gmarts highest accolade



And he honestly *doesn't* put people on ignore because they keep reminding him of the utter worthlessness of his argument, it's only because you're _howwibwy_ abusive of him.


----------



## maomao (Sep 24, 2009)

I wouldn't have thought the lying little cunt _needed_ to put people on ignore. He's managed to ignore 90% of the arguments against him with little trouble and anything he's shown not to understand or be wrong about is dropped like a ton of hot bricks never to be mentioned again.


----------



## Corax (Sep 24, 2009)

Come on Frodo.  Post #1535 now please.


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I thought Cid was joking, after all his points are based on the assumption that SWE and PWE are completely different, whereas actually SWE is already 60% (odd) of PWE.



And your figures are from where? I don't find it hard to believe btw, just wondering how you arrived at that (and why you think adding 40% to the existing number of spellings will help anyone).



> Still I should have known that the opposition would miss this logic, and gather round - so here's my response:
> 
> Learning a phonetic system of spelling, which is almost exactly the same as the standard system is not going to produce two conflicting systems.



Except that _at no point_ have you actually said what your system is. Nor is it 'almost exactly the same', it may seem that way, but that's because you're *already fucking literate(ish)*. Incidentally is 'thru' pronounced like 'throo' or like a shortened version of 'thrush'? Or are you just going to be inconsistent?





> ie lots of texts would need to be translated into PWE, which you consider to be too large a job, and so assume that the texts would be left as SWE.
> 
> Certainly texts would need to be translated in time, but initially we would have a world where most people understand SWE, and PWE would only slowly but surely be introduced thru the schools. So it is a moot point that all these texts would suddenly need to be translated - this would happen over time quite naturally as more and more of the population moves over to PWE. New editions would automatically be printed in PWE - there would be no need to print new editions in SWE as PWE would be so easy to understand, that all existing spellers of SWE would easily click into the new system.



I'm not sure you're living in the same world as the rest of us here... A snippet from wiki's article on the British Library:




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The British Library's commercial secure electronic delivery service was started in 2003 at a cost of £6 million. This offers more than 100 million items (including 280,000 journal titles, 50 million patents, 5 million reports, 476,000 U.S. dissertations and 433,000 conference proceedings) for researchers and library patrons worldwide which were previously unavailable outside the Library due to copyright restrictions.





> Oh you are so dramatic. But of course this would not happen because PWE is so simple and so close to our existing system that it would not cause the problems you describe. The vast majority of words would not change at all. It takes only a few hours to learn the spelling system of Korean, and it would be the same as that for English. As time goes by, the need for SWE would reduce, but even if it didn't, the simplicity of PWE would leave the same time we have now to teach SWE (which I hope we are all agreed takes much longer).



You have not at any point said what system you propose. You also don't understand Korean, which - considering you taught English there - is kind of knocking your point down a bit.



> There would then be an obvious incentive to switch to PWE, so that this time is not wasted.



Ah, so now we're talking about a quick switch, rather than the gradual introduction your proposed.



> This is the same point again tho. So I'll refer you to the above. Note that we already have a body of work which was printed in old English.



Hardly; 400 manuscripts or so in total. Anyway, old English (in literature at least) died out 900 years ago and it's a totally different language.



> Hardly, it would take very little time to learn PWE in the form I envisage, and as I say they would also learn SWE while it is applicable.



What is the form you envisage? You've been continually dodging this. 



> Again you are trying to paint PWE as completely different to SWE - and yet we both know that English is already 60% (odd) PWE, so your point falls down there.



Again, figures... And it depends entirely on what kind of phonetic system you use, which - again - you haven't explained.



I am still waiting for the opposition to address the points made by both myself and the links I gave, which you have ignored over and over.



> There is no reason why we shouldn't endeavor to maintain the phonetic spelling of English - our inaction to do so has created the dyslexia problem we have, and we are doing the dyslexics a disservice by failing to address this issue. At the same time we are making English harder to learn for other nations, and as the dominant global language this wasteful for 'them', just for the sake of keeping history in our spelling. As has been pointed out, this history will be in the words pronunciation anyway, so there is really no need.



Again, this is unproven. And again, I'm not against phonetics as a learning aid for extra lessons etc. And again, your phonemics make English even harder to learn for Europeans in many cases.



> I also recognise that ideally this should be done with the rest of the English speaking world - and only on issues which are consistent for ALL native speakers, such as the examples I have given.



Again, if you change hardly any fucking words, there's hardly any fucking point. America did that and they have _worse_ dyslexia rates than us.



> I suspect that different areas having a slightly different sound for each vowel sound would not be that bad - but it is no doubt a can of worms, and as I have said many times, this could be left for later if the problem continues. However, we have few if any problems from the fact that the North of England pronounces 'bath' with an /æ/ sound, while the south pronounces it with a /ɑ/ sound - so the attempt to paint the consequences as dramatically disastrous is just wishful thinking on the part of the opposition - in fact I think that people would warm to the idea greatly especially when they realize that the blight of dyslexia would be solved, that English would be strengthened as an international language and that we would free up lots of valuable time in education.
> 
> Doesn't it concern any of the opposition that your position enshrines dyslexia in the English speaking world for all time?



Your entire argument hinges on these poor, stupid dyslexics doesn't it? For fuck's sake, do you think every dyslexic person in England wanders around in a terrified haze, gazing with confusion at every piece of writing?


----------



## Gmart (Sep 26, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> And you are intellectually lazy and incapable of debate.



It is you who posts these nine words in response to my careful reply and comment on all points in #1546. 

I only put people on ignore if they refuse to engage in ANY debate whatsoever and are constantly abusive.

Cid

It is not dodging the point to state that I would like to move English towards a simpler spelling system to help both those students who learn English (children in English speaking countries and foreigners learning English as a second language) and those who suffer from dyslexia (as the links I posted point out, dyslexia is linked to the poor spelling system we currently have).

I would like to see this change introduced in the same way that the Germans introduced theirs, but throughout the English Speaking world. Your argument against me might be that I don't have a complete blueprint of the changes I would like, but that is a tad disingenious seeing as I have stated many times that I want to see all those incidences which are consistent with ALL speakers of English done first. I have also stated that I would maintain the 'e' on the end to elongate the vowel sound and the doubling of the letters to shorten it.

I think that there are ample examples which are consistent with all speakers of English to be going on with.

The principle I would like you to accept is the possibility of change. Under what criteria would you accept the principle of change?

Usually I will accept the principle of change if harm is being done, esp to the poorest section of society. I appreciate that a few academics would squeal that the prefix 'philo' would not be so consistent, and thus the job of the etymologists would become more difficult, but this is not relevant when faced with such obvious harm.

Obviously this is a huge change that I am proposing, and indeed the most reasonable argument is that it probably won't happen ever. But that doesn't detract from the fact that if harm is being done, and this is the only solution (sure education always needs to be 'improved'), then ideally we should consider it.

Personally I think that it WILL eventually happen as the world becomes more globalized. I think that when the link is proved beyond doubt, then the dyslexia societies across the English-speaking world will unite and form a cogent alternative, and the switch will be made. Then everything relevant will be digitally stored and so the change would be less difficult.

Still this is all conjecture on my behalf. All that I am hoping to get from here is the opposition to consider change, rather than their current knee jerk no change policy with insults thrown in purely coz they cannot be bothered to comment on the points I make. It is somewhat ironic that each of my posts is carefully constructed and proof read to ensure that I am engaging with the debate well, and yet the opposition is just insulting and accusing me of not debating.

Oh and I forgot about Korean. I am living here/there now, and I asked if dyslexia was a problem, and of course it is virtually unknown. But that is not proof of course, just anecdotal. I certainly can read Korean, tho I am not fluent. One thing which is interesting is that though their spelling is 99% phonetic, there are a few incidences with the most common words where the pronunciation has changed slightly and they have NOT changed the spelling. I suppose the same reluctance to change something 'non-essential' that the opposition has on this thread is also here in Korea. Still the fact remains that they teach their kids to read and write in a few weeks here because their system is so phonetic, leaving valuable educational time for then to concentrate on the other subjects which they wish to concentrate on. Their current standing at the pinnacle of international education shows that they are at least doing something right.

And I forgot - I found an example of a consonant change difficulty. The US pronounces 'niche' to rhyme with 'hitch' while the UK rhyme with 'leash'. So this would not change as it is not consistent with all speakers of English. 

There is no doubt that if the spelling problem were to be picked apart then the different English-speaking countries would develop different spellings more, like they do now with 'recognize' and 'recognise' - but this really doesn't cause a problem, and why shouldn't they? They ARE a different country after all...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 26, 2009)

Gmarthews - 1548 said:


> You really are useless, you add nothing to the debate, and just insult.
> 
> *puts Dotcommunist onto ignore*






			
				invisibleplanet - 1549 said:
			
		

> And you are intellectually lazy and incapable of debate.





Gmarthews said:


> It is you who posts these nine words in response to my careful reply and comment on all points in #1546.


Another lie. I posted those nine words in response to and immediately after your reply to DotCommunist (1548).


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2009)

since when did people in the US say Niche like Hitch?

You're talking out of your anus again.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 26, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> since when did people in the US say Niche like Hitch?



'Niche' is not even english! It's french.


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> It is you who posts these nine words in response to my careful reply and comment on all points in #1546.
> 
> I only put people on ignore if they refuse to engage in ANY debate whatsoever and are constantly abusive.
> 
> ...



Wow... That's a hell of a long winded way to say absolutely fuck all...


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> since when did people in the US say Niche like Hitch?
> 
> You're talking out of your anus again.



Ye, he had to make one up because he'd managed to blank from his mind all the examples that I proved were wrong. He's left with 'majic' and the 'ph's and nothing else.

Have never heard an American pronounce it as 'nitch' and dictionaries suggest it's pronounced the same as in England.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 26, 2009)

maomao said:


> Ye, he had to make one up because he'd managed to blank from his mind all the examples that I proved were wrong. He's left with 'majic' and the 'ph's and nothing else.
> 
> Have never heard an American pronounce it as 'nitch' and dictionaries suggest it's pronounced the same as in England.



Well for starts the pronunciation is fine - but what's really funny is that you have already decided that I'm wrong, without any evidence - true to form.

Furthermore, the example doesn't even help my case, it is just interesting. But again you seem to have missed this.

And lastly I don't have to 'make up' examples, there are plenty of words which are not phonetic, where there is an 's' instead of the pronounced 'z' (think of 'goes' or 'poses' or the 'scissors' example you have plainly forgotten) - of the 'gh' which is either useless as in 'right' or 'sight' or another 'f' as in 'rough'.

So I don't have any problem finding examples - quite the reverse in fact - it is your inability to address the issues I am putting forward.

Just for you I will use the infamous new emoticon - which seems made for you! 

And on a personal note I am amazed at how much you have missed the points being made. It seems as if none of you can be bothered to think at all...


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2009)

What I want is one post outlining clearly the following:

1. Why you want this followed by a list of research backing up your point.

2. What time period this should be done over.

3. How these changes would be implemented by government, industry, education etc.

4. What form your phonemic orthgraphy will take; ie what new letters you propose, whether it should be unique to England or borrow from existing alphabets, how you will deal with homophones etc etc.

5. What dialect it will be based on, and should there be individual orthographies for different dialects.

You've been pretty inconsistent on all of the above, perhaps if you actually made a solid argument we could get somewhere.


----------



## newme (Sep 26, 2009)

This thread reminds me of Dwyers proof of God thread.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 27, 2009)

Cid said:


> What I want is one post outlining clearly the following:
> 
> 1. Why you want this followed by a list of research backing up your point.
> 
> ...



And what I want from you is an acceptance that change can be considered, and under what criteria (if any) you would consider it.

But I suspect you will avoid this yet again.

As for the questions above:

1) If I suggested spelling any word other than phonetically, then you would rightly question it. I have posted the links which show that dyslexia is an English-speaking phenomena (which you have avoided comment on), while the advantages for learners of English are obvious because they wouldn't have to learn the multitude of little rules for spelling, such as 'i' before 'e' except after 'c', and in 'weird' and in 'beige' etc.

2) I am happy with my current position which is to introduce new spellings gradually over time. However it has been pointed out to me that it might be better to have a quick change for all English-speaking countries in unison, and tho I feel that the logistics of this might prove difficult, I can see the advantage. The key point, as ever, is to embrace the need for change.

3) Government, Industry and Education would all be able to use the alternate spellings if they wish.

4) To give a complete blueprint of the spelling reforms would take up too much space - in all it would simply be ALL the words which are consistent for ALL native speakers of English - as I have described countless times already.

5) Try and get your head around the fact (stated many times here) that there is no need for a dialect dimension in this debate because there are NO native speakers of English who pronounce 'magic' with anything other than a 'j' sound in the middle. The same goes for all the other examples I have given during this thread. If there is some variance that you can find, then that word would NOT change.


----------



## Wookey (Sep 27, 2009)

There are far too many thousands of wasted words on this thread, and I hereby confiscate language from the lot of you, until you can learn to use it responsibly and wastelessly.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 27, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> And...(big snip)... I have posted the links which show that dyslexia is an English-speaking phenomena (which you have avoided comment on),...(big snip0...



Dyslexia is not not an exclusively English speaking phenomenon.  Here are some very famous dyslexics from other countries:-

Albert Einstein - German, Leonardo Da Vinci - Italian, Pablo Picasso - Spanish, August Rodin - French, Jorn Utzon (designed Sydney Opera House) - Danish, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Hans Christian Andersen - Danish, Gustave Flaubert - French.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2009)

newme said:


> This thread reminds me of Dwyers proof of God thread.




Nah, on that thread the starter knows _exactly_ what they're doing and why. Matthews is just dim.


----------



## lontok2005 (Sep 29, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Dyslexia is not not an exclusively English speaking phenomenon.  Here are some very famous dyslexics from other countries:-
> 
> Albert Einstein...



So 'e' doesn't necessarily equal 'mc' squared?!


----------

