It's not a problem, that's why it doesn't need to be "solved".
English orthography must be reformed !
zxczxc Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:36 pm GMT
It's not a problem, that's why it doesn't need to be "solved".
the problem is that it slows down the learning speed.
If English pronunciation and spelling be cognate, we don't need to stick our childhood time to learn it and we can spend our time in literature.
It's not a problem, that's why it doesn't need to be "solved".
the problem is that it slows down the learning speed.
If English pronunciation and spelling be cognate, we don't need to stick our childhood time to learn it and we can spend our time in literature.
Why shall we need to spell it and pronounce it in 2 ways?
It really wastes our childhood's time.
Why not let spelling and pronunciation be more cognate, then we don't need to stick our time into it and we can spend our time in literature more.
It really wastes our childhood's time.
Why not let spelling and pronunciation be more cognate, then we don't need to stick our time into it and we can spend our time in literature more.
Because if you want to change spelling like that then literature will be impossible to read for future generations.
zxczxc Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:51 pm GMT
Because if you want to change spelling like that then literature will be impossible to read for future generations.
You can re-write the literature books.
Then how come we read Beowulf without learning Old English?
Because if you want to change spelling like that then literature will be impossible to read for future generations.
You can re-write the literature books.
Then how come we read Beowulf without learning Old English?
So, you may translate "Modern English literature works" to "Reformed English"
"if not, why not creating "Americanish" or go back to unify with UK now"
Why can't a country be independent from another and still speak the same language? So, just because we speak English, as do Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, we are under the rule of Britain? And Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, and Cuba are all under the rule of Spain? I don't think so buddy.
Why can't a country be independent from another and still speak the same language? So, just because we speak English, as do Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, we are under the rule of Britain? And Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, and Cuba are all under the rule of Spain? I don't think so buddy.
LAA Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:02 pm GMT
"if not, why not creating "Americanish" or go back to unify with UK now"
Why can't a country be independent from another and still speak the same language? So, just because we speak English, as do Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, we are under the rule of Britain? And Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, and Cuba are all under the rule of Spain? I don't think so buddy.
I may to ask u guys to unify with UK,
but remember, if you become independent, why not try a new cultural independence? Are you guys not creative? are you guys the traditional slaves?
"if not, why not creating "Americanish" or go back to unify with UK now"
Why can't a country be independent from another and still speak the same language? So, just because we speak English, as do Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, we are under the rule of Britain? And Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, and Cuba are all under the rule of Spain? I don't think so buddy.
I may to ask u guys to unify with UK,
but remember, if you become independent, why not try a new cultural independence? Are you guys not creative? are you guys the traditional slaves?
I see that others have already mentioned this, but the initial phonetic spellings of English presented by "English reformer" do not accurately reflect the pronunciation of those words spoken by many native speakers of English, myself included. In some cases, it seems as if English reformer has used foreign pronunciation of certain vowels. Some of the words chosen seem to have pretty phonetic spelling already under the rules of English orthography (that, claim, ass), and yet English reformer has substituted new vowels in each of his/her spellings supposedly designed to more accurately reflect common pronunciation of those words.
This illustrates more fundamental problems, both with English orthography and with its reform. Vowels in English all have multiple sounds, even when they are being pronounced in accordance with proper English orthography. Britons and Americans pronounce the vowel "a" in the word "ass" differently, yet because "a" can stand for different sounds, both would groups would likely agree that "ass" is a phonetic spelling. So, step one would be to assign one specific vowel sound to a single letter or combination of letters.
Even after hypothetically agreeing on which sounds correspond to which letters, there's still another major obstacle to spelling reform. Because of the wide variety of dialects and accents within English, one would have a very tough time dictating the proper phonetic spelling of most words. People from Liverpool pronounce words differently from people in London, who pronounce words differently from people in New York, who pronounce words differently from people in Atlanta, who pronounce words differently from people in Toronto, who prounce words differently from people in Aukland, et cetera.
Do you pick a single accent and make it the standard for which all English spelling is based? Which one would it be? Even if you managed to agree on a single accent to serve as the standard, would you really have accomplished anything? No matter the accent chosen, the result is going to be that the majority of native English speakers pronounce words differently than how they are written, and that was the problem from the beginning.
This illustrates more fundamental problems, both with English orthography and with its reform. Vowels in English all have multiple sounds, even when they are being pronounced in accordance with proper English orthography. Britons and Americans pronounce the vowel "a" in the word "ass" differently, yet because "a" can stand for different sounds, both would groups would likely agree that "ass" is a phonetic spelling. So, step one would be to assign one specific vowel sound to a single letter or combination of letters.
Even after hypothetically agreeing on which sounds correspond to which letters, there's still another major obstacle to spelling reform. Because of the wide variety of dialects and accents within English, one would have a very tough time dictating the proper phonetic spelling of most words. People from Liverpool pronounce words differently from people in London, who pronounce words differently from people in New York, who pronounce words differently from people in Atlanta, who pronounce words differently from people in Toronto, who prounce words differently from people in Aukland, et cetera.
Do you pick a single accent and make it the standard for which all English spelling is based? Which one would it be? Even if you managed to agree on a single accent to serve as the standard, would you really have accomplished anything? No matter the accent chosen, the result is going to be that the majority of native English speakers pronounce words differently than how they are written, and that was the problem from the beginning.
"I may to ask u guys to unify with UK,
but remember, if you become independent, why not try a new cultural independence? Are you guys not creative? are you guys the traditional slaves? "
You obviously don't know anything about the U.S. or its culture. American culture is very distinct from that of England.
And your "brilliant ideas" for reform make no sense, because your spelling is done to your own mispronounciation, and not according to the pronounciation of an English speaker.
but remember, if you become independent, why not try a new cultural independence? Are you guys not creative? are you guys the traditional slaves? "
You obviously don't know anything about the U.S. or its culture. American culture is very distinct from that of England.
And your "brilliant ideas" for reform make no sense, because your spelling is done to your own mispronounciation, and not according to the pronounciation of an English speaker.
He can't even write a simple sentence correctly. I reckon this is a wind-up.
While English Reformer's alternate spellings don't make too much sense, and are arguably worse than the original spellings, he does have a point. It's not a new idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_reform
http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/aims.php
However -- good luck making it happen. For better or "wers", English is extemely well entrenched around the world with its current spellings.
A few other points:
- French uses lots of letters that are not pronouced. Would you want to reform French too?
- Spanish is just about completely phonetic in its spellings, yet native Spanish speakers make frequent spelling mistakes too.
- Children learning English natively don't have much trouble with the spellings, it's just "the way it is". Kids are good learners that way. As a kid, it never occurred to me that the spellings were strange. It's more a problem for adult learners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_reform
http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/aims.php
However -- good luck making it happen. For better or "wers", English is extemely well entrenched around the world with its current spellings.
A few other points:
- French uses lots of letters that are not pronouced. Would you want to reform French too?
- Spanish is just about completely phonetic in its spellings, yet native Spanish speakers make frequent spelling mistakes too.
- Children learning English natively don't have much trouble with the spellings, it's just "the way it is". Kids are good learners that way. As a kid, it never occurred to me that the spellings were strange. It's more a problem for adult learners.
P.S.
"For example, English words have 6000 words of vocabularies, then this year, you can reform 50 words, and next year you can reform another 50 words. i'm sure finally it can be finished "
Assuming this could be organized -- how could this NOT create an absolute nightmare of confusion for the next 120 years? You'd be guaranteeing a century of screwed up spellings. English textbooks would become obsolete on a yearly basis. You'd have people shouting across the office, "how is 'enough' spelled this year?" There would be rioting in the streets. I tells ya.
"For example, English words have 6000 words of vocabularies, then this year, you can reform 50 words, and next year you can reform another 50 words. i'm sure finally it can be finished "
Assuming this could be organized -- how could this NOT create an absolute nightmare of confusion for the next 120 years? You'd be guaranteeing a century of screwed up spellings. English textbooks would become obsolete on a yearly basis. You'd have people shouting across the office, "how is 'enough' spelled this year?" There would be rioting in the streets. I tells ya.
Judging by his command of English, I thought he was president of the United States :o)