English Spelling Reform
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 01:41 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 08:31 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Pretty soon we're gonna have spell check capable devices implanted directly into our brains anyway.

I would look forward to that. My spelling is horrible. It makes sense in my head but when I type it out so many words are underlined in red. Grrrr. Texting and tweeting has changed spelling or at least shortened words. My husband teaches Shakespeare and he has the kids write Shakespeare out in text language. It's kinda fun. I now see proper nouns not being capitalized by younger people as much, it takes too much time and effort on an iphone. I don't capitalize the word god on purpose. Mostly just to rile theists up. (snicker, snicker)
"God" - should not be capitalized, unless it starts a sentence - as it just did... Smile

It is NOT the name of the xtian god, however much they'd like to think it is. (They like to pretend that theirs is the only uber-hero that somebody made up...

"God" is a generic term --- like "man" is.

The xtians like to try to claim their god is named "God" in a feeble attempt at being exclusive. Their god's name is Jehovah, Yahweh or YHWH - depending on which drooler you ask....................

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 01:50 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 01:41 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I would look forward to that. My spelling is horrible. It makes sense in my head but when I type it out so many words are underlined in red. Grrrr. Texting and tweeting has changed spelling or at least shortened words. My husband teaches Shakespeare and he has the kids write Shakespeare out in text language. It's kinda fun. I now see proper nouns not being capitalized by younger people as much, it takes too much time and effort on an iphone. I don't capitalize the word god on purpose. Mostly just to rile theists up. (snicker, snicker)
"God" - should not be capitalized, unless it starts a sentence - as it just did... Smile

It is NOT the name of the xtian god, however much they'd like to think it is. (They like to pretend that theirs is the only uber-hero that somebody made up...

"God" is a generic term --- like "man" is.

The xtians like to try to claim their god is named "God" in a feeble attempt at being exclusive. Their god's name is Jehovah, Yahweh or YHWH - depending on which drooler you ask....................

Oh, christians capitalize god all the time.....and "Him" and "Truth" and "Lord' and I've even seen "Eternity" capitalized. Capitalizing "truth" pisses me off the most, so fuck that. I don't even capitalize "christian" 'cause I'm a smart ass. Or is it Smart Ass. Smartass

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
12-02-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
Only Odin should be capitalized. All others should be footnotes.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
12-02-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 01:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The OP has no compelling argument for benefit versus the massive upheaval.
I think his argument is extremely compelling.

In my opinion, literacy trumps some people's insistence that the history of words is important.

I'm sure there was much resistance when China sought to introduced simplified Chinese, and still there are many that use traditional characters.
But in my opinion, it was a vast improvement.

I have no love for the English written language as it is today. I have no resistance to it being changed. If changing it makes it so that less people will be illiterate, then I'm all for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
12-02-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 01:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The OP has no compelling argument for benefit versus the massive upheaval.
I think his argument is extremely compelling.

In my opinion, literacy trumps some people's insistence that the history of words is important.

I'm sure there was much resistance when China sought to introduced simplified Chinese, and still there are many that use traditional characters.
But in my opinion, it was a vast improvement.

I have no love for the English written language as it is today. I have no resistance to it being changed. If changing it makes it so that less people will be illiterate, then I'm all for it.

Yet the literacy rate remains higher in Hong Kong and Taiwan, neither of which have followed mainland China in the transition to simplified Chinese.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
12-02-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 02:19 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Yet the literacy rate remains higher in Hong Kong and Taiwan, neither of which have followed mainland China in the transition to simplified Chinese.
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to compare literacy by country.
What was the literacy of Honk Kong prior to the reform, what was the literacy afterwards?

What was the literacy of China before the reform, what was it after?

The wealth and prosperity of a country might also have something to do with it, the education on offer too? Many factors are afoot. Changing the character set is just one of many, but it is an obvious improvement, if you ever learned how to read and write in Chinese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 01:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The OP has no compelling argument for benefit versus the massive upheaval.
I think his argument is extremely compelling.

In my opinion, literacy trumps some people's insistence that the history of words is important.

I'm sure there was much resistance when China sought to introduced simplified Chinese, and still there are many that use traditional characters.
But in my opinion, it was a vast improvement.

I have no love for the English written language as it is today. I have no resistance to it being changed. If changing it makes it so that less people will be illiterate, then I'm all for it.

literacy over communication though?

In the internet world now where people read/write as adults across all age groups. What changes can you top down formulaic make to instruct people that will make improvements without hampering the communication in texts and online. Because it's not likely you get the majority of adults shifting in much of the ways they use the language. Maybe there is industry market in it to some degrees; Would they need to print books & childrens books in manners both can understand, would you create new website searches for the reformed stylizations, or search programs that can alter the terms of all these various words.

The argument against it isn't tradition, it's functionality. It's plausibly doable but there will be far less cohesion and understanding still for the waves of the current generations.

I don't get the call ups of centuries and even decades old reforms now. That's not the world this world is anymore... the amount of writing adults did was so insignificant to as it is now. That would also vary among if you're rural or a city like in Hong Kong in the past, probably cities had more adults writing/reading so more likely to have affected them if they did shift to reforms.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2016 02:52 PM by Glossophile.)
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You misunderstand her point. Leaving aside that your proposal is utterly unworkable, numerous people have pointed out to you that the are both pros and cons to it, and you seem to refuse to admit the cons while overselling the pros.

No one is advocating for present conventions as if they were ex nihilo proscriptive systems - what you're calling special pleading here is a ridiculous straw man.

What straw man? I neither believe nor claim that Undergroundp would actually advocate for the splitting of current homophonic homographs like "fair." My point was that her argument was based on a principle (i.e. that homophones must be distinguished as to their meanings) that she herself presumably does not apply consistently. This suggests that her underlying criterion is something other than what she professes it to be, and if, as I suspect, it turns out to be proximity to traditional spelling, then she has, in a sense, begged the question.

(12-02-2016 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Speech contains numerous cues that are absent in writing. Written language makes up for that by conveying information in different ways. An obsession with strict phonetic transcription is missing the point of writing systems entirely.

How so? If context is enough to clarify a homophone in speech, why would it not be so in writing, especially if the corresponding spoken forms were clearly encoded such that the very same context that one would get from speech can be reliably reconstructed? Many important intonational cues are at least loosely represented by punctuation, and as for those that are not, the non-phonological features of current spelling are only sporadically helpful at best and completely irrelevant at worse. For instance, there is no particular spelling that can unambiguously convey sarcasm on the page, for which a better solution might be to integrate something like HTML tags (e.g. <sarc>Yeah, like that's gonna happen</sarc>).

(12-02-2016 12:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is far from true in a lot of writing. It depends on the expression and context of the writing medium. There is a lot of what would be interest to the history and meaning of traditional context in words in literary or academic writing that can even translate to communicative debate. Even to a place like that. Allusions, references, puns, and other wordplay inferences are built on that point.

Very few if any of those tropes rely on the particulars of their spellings to be effective. Otherwise, they would never work if conveyed first in spoken form, and yet they quite easily do.

Chas, I agree that part of a message's meaning does lie in the component words, but spelling is not an inherent property of any word. "English" and "Ingliç" are both the same word.

I also agree that my mother tongue ought to be respected (as should any language). So why can't we respect it enough to represent it faithfully and authentically in writing?

Again, it seems that many of the criticisms boil down to a confusion of medium and message. The persistent argument that some meaning or sophistication of expression is lost in simplified spelling is analogous to an argument that upgrading from cassette tapes to MP3s somehow makes the lyrics less meaningful or the melodies less nuanced. It's a complete non sequitur.

Thanks for the support, Stevil! Yes, there are multiple factors feeding into literacy rates, which is why intranational studies can be just as important as international studies. One experiment done in the 1960s attempted to teach a phonemic alphabet called Unifon to first graders in Chicago. As I recall, the students not only became proficient readers in just three months, but they also fared better when transitioning into traditional spelling.

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 02:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 02:19 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Yet the literacy rate remains higher in Hong Kong and Taiwan, neither of which have followed mainland China in the transition to simplified Chinese.
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to compare literacy by country.
What was the literacy of Honk Kong prior to the reform, what was the literacy afterwards?

What was the literacy of China before the reform, what was it after?

The wealth and prosperity of a country might also have something to do with it, the education on offer too? Many factors are afoot. Changing the character set is just one of many, but it is an obvious improvement, if you ever learned how to read and write in Chinese.

I've studied both and honestly found very little difference in the time required to pick up writing (or to forget the characters if I stopped using them :/). The number of stokes is less, which helps in some characters, but this is often accomplished by removing or altering radicals that otherwise had meaning within the character. Removing the heart radical from the character for love, for example. This can actually make it more difficult by making the strokes used seem more random.

It would be difficult to make an objective comparison, though. Pre revolution China was a very different place, and even afterwards many growing up in the midst of the cultural revolution never had the chance to become educated.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: English Spelling Reform
(12-02-2016 02:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 02:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think his argument is extremely compelling.

In my opinion, literacy trumps some people's insistence that the history of words is important.

I'm sure there was much resistance when China sought to introduced simplified Chinese, and still there are many that use traditional characters.
But in my opinion, it was a vast improvement.

I have no love for the English written language as it is today. I have no resistance to it being changed. If changing it makes it so that less people will be illiterate, then I'm all for it.

literacy over communication though?
The written words aren't all that important. The message being conveyed is what is important.

The following is perfectly readable and understandable, and easy to read quickly. The message is conveyed even though the written words have been bastardised and buggered.

http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/le...n-you-read
"I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: