h a l f b a k e r yA riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In the English language there are words that sound alike but have
different meanings. In spoken English a listener determines which
meaning is appropriate by the context of the sentence, however
when written they are spelled differently.
For example, “If you’re going out better bring your umbrella.”
“You’re” means “you are” and “your” signifies belonging to the
“you” person, two different meanings but the context of the
sentence makes it obvious to the listener which meaning is
appropriate.
However if you wrote “If your going out better bring you’re
umbrella” someone will point out as they should that you have two
spelling errors in the sentence. The reason that they know is that
the
meaning is obvious.
Eventually these words will merge into one spelling, to speed up
the
process we introduce the contextual form of a word, ‘x signifying
that the reader should interpret the word by the context of the
sentence.
The example sentence would be written, “If your’x going out
better
bring your’x umbrella.”
When reading the sentence aloud the ‘x is not pronounced because
it
is not necessary. This is similar to French where the last letters of
most words aren’t pronounced and are just there for decoration.
So its’x is used for its, it’s; there’x for there, they’re and their;
your’x for your and you’re and so on.
Be the leading edge in a linguistic revolution and start using ‘x
the contextual form of the word.
X-ing a Paragrab
http://classiclit.a...e/bl-eapoe-xing.htm
Story by Edgar Allan Poe [neelandan, Nov 25 2008]
[link]
|
| |
Would their'x be a misspelling of there'x? |
|
| |
It doesn't make sense because "your" and "you're" are not different forms of the same word, they are different words, one is just "your" and the other is a contraction of "you are". |
|
| |
For'x this'x to'x make'x any'x kind'x of'x sense'x you'd have'x to'x apply'x the'x " 'x " to'x everything'x that'x isn't a'x contraction'x. And that's just silly. |
|
| |
If I say your or you're how do you know which word I'm using,
by the context of the sentence. So why not spell them the
same. There are a ton of words in the English language that
sound the same and have totally different meanings. So why
not words that currently are spelled differently but sound
the same? The contextual form of the word is just a
transition device to prod the language into phonetic
spelling. |
|
| |
I suggest using (sp) as the mark denoting this, as its message is similar and its meaning well known. |
|
| |
Hang on. If I understand this correctly, then, in the future
"'x" will mean "this word used to have a different spelling,
but now you have to determine its meaning from context" -
is this correct? |
|
| |
If so, then what on earth is the point? Readers will of course
determine the meaning from the context, just as they do
now for words like "wind/wind", "invalid/invalid",
"bollocks/bollocks" and many other cases. Yet we don't write
"The wind'x blew the wig off the gerbil" or "he was an
invalid'x". |
|
| |
So, what is the point of your invention? |
|
| |
You're is not a *word* as such, it is an abbreviation of two words... |
|
| |
Isn't is not a *word* as such, it is an abbreviation of two words... |
|
| |
"Sx hx, Jxhn! hxw nxw? Txld yxu sx, yxu knxw. Dxn't crxw, anxther time, befxre yxu're xut xf the wxxds! Dxes yxur mxther knxw yxu're xut?" |
|
| |
what [neelandan] said... probably. |
|
| |
[MB] The point is to provide a transition to phonetic spelling.
You only use the 'x for words or contractions that sound alike
and have different spellings. You wouldn't use it for invalid or
wind because it only has one spelling for any of the multiple
meanings. You would use its'x instead of their it's or its'
because they sound alike until one spelling is accepted. |
|
| |
If we are simplifying, just pidginize the whole deal: use the same pronoun as pronoun, to modify action taken by object of pronoun, and to connote possession by object of pronoun. |
|
| |
If you going out better bring you umbrella.
If him going out better bring him umbrella.
If you not going you give him you umbrella. |
|
| |
It has a ring of the Tarzan about it but is very clear and less complex. |
|
| |
"The more common conclusion, however, was that the affair was, simply, X-traordinary and in-X-plicable. Even the town mathematician confessed that he could make nothing of so dark a problem. X, everybody knew, was an unknown quantity; but in this case (as he properly observed), there was an unknown quantity of X." |
|
| |
From the story, <link>. There is a vast body of literature out there that people still enjoy reading. All written in that archaic style which this idea seeks to improve. |
|
| |
It can happen. [theGem] should set itself to creating a vast body of literature in the proposed style, which a vast body of people will enjoy reading, and eventually incorporate that 'x' thing into the common language. |
|
| |
Ix xam xlooking xforward xto xthe xday. X. |
|
| |
"X-ing a Paragrab/(1850)/by Edgar Allan Poe/(1809-1849)" |
|
| |
So he wrote it one year after his death? That's just like him, that Poe. |
|
| |
The your/you're homonym is only the case for certain accents, so shirley the answer is to get everyone to talk in an exaggerated Scotch accent, with men sounding like Gkpr. Willam and women like Miss J Brodie. |
|
| |
//That's just like him, that Poe// |
|
| |
X-ing ... was his last published tale, around February 1849. The date 1850 probably refers to the date of its publication, because I found this same date mentioned in another website featuring this same story. |
|
| |
Oh well another idea reduced to crumbs on the bakery floor.
I'll just have to wipe the blood off the old drawing board and
try again. Thank you all for your candid annotations. |
|
| |