h a l f b a k e r yBuy 1/4, get 1/4 free.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Helping my son with his homework has brought home to me the difficulties of English spelling. Especially the double vowel words with "gh" are hard to learn.
Most methods of simplifying spelling seem to be based on using fewer letters and following pronounciation. Instead, one should mimic the spelling
of the "gh-words" that can be pronounced in so many ways. Since more words would be spelled similarly, less spellings would have to be learned. Some examples:
He fell from the bough and cried, "Ough!"
You look as though you want me to gough.
The ball went into the rough, hit by the golf bough.
To get rid of the hiccough, drink this ough.
I let out a sigh as I watched the birds fligh high in the skigh.
There will be a drought without a dought.
Faugh! This pork is raugh!
Here's all she has bought, and it's an awful lought.
If you're going to sneeze and cough, then just get ough.
She let out a laugh when he walked like a giraugh.
The horse's "neigh" meant it wanted to pleigh.
That's quite a height for any keight.
He won't be through until he says, "I love yough."
Old as the hills, this one...
http://etutors.virtualave.net/poem.htm
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? [waugsqueke, Apr 08 2002]
Mark Twain's classic spelling reform satire
http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/spell.htm
His magnificent octopus. [Aristotle, Apr 09 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Unifon, the language for the computer age
http://www.unifon.org/
Maybe, someday. [entremanure, Apr 12 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Surely you realize that spelling reform has been a perennial cause celebre for aeons? |
|
| |
Yes and I hesitated after reading the heated discussions here, still I dare posting a fresh twist on the solution. |
|
| |
Simplify everything. Have the
same spelling for everything.
Make it easier for the kids to
learn. |
|
| |
I was waiting for that...and have them all pronounced the same too to make it easier for the kids to read. |
|
| |
I think that would just make things more complicated. There are already eight ways to say 'ough', do we really need to complicate things by adding more words that people have a 1 in 8 chance of pronouncing correctly? |
|
| |
*cough* nough dough tough yough |
|
| |
Cute rhyme (rym?) though. |
|
| |
Go fish, phoenix.
(everyone else, 'gh': as in cough. 'o': as in women. 'ti': as in action.) |
|
| |
Please. This is ancient stuff. |
|
| |
Actually, I don't think English is considered an ancient language. |
|
| |
This is new. Most spelling reform is phonetic. This is more arbitrary. I still think a better solution would be to leave out vowels in an arabic/hebrew style, since they're often the biggest problem in English. |
|
| |
Lv t vwls? Tht wld b hrdr t rd, thgh. :) I *do* like the idea of fonetik speleen...er, phonetic spelling with the Shavian alphabet. The only problem is with regional differences in pronunciation. |
|
| |
Loughborough. I would gladly bet money (but not very much because I'm chicken) that there are Americans who have just read that one and thought 'Laow-burrow'. Actually it is promounced Luff-bra. I am just off to write a 'lifeless limerick' to illustrate this.
[[phoenix] of course, typgraphical errors in many cases are just a result of having more thoughts than my fingers can keep up with. I'm not going to change it, I'll hold firm with promunciation. You never know, it could start a trend.] |
|
| |
How about the town of Lancut? Pronounced "wine-sooth." |
|
| |
[sappho] And how do you pronounce 'promounced'? |
|
| |
Try these American names:
Kecoughtan
Sault Saint Marie
Powhattan
|
|
| |
//Here's all she has bought, and it's an awful lought//
This may represent the pronunciation in certain parts of the world (I can't imagine where, right enough) but it's not universally accurate. This, of course, is the problem with spellings based on phonology. For example, my friends in Liverpool pronounce "whales" and "Wales" identically, while I don't. It could all get even more confusing than it already is! |
|
| |
It's more common among Scots than among English to sound the H in 'whales' and similar words.
You may wish to try the place-names Porthoustock and Malpas. |
|
| |
How right you are, angel. I had the piss ripped mercilessly out of me when I lived in Lancashire for pronouncing the "wh" sound in whales, why, etc. I quickly learned to adopt a local accent while at school, in the interests of self-preservation. Don't know if I could manage it now, though! |
|
| |
No, folks. We're going about it all bass-ackward. There is nothing wrong with the way words are spelled. What we need is *pronunciation reform*. |
|
| |
We need the International Forum on the Standard Pronunciation of English Words (better known as IF-SPEW) to compile an official set of specifications on the precise sound of each letter. These specifications would need to be in the form of parametric equations that take into account the natural physical variations in the human vocal structure. |
|
| |
Once the specifications are ready, a team of programmers and circuit designers builds a text-to-speech converter that follows these rules flawlessly and allows users to vary the built-in parameters at will. Finally, surgeons will remove the vocal structures of all English speakers. Everyone will be issued a portable text-to-speech converter to re-enable communication. At the same time, all audio recordings must be destroyed, as they are irrecoverably tainted by incorrect pronunciation. The result is that everyone will be able to speak English with perfect pronunciation. Future generations can skip the surgery, since they have learned to speak with standard pronunciation since birth. |
|
| |
Or just do a better job of teaching standard spelling, grammar, and pronunciation to students, and insist that they use it consistently. Infractions would be punishible by having the offender's mouth washed out with soap. |
|
| |
Anyone who takes the above even a little bit seriously needs to try on that nice long-sleeved coat with the zipper in the back. |
|
| |
Seems like a good idea to me,
BB. Rip the throats out of all
those English speakers and
replace with electronics. |
|
| |
I volunteer to design it. |
|
| |
I do not speak English (only
write). |
|
| |
Seriously, neelandan? You write it perfectly. You could speak it, I gather, you just choose not to? (Rarely have occasion to?) |
|
| |
Replace all words with "Hey!" |
|
| |
waugs, neel, I have a number of acquaintances who, despite having lived most of their lives in the U.S., are barely comprehensible when they speak English, but their written English is flawless. |
|
| |
Probably the most advanced language already in use is Korean. Although it borrows some Chinese pictograms, it is based upon phonetics and the position of the parts of the mouth. Its ease of use accounts for a very high literacy rate in Korea, South Korea at least. |
|
| |
We ought to learn from Korean or maybe Unifon (link)is the answer. Otherwise, you find out if you have a knack for recognizing and remembering entire words as unique, thereby not being dependent upon rules. That's how I know English. No good at rules, though (math). |
|
| |
Anyone got any ideas for punctuation reform? I think we should get rid of all punctuation except round brackets ( ) and use these to bracket sentences, clauses, subordinate clauses, phrases, etc. It might end up a trifle nested, but not having to worry about all those weird keyboard symbols would more than make up for it. Although we might still need question marks, as I found out while trying to put this paragraph into my new format. |
|
| |
(anyone got any ideas for punctuation reform?) ( I think we should get rid of all punctuation except round brackets ( ) and use these to bracket ((sentences) (clauses) (subordinate clauses) (phrases) (etc))) ((it might end up a trifle nested) but (not having to worry about all those weird keyboard symbols would more than make up for it)) (although we might still need question marks (as I found out (while trying to put this paragraph into my new format))) |
|
| |
I like the idea) )stu) except I would substitute a single closing parenthesis for commas and apostrophes) and use a standard pair in place of periods() It would solve the nesting problem to which you refer) although that could be considered a feature) I suppose() In regard to the problem of question marks) the obvious answer is to eliminate questions() |
|
| |
The nesting problem results from the fact that language is not naturally nested.
Sentences have a beginning and move towards an end.
They may have a beginning (a middle) and an end.
But that is surely better than the following option.
((They have a beginning) a middle and an end).
They may have a beginning (a middle part) (another middle part the writer only just thought of) and an end.
I wouldn't want
((((them to have a beginning) a middle) another middle) and an end)
because needing to start all the nests at the beginning would preclude the writer thinking of other phrases (as is my wont) while writing.
Another point is that I refuse to eschew the use of full stops. |
|
| |
Hear hear. Punctuation adds drama! Nesting merely confuses. And what, perchance, of the semicolon? |
|
| |
You're all looking for change for change's sake. English works beautifully, and the richness of it allows the subtleties of poetry. Anyway, the English language is a fresh and evolving one - we borrow any words we need, or want, because they express our sentiment better. It's difficult to get people to shoehorn new words into proper verb structures, etc. |
|
| |
(th cmbntn f ll ths rls smply mks t dghclt t rd nythng, prtclrly f thr r brcktd ds (lk ths) nd (qtd ns) n th sm sntnc) nd hw, f y dn)t nst prprly) r w sppsd t knw whn it strts nd nds) |
|
| |
The combination of all these rules simply makes it difficult to read anything, particularly if there are bracketed ideas (like this) and 'quoted ones' in the same sentence? And how, if you don't nest properly, are we supposed to know when it start and ends? |
|
| |
Oh? Oh! Oh. Oh... or:
(h) |
|
| |