Foks Neuus kant spel.

[SirNitram]

Link to video, via C&L.

'Is English Too Hard?'. Words brought up include 'Monkey' and 'Spigot'. My god, this explains so much. The GOP isn't a mind-control cult. They just STEAL YOUR BRAIN-MEATS. Clearly the clockwork ones installed are winding down.

[Flagg]

Awesome that this comes from Fox news, but I can't honestly say I disagree with them. English spelling could use an overhaul when it comes to certain words, mainly those derived from French.

[Johonebesus]

No, it's Saxon words that are a bitch. The gh combination comes from the Germanic side of the family, as does the silent k, and the silent e. French loan words and older Norman-French derived words aren't nearly as bad.

[Molyneux]

"STUDY YOUR WORDS, PEOPLE!"

It's strangely gratifying to see people on Fox News come down on the side of supporting studying.

[Coyote]

"STUDY YOUR WORDS, PEOPLE!"

It's strangely gratifying to see people on Fox News come down on the side of supporting studying.

Well, how else are kids going to be able to read the Bible? After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, then it should be good enough for our little darlings!

[Grasscutter]

I've got to agree with Crooks & Liars, the best part is when the former beauty queen says that "soldier" is confusing because of "...the D. There’s no D in it."

[Glass Pearl Player]

I've got to agree with Crooks & Liars, the best part is when the former beauty queen says that "soldier" is confusing because of "...the D. There’s no D in it."

Well, there once was one, I think; compare and contrast german "der Soldat", "der Sold", "der Söldner". As Johonebesus implied, the germanic side, strong it is within this language.

Interesting aside 1: See meaning number 4 listed for "soldier" by Merriam-Webster online (apologies in advance aimed at the mess).

Interesting aside 2: Way back in school, during english lessons, the teaching assistant would ask us about some supposedly difficult word: "Do you know what that means?". Most frequent reply to that: "It's the same in german".

This leads me to a question: While "simplifying" spelling might or might not help schoolchildren, could it - by removing the remaining similarities to related languages - actually hurt later, when they want/need to learn a foreign language that has common roots?

[The Yosemite Bear]

next they shall bring on Math, after all we can't have mahematics undermining our president...

[Executor32]

"I've never used spell check in my whole life, because I don't know how to use it."

I think this may actually be worse than not knowing how to spell, as it's not that hard to see an icon with ABC and a checkmark on it. What a fucking idiot.

[The Yosemite Bear]

besides spell check alone won't correct the five most mispelled words. which btw is using (There, Their, They're, write, or right) in the wrong context.

besides you want F7 to have a heart attack?, type in some Lewis Carrol. (knew that sicko math teacher was good for something)

[starslayer]

No, it's Saxon words that are a bitch. The gh combination comes from the Germanic side of the family, as does the silent k, and the silent e. French loan words and older Norman-French derived words aren't nearly as bad.

Did something really, really dramatic happen for German between now and then? I realize modern English and old English are extremely different (as are old German and Modern High German), but why would modern German go back to pronouncing every e and k in a word if they didn't before? Or did English drop pronouncing those things?

[Korvan]

I liked the part where one of the guys said that people have been speaking English for thousands of years. If you included all the forms of English, I don't think you'd even get close to 2000 years.

[Stark]

Awesome that this comes from Fox news, but I can't honestly say I disagree with them. English spelling could use an overhaul when it comes to certain words, mainly those derived from French.

And QWERTY keyboards could be discarded for something more efficient. It's just not worth the time.

Frankly, removing 'k' from 'knight' (as an example) is not going to help the functionally illiterate. Now they have to look at context to determine which kind of 'night' we're talking about! Bogans are so very good at context.

When non-native English speakers speak it better than native speakers, that suggests to me that we're just really bad/lazy at learning our language. Not surprising, since I don't recall ever being actually taught the language - 'English' barely covered grammar at all.

[Soontir C'boath]

"I've never used spell check in my whole life, because I don't know how to use it."

I think this may actually be worse than not knowing how to spell, as it's not that hard to see an icon with ABC and a checkmark on it. What a fucking idiot.

I've seen instances where people just don't see the edit and quote buttons and they just double/triple/quadruple/etc post away.

But of course they can find the post button.

[Flagg]

Awesome that this comes from Fox news, but I can't honestly say I disagree with them. English spelling could use an overhaul when it comes to certain words, mainly those derived from French.

And QWERTY keyboards could be discarded for something more efficient. It's just not worth the time.

Frankly, removing 'k' from 'knight' (as an example) is not going to help the functionally illiterate. Now they have to look at context to determine which kind of 'night' we're talking about! Bogans are so very good at context.

When non-native English speakers speak it better than native speakers, that suggests to me that we're just really bad/lazy at learning our language. Not surprising, since I don't recall ever being actually taught the language - 'English' barely covered grammar at all.

Speaking and spelling are pretty different, though. A lot of words aren't spelled like they sound, which can be confusing for people. Mainly stupid people, but an overhaul of spellings still could be helpful.

[salm]

We do a spelling reform every couple of decades in Germany and i think it´s good.

[Bounty]

We do a spelling reform every couple of decades in Germany and i think it´s good.

The Netherlands Language Union does an overhaul every few years too, and all it does is make the language even *more* complex.

As languages go, English is ridiculously simple as it is. Conjugation? A few forms fit any occasion. Compound words? Hardly a problem. Declension? Vestigial at best. Spelling? Apart from the regional difference and the Americans insisting on spelling colour wrong, it's no more confusing than any other living language, and even the awkward spellings have their uses. Like said above, a knight is not a night, and ignoring that fact will turn English into the sort of Fisher-Price language that all those fo-neh-tik spelling enthusiasts have such a hard on for.

[salm]

We do a spelling reform every couple of decades in Germany and i think it´s good.

The Netherlands Language Union does an overhaul every few years too, and all it does is make the language even *more* complex.

Then they´re not doing it right.

As languages go, English is ridiculously simple as it is. Conjugation? A few forms fit any occasion. Compound words? Hardly a problem. Declension? Vestigial at best.

Indeed.

Spelling? Apart from the regional difference and the Americans insisting on spelling colour wrong, it's no more confusing than any other living language, and even the awkward spellings have their uses.

German and Spanish for example are a lot less confusing regarding spelling and they´re both living languages.

Like said above, a knight is not a night, and ignoring that fact will turn English into the sort of Fisher-Price language that all those fo-neh-tik spelling enthusiasts have such a hard on for.

It doesn´t matter if something is spelled the same as something else. Many words have several meanings and you can usually tell from context. If you´re talking about a "bucket in the shed" then the person listening will most likely know that you don´t mean a region of a framebuffer effective rendering technique.
What is wrong with phonetic spelling?

[Bounty]

What is wrong with phonetic spelling?

It's half a language. A written word isn't just sound-written-down, it's a microcosm of historical, sociological and cultural evolution going back centuries or millennia. There is information hidden in words that you can't reproduce phonetically - for example, if you read "reprodjuus" somewhere, would you know that it's derived from the Latin producere, to bring forward? No, you wouldn't, it'd just be a jumble of sounds. You'd deny people the ability to understand where certain words come from, how they were constructed, how their initial meaning allows for nuance, to analyse and recombine them for new situations in a way that is understandable to who has a grasp of English.

It's the same reason why this so-called "text speak" is doomed to fail: if you remove the structure from a language, if you strip out the formal rules and leave a phonetic mess that is just above written grunting, you remove the language's ability to evolve. Phonetic spelling will do nothing except dumb down its users and make it even harder for people to cummincate, no easier.

[Glass Pearl Player]

[snip]
What is wrong with phonetic spelling?

Several things beside those mentioned by bounty:
1) If you want heads with nails, you need to adopt a new alphabet comparable to the International Phonetic Alphabet. AFAIK, english used a unique letter - in the sense of "no other language used it" - for "th". How many languages are there that can be phonetically written with the original 26 letters of the latin alphabet? How many if you don't count esperanto and other artificial languages?

2) Even if the standard alphabet would suffice, the transition period would be interesting, to put it mildly. Even worse, all old texts suddenly become much harder to comprehend, possibly up to the point that many people would have to learn both spellings. Insert reference to 1984 here.

3) Pronounciations may vary wildy within a language. Everyone not speaking the choosen dialect has zero benefits and all the trouble.

4) Different spellings for different meanings is a Good Thing. Context that exists within a spoken conversation will be lost in writing, thus hampering reading comprehension. The less ambiguous a writer can make his text, the better of each and every of his readers is.

5) (This might be a non-issue) Language evolves. Adopting phonetic spelling today just means that the spoken word will drift away from the written one again. The first canonization of spelling probably was a phonetic one, but obviously isn't anymore.

(Any comments and corrections by linguists are welcome, in case I wrote nonsense.)

[starslayer]

Phonetic spelling will do nothing except dumb down its users and make it even harder for people to cummincate, no easier.

I have no trouble communicating in German or Spanish, thank you, two major living languages that have phonetic spelling. If I were judging languages solely on spelling, I would actually prefer to use one of them, rather than English. Changing English spelling has its own problems, but it would not be impossible, and it would not be the end of the beauty of the language either.

How many languages are there that can be phonetically written with the original 26 letters of the latin alphabet? How many if you don't count esperanto and other artificial languages?

You have heard of things like dipthongs and tripthongs and consonant clusters, yes? The th phoneme is a consonant cluster. Using phonetic spelling does not mean assigning each letter a sound and using it as that only; it does incorporate various vowel and consonant combinations. If you learn German or Spanish spelling rules, you can spell any word from its spoken form. That's what phonetic spelling involves.

Pronounciations may vary wildy within a language. Everyone not speaking the choosen dialect has zero benefits and all the trouble.

Not true. Salm or another of the Germans on the board can correct me if I'm wrong, but there are many regional dialects in Germany, some of which are nearly incomprehensible to people from other regions. The written language is standardized throughout, though (I think, anyways), and Hochdeutsch can be understood by all Germans (they're taught that one in school). Remember, differences in pronunciation tend to be spread uniformly for a given phoneme; that is, if I pronounce "ei" one way, I tend to pronounce it the same way across all words that contain "ei". In English, this runs into a bit of trouble because most phonemes are pronounced differently depending on what surrounds them in a word, but the basic point stands.

Different spellings for different meanings is a Good Thing. Context that exists within a spoken conversation will be lost in writing, thus hampering reading comprehension. The less ambiguous a writer can make his text, the better of each and every of his readers is.

This I agree with, at least for English, because English has words that need this. German and Spanish don't, to my knowledge.

(This might be a non-issue) Language evolves. Adopting phonetic spelling today just means that the spoken word will drift away from the written one again. The first canonization of spelling probably was a phonetic one, but obviously isn't anymore.

This is in fact a non-issue for languages that already have standardized phonetic spelling. In the modern era, spelling can be controlled tightly through the use of government and commercial standards. Back when languages were first being written down, transcription problems and errors and isolated communities did a lot to change dialects and writing systems. These factors do not exist today.

[Terralthra]

French is another language which has consistent phonetic representation of speech sounds, albeit correct pronunciation is not merely lexical, but also semantic. In some cases, differentiation between different words pronounced in the same way is done with diacritical marks.

Aside from that, the "advantage" of the spelling system Bounty gives is a purely abstract and subjective advantage. Diachronic features of English spelling are nice and all, but the cost is "knowing how to pronounce a word just by looking at it." To be perfectly frank, the vast majority of English speakers do not learn to analyze words by root, they learn the meanings by rote. Additionally, a total shift in the spelling of words would maintain connections between words from the same root. The only point of difficulty would be in tracing those roots back to the etymon's language despite the spelling difference; a problem we already have.

[Duckie]

Interesting fact: English spelling does have rules, or rather an internal logic. There are about 60 rules of english spelling, applied in a set order, that produce the phonemes and vice versa.

However, said rules are horridly complex and only knowable by speaking the language fluently, because nobody has (besides one website I saw once) ever written them down.

(also, many get it slightly wrong in a few categories, so there might be upwards of 70 to 100- for instance, vowels get turned into Schwa in a very complicated method that can't be explained in just the 60 rules I found on this website, which it freely admits (although it gets 80-95% of words right in spelling and pronunciation both conversions, the schwa thing is one of the chief errors in incorrect words, as is occasional extraneous or missed duplicate consonants.).


example- ghoti could be pronounced fish

* gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tʌf/;
* o, pronounced /ɪ/ as in women /ˈwɪmɪn/; and
* ti, pronounced /ʃ/ as in nation /ˈneɪʃən/.

But your mind will always process it as the same pronunciation as goti or go tee because of these unconscious hundred rules or so.

However, this doesn't change the fact that we should fix it so that it makes bloody sense. At least the French (whose spelling system is horrid) can pronounce something based on reading it 100% of the way perfectly. You just can't write based on pronunciation with any accuracy.

[Terralthra]

The rules are riddled with inconsistencies and exceptions. They're by no means a complete system, and to even attempt to apply them involves knowing what language a word you're trying to spell originally came from (no easy task, with English).

[Duckie]

The rules are riddled with inconsistencies and exceptions. They're by no means a complete system, and to even attempt to apply them involves knowing what language a word you're trying to spell originally came from (no easy task, with English).

Well, this is true, but you can generally actually tell using said rules. Like I said, of the 5-15% of the errors, most are spelling to pronunciation errors about vowel enunciation, and a lot of the rest are pronunciation to spelling errors on when to duplicate a consonant.

There are a lot of irregular words, but using just 60 rules you can easily spell and pronounce english. Granted, these rules have to be interpreted by computer, unless you want to get a piece of paper and start taking notes and writing down stages of the sequential rules outlined (unfortunately, I can't find that website to show you what a rule looked like) as if you were manually interpreting a program.