Putting the 'K' into pathetic

[Tawodi Osdi]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403296.html

Just when you think people couldn't be more absurd.  While we simplify the spelling of English words, why don't we go completely Orwellian and start getting rid of the superfluous words, like superfluous?

[BWPS]

Obvious troll is obvious, they're probably out there to make fun of how stupid most protesters are. There's a huge trend for people to just go out and do weird stuff for either no reason or a non obvious reason. Nobody really wants to change how words are spelled. But your first reaction is to say "protesting at the spelling bee? That's RIDICULOUS!" or "protesting at the spelling bee? That's HILARIOUS!" and that's exactly what they want. It's fun. I wouldn't be surprised if a group like Improv Everywhere is behind this.

[Panther_Gunn]

Hopefully this will gain about as much steam (and ridicule) as "ebonics" did.   

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Hopefully this will gain about as much steam (and ridicule) as "ebonics" did.   

Of course, P_G, that all depends on your usage of the term.  If you mean to use "Ebonics" interchangeably with A.A.V.E. (African American Vernacular English), then you are out of luck; A.A.V.E. is a well-documented and accepted concept within the field of modern linguistics and is here to stay.  If you mean to use "Ebonics" in its more limited (and infamous and racially reductive) usage by the Oakland School Board, then I think it is fair to say that its comparison to the phonetic spelling movement is appropriate.

More importantly, if this (arguably very arbitrary and Anglophone-centric) movement caught on, books like Finnegans Wake might stand to lose part of their charm.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and World Breaker

[BlueBard]

The English language has evolved as it has in a very natural way, even if some of the more horrible examples of unintuitive spelling appear very unnatural.

Trying to force a paradigm shift like phonetic spelling into the mix is doomed to fail.  Additionally, a large portion of legacy literature and media would have to be transcribed or else be rendered inscrutable to future generations.

If the changes arise organically, such as wide acceptance of an alternative spelling for any given word, then those changes might well take root.

But, in the interests of fairness, I will provide a translation for my Phonetically-sensitive fellows:

"Thuh Inglish languij haz evolved az it haz in a verie natchurel way, evun if som uf thuh mor horibul exampulz uf unintuitiv speling apear verie unnatchurel.

Trying tu forse a pairadime shift lik fonetik speling intu thuh mix iz dumed tu fail.  Addishunuly, a larj porshun uf legusy liturachur and medeya wud hav tu be transkribed or elss be rendurd inskrutabul tu fewtchur genurashuns.

If thuh chanjes arize organikly, sutch az wyd axseptense of an alturnativ speling for enie givin wurd, then thozz chanjes mite wel tak rut."

[Previsionary]

I think most people know how I feel about English and grammar (and how people abuse it and yet continue to demand aliens learn it), so I'm not going to reiterate myself for the umpteenth time. Alas, must I remind people we already had a time where English was spelled phonetically. It was rationally changed to a fixed system when people realized phonetic spelling led to too many variations of a single word. We're supposed to move forward, not backwards. *shakes head*

*looks at Bluebard*

Speak Engrish, plz. Kthxbai.

[BlueBard]

Alas, must I remind people we already had a time where English was spelled phonetically. It was rationally changed to a fixed system when people realized phonetic spelling led to too many variations of a single word. We're supposed to move forward, not backwards. *shakes head*

*looks at Bluebard*

And didn't I effectively illustrate that point?

Besides, I wanted to make sure future phonetically-trained people can read my statement for posterity.

Want me to provide a phonetic translation for you?  I'd be happy to do it, free of charge.   

[stumpy]

While there are plenty of words where I think the spelling is a nuisance, I'm not sure creating a one-to-one correspondence between pronunciation and spelling is really such a benefit, even if it were possible, especially since so much English is written, where different spellings of similar-sounding words can help differentiate them. Ultimately, the extraordinarily high transition costs of changing to a phonetic spelling system probably mean that any top-down scheme for spelling "reform" is doomed. (Helloooo metric system!) Change will come slowly, as popular new spellings of some words evolve from being "incorrect" to "alternative" to "acceptable".

BTW,

The cost of clinging to traditional spellings, they say, is millions of illiterate English speakers who struggle to read signs or get good jobs, and billions of dollars in lost productivity.

Whatever the benefits of an easier-to-spell English language, I don't really think there is much of a social gain to be made by redefining what was previously illiteracy to be literacy. And, people who come across in job interviews as uneducated aren't suddenly going to find employment parity with educated people because the bar for AIRYOODISHUN is lowered.

[Panther_Gunn]

so much English is written, where different spellings of similar-sounding words can help differentiate them.

A point I hadn't thought of originally, but as soon as I started to read that sentence, it immediately fell into place.  What *would* be the fate of homonyms?  I want to think of a sentence filled with as many to's, too's, two's, and tutu's as I can, but my brain won't allow it (apparently my silliness filter is set fairly low today).  However, in that same vein, what would happen to a sentence such as "Where to wear the wares?"  Are we going in the in or in the inn? And it fairly boggles the mind what would happen should TPB catch hold of this line of thinking and be allowed to run willy-nilly with it.   

[BlueBard]

What *would* be the fate of homonyms?

homonymocide, of course.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

And it fairly boggles the mind what would happen should TPB catch hold of this line of thinking and be allowed to run willy-nilly with it.   

I typically wear (/where/ware/Wehr) an Ace while jogging to avoid running willy-nilly.  I am flattered, of course, that you would devote your time to boggling about such an image, P_G.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and World Breaker

[Glitch Girl]

Oh THANK you tiobe... Now I'm never going to be able to hear the term "willy-nilly" without THAT mental image ever again.  

[The Phantom Eyebrow]

... I am flattered, of course, that you would devote your time to boggling about such an image, P_G.

Don't be daft; you don't boggle images, you google them.

I don't know... he's not back in the place a wet week and already he's gone and dragged us all into the gutter. 

The gutter I says!

[Cardmaster]

I find this phonetic spelling movement fascinating.. so funny, I was just reading about it in the book "American Bee" by James Maguire. REALLY interesting book for any of you who are interested in linguistics and such.

-CM

[detourne_me]

Has anyone else read Ridley Walker by Russel Hoban?
It's an incredibly enjoyable book written in that phonetic based style that these guys are trying to endorse.
Cool thing is though, it's a post-apocalyptic tale - kind of associated with the Canterbury Tales.

[DrMike2000]

Riddley Walker is an awesome piece of work.

I also remember finding a phonetic spelling book in the library when I was a kid, "Here comes the jumping Rabbit" but all spelled strangely. I thought it was meant to be funny at first, till my folks told me what it was.

To be honest, I'm in favour of phonetic spelling. Our current system of multiple pronunciations of 'ough' and silent letters everywhere is an absolute mess. Every member of our society is expected to learn this creaky archaic system, cobbled together from many different languages, and made to feel stupid if they can't.
My stepdaughter's dyslexic, and has had a lot of what I see as unnecessary trouble due tyo this condition.

If through and cough were spelled 'thru' and 'coff' we wouldn't actually lost any ability to express ourselves, so the Orwell analogy doesnt really hold water.

Did you know dyslexia is pretty much unheard of in Turkey, where they have a phonetically spelled language?

[detourne_me]

Did you know dyslexia is pretty much unheard of in Turkey, where they have a phonetically spelled language?

Korea too, where there is a phonetic alphabet. One of the highest rates of literacy worldwide.
However there are limitations to pronunciation here.
Everyone knows of R/L problems with Asian languages, but also F, V, and Z sounds are nearly impossible for them to pronounce, as well as multiple consonant-single syllable words. like "bucked" or "best"

[BlueBard]

If through ... were spelled 'thru'...

Doesn't count.  That's already a widely accepted alternate spelling, even if it isn't in the dictionary.  I use it myself sometimes.

And shouldn't cough be rendered koff?  Why have 'c' fake a hard 'k' when you can use the real thing?  I know I've seen that alternate spelling used quite frequently when a writer wants to express a character actually coughing.

By spelling as coff rather than koff, you're making my point for me.  There's where phonetics phalls down.  How do you standardize it?  We'd simply be swapping one group's silly rules for another group's silly rules.

Plus, nobody yet has addressed how they plan to 'fix' all of the existing literature or the gap between modern English spelling and fonetik speling.  You couldn't teach one or the other, you'd have to teach both until phonetics was fully accepted and socialized.  And that's the silliest part of all.  Education is complicated enough as it is.

Like it or not, this is English.  Not Korean or Turkish.  It has always heavily borrowed from other languages and that has influenced its' development.  Thanks to British and American influence over the decades, it has been widely spread across the world.  The time when it could have been 'fixed' passed with the publication of Daniel Webster's first dictionary.  It is what it is, and there's no good way to change it overnight.  Unless of course, you can get Microsoft to change their spell-checker and force everybody to use it.

On top of all that, spelling has been de-emphasized in our modern society.  I can't tell you how many intelligent professionals I encounter have atrocious spelling habits... and I'm pretty sure even if you switched to phonetic spelling you'd still have a high degree of spelling errors.  I've been known to make them myself from time to time.

[Tawodi Osdi]

I can certainly feel for those with dyslexia.  I have it myself and had to go through two years of LD classes and be pushed back a year to deal with it, but I have gotten passed it, mostly. 

I can concur about the easiness of phonetic languages.  I have been trying to learn Cherokee which is phonetic, and Spanish is mostly phonetic and is fun to speak, but the problem with phonetic languages is incorporating words from other languages.  Without the paradigm of thinking one spelling equals one sound makes it easier to comprehend other languages, though many just choose not to try.

[DrMike2000]

Doesn't count.  That's already a widely accepted alternate spelling, even if it isn't in the dictionary.  I use it myself sometimes.

And shouldn't cough be rendered koff?  Why have 'c' fake a hard 'k' when you can use the real thing?  I know I've seen that alternate spelling used quite frequently when a writer wants to express a character actually coughing.

By spelling as coff rather than koff, you're making my point for me.  There's where phonetics phalls down.  How do you standardize it?  We'd simply be swapping one group's silly rules for another group's silly rules.

Plus, nobody yet has addressed how they plan to 'fix' all of the existing literature or the gap between modern English spelling and fonetik speling.  You couldn't teach one or the other, you'd have to teach both until phonetics was fully accepted and socialized.  And that's the silliest part of all.  Education is complicated enough as it is.

Like it or not, this is English.  Not Korean or Turkish.  It has always heavily borrowed from other languages and that has influenced its' development.  Thanks to British and American influence over the decades, it has been widely spread across the world.  The time when it could have been 'fixed' passed with the publication of Daniel Webster's first dictionary.  It is what it is, and there's no good way to change it overnight.  Unless of course, you can get Microsoft to change their spell-checker and force everybody to use it.

On top of all that, spelling has been de-emphasized in our modern society.  I can't tell you how many intelligent professionals I encounter have atrocious spelling habits... and I'm pretty sure even if you switched to phonetic spelling you'd still have a high degree of spelling errors.  I've been known to make them myself from time to time.

Some good points there. English is evolving, and always will like any other live langauge. Like you say, "thru" (and "tho") have become sort of accepted, and will probably end up in the dictionary in our lifetimes. US spelling of words like "color" and "armor" is a step towards phonetic compared to "colour" and "armour". Ditto with "-ize" over "-ise" endings. I don't think the time to change has passed at all. Our language is getting more phonetic, just very slowly.

We already teach literature with out of date language, Shakespeare being the obvious example. Sometimes it gets translated into a more accessible form, most of the time its presented raw. At some point, 20th Century literature will read a little odd and stilted in the same way, I guess.

You're right, in that trying to push this through quicker than it would naturally happen would be far from problem free. And aphonetic language wouldn't completely eliminate spelling errors, but it would reduce them a lot. I still think its a goal worth pursuing, but I have to admit I've no idea how we could speed the process up much if at all.

[BlueBard]

I have no argument with the natural progression of the language or with selective adoption of phonetic spelling.

[Kenn]

Hopefully this will gain about as much steam (and ridicule) as "ebonics" did.   

Of course, P_G, that all depends on your usage of the term.  If you mean to use "Ebonics" interchangeably with A.A.V.E. (African American Vernacular English), then you are out of luck; A.A.V.E. is a well-documented and accepted concept within the field of modern linguistics and is here to stay.  If you mean to use "Ebonics" in its more limited (and infamous and racially reductive) usage by the Oakland School Board, then I think it is fair to say that its comparison to the phonetic spelling movement is appropriate.

"Oh stewardess, I speak jive." -  Barbara Billingsly in "Airplane, the Movie."

[Panther_Gunn]

"Jive turkey ain't got no brains no-how!"

[detourne_me]

A Hero Ain't Nothin' but a Sandwich

[daglob]

Once upon a time I learned to read phonetically. There were books and workbooks on the subject, and I was reading several grades above my school level by the end of the first grade. I'm not sure why it isn't done regularly anymore...

Then there is Ghalleger's routine on English not making much sense...

You would have to dispense with letter sounds that were duplicated by others ("c"), standardize the pronounciation of others (basically get rid of the "short" sounds of vowells), ditch the silent letters, duplicate letters... it might be easier to convert to Esperanto.

Odd thought: The Eks-Men led by Profesur Ekszaveyur.

[Panther_Gunn]

I remember going through all of the phonics stuff in 1st grade.  I can only assume that there wasn't any further instruction or emphasis on it becasue it was only intended to give us a grasp of the concept, for a better foundation of how words worked.  Who knows.

[JeyNyce]

How did these people learn how to spell....from teh internet? <---that was done on purpose

[daglob]

There seemed to be a de-emphasis on grammar when my daughter went through school, as there seemed to be a turn to "quick and dirty" math (who cares if it's the correct answer so long as its close). In the case of the math, I think it was a combination of things, including the fact that a pocket calculator could be bought for a few dollars in the checkout line of a grocery store, so why teach kids something they won't need anyway? At one point, it was being bandied around that learning by "rote" somehow didn't actually teach anyone anything. I also had to suffer through New Math for two years until I could get away from it and get into algebra and learn some REAL math.