PDA

View Full Version : Simplified English?



Agent Proto
07-07-2006, 07:17 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_re_us/simpl_wurdz

WASHINGTON - When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?
ADVERTISEMENT

Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun.

It's been 100 years since Andrew Carnegie helped create the Simplified Spelling Board to promote a retooling of written English and President Theodore Roosevelt tried to force the government to use simplified spelling in its publications. But advocates aren't giving up.

They even picket the national spelling bee finals, held every year in Washington, costumed as bumble bees and hoisting signs that say "Enuf is enuf but enough is too much" or "I'm thru with through."

Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.

"It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," says Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways.

Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy — witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues.

Doughnut also is donut; colour, honour and labour long ago lost the British "u" and the similarly derived theatre and centre have been replaced by the easier-to-sound-out theater and center.

"The kinds of progress that we're seeing are that someone will spell night 'nite' and someone will spell through 'thru,'" Mole said. "We try to show where these spellings are used and to show dictionary makers that they are used so they will include them as alternate spellings."

"Great changes have been made in the past. Systems can change," a hopeful Mole said.

Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed.

In languages with phonetically spelled words, like German or Spanish, children learn to spell in weeks instead of months or years as is sometimes the case with English, Mole said.

But education professor Donald Bear said to simplify spelling would probably make it more difficult because words get meaning from their prefixes, suffixes and roots.

"Students come to understand how meaning is preserved in the way words are spelled," said Bear, director of the E.L. Cord Foundation Center for Learning and Literacy at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Th /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gifry's larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects.

Michael Marks, a member of the National Education Association's executive committee, said learning would be disrupted if children had to switch to a different spelling system. "It may be more trouble than it's worth," said Marks, a debate and theater teacher at Hattiesburg High School in Mississippi.

E-mail and text messages are exerting a similar tug on the language, sharing some elements with the simplified spelling movement while differing in other ways. Electronic communications stress shortcuts like "u" more than phonetics. Simplified spelling is not always shorter than regular spelling — sistem instead of system, hoep instead of hope.

Carnegie tried to moov thingz along in 1906 when he helpt establish and fund th speling bord. He aulso uezd simplified speling in his correspondens, and askt enywun hoo reported to him to do the saem.

A filanthropist, he becaem pashunet about th ishoo after speeking with Melvil Dewey, a speling reform activist and Dewey Desimal sistem inventor hoo simplified his furst naem bi droping "le" frum Melville.

Roosevelt tried to get the government to adopt simpler spellings for 300 words but Congress blocked him. He used simple spellings in all White House memos, pressing forward his effort to "make our spelling a little less foolish and fantastic."

The Chicago Tribune aulso got into th act, uezing simpler spelingz in th nuezpaeper for about 40 years, ending in 1975. Plae-riet George Bernard Shaw, hoo roet moest of his mateerial in shorthand, left muny in his wil for th development of a nue English alfabet.

Carnegie, Dewey, Roosevelt and Shaw's work followed attempts by Benjamin Franklin, Daniel Webster and Mark Twain to advance simpler spelling. Twain lobbied The Associated Press at its 1906 annual meeting to "adopt and use our simplified forms and spread them to the ends of the earth." AP declined.

But for aul th hi-proefiel and skolarly eforts, the iedeea of funy-luuking but simpler spelingz didn't captivaet the masez then — or now.

"I think that the average person simply did not see this as a needed change or a necessary change or something that was ... going to change their lives for the better," said Marilyn Cocchiola Holt, manager of the Pennsylvania department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.

Carnegie, hoo embraest teknolojy, died in 1919, wel befor sel foenz. Had he livd, he probably wuud hav bin pleezd to no that milyonz of peepl send text and instant mesejez evry dae uezing thair oen formz of simplified speling: "Hav a gr8 day!"

Well, what do you think? I personally think it's a horrible idea. Granted, some of the words can be hard to spell at an early age, and it can get confusing at times, but that's what makes the English language special, at least to me anyway.

So, wuud u suport tis for simpler spelings or do you rather we stick to how it's been all along?

Zeromus_X
07-07-2006, 07:23 AM
What the hell? No. Enough people can't even bother to use words with more than four letters, of course not. I'm not supporting illiteracy.

LunarWeaver
07-07-2006, 07:26 AM
For some words it would be good to just spell them the way they sound I suppose...But not for all of them. I dunno, I wouldn't be totally opposed I guess. As long as Phlegm is changed to Flem I would do the happy dance.

Reine
07-07-2006, 07:32 AM
Whoah, my IQ dropped reading that

I cant stand that kind of writing, it requires even more effort to write like that than normally.

Personally, I would rather have the US return to proper english (colour, armour etc)

Yamaneko
07-07-2006, 07:33 AM
How about parents, you know, read with their kids instead of watching TV? We're losing to countries like Cuba with an over 99% literacy rate.

Shlup
07-07-2006, 07:49 AM
That article hurt my face.

DarkLadyNyara
07-07-2006, 07:53 AM
Whoah, my IQ dropped reading that

Seconded. :rolleyes2
It's bad enough when people do that online, if it goes mainstream, blood will be spilled.:mad: I think this quote covers my feelings on the matter-

IT HURTS MY EYES!!! AIIEEEE IT'S LIKE A STROBE LIGHT OF STUPIDITY!!!

Raebus
07-07-2006, 07:56 AM
HAhahahahaha, no. It's already bad enough on the internet.

DarkLadyNyara
07-07-2006, 08:02 AM
It's pretty sad that "cater to the lowest common denominator" is being promoted as education policy these days. :rolleyes2

Zante
07-07-2006, 08:24 AM
I would hate having to learn English again, so no.

Ryth
07-07-2006, 08:42 AM
Oh dear....that was nauseatingly painful to read and imagining people actually writing like that is terrifyingly horrible. It took me longer to read that sorry excuse for a language than it would coherent English. This is just another way to embrace today's laziness instead of trying to fix it so people (namely our youth it would seem) aren't the blithering ignoramuses they seem to be.


English isn't that terribly difficult to learn and use efficiently, I don't see why it should be altered into that incoherent babbling. We shouldn't be adapting to this intellectual inadequacy that plagues us, we should be fixing it, parents should read to their children at night like my parents read to me, they should read books in general, they should raise school standards, bring back discipline for cripe's sake.


I can't even imagine what the net will become, the masses seem to type idiotically enough, what horrible bastardization of language will people pull out of their bums next? Besides, I think trying to translate to this monument of ignorance and embarrassment would be too rough of a transition anyhow.


So my decision is: for the love of all that is good and holy in this world, please let this transition of any kind never go through, which I am sure it won't. I'd also like to note that made my eyes nearly set themselves ablaze to distract themselves from the pure idiocy they had been forced to gaze apon and it nearly made my IQ spiral down, decreasing so rapidly and so far down it would find itself fallen into a realm of nonexistence.

Behold the Void
07-07-2006, 08:46 AM
I favor making schools worth going to so that children don't struggle as much with the complexities of spelling. Because, you know, they're being taught WELL.

starseeker
07-07-2006, 09:30 AM
Whoah, my IQ dropped reading that

I cant stand that kind of writing, it requires even more effort to write like that than normally.

Personally, I would rather have the US return to proper english (colour, armour etc)

QFT
That article was like the worst n00b speak I've ever seen.

Old Manus
07-07-2006, 09:49 AM
No more making fun of AOL speak

Sefie1999AD
07-07-2006, 10:20 AM
I don't think any language that has been going on for quite a long time should be simplified, it just makes the language less rich and removes some of its beauty. It also takes a long time to get used to writing with the new spelling way and reading it (at least to me, it's harder to read simplified English than normal English). Finally, it annoys me how some people online try to make their spelling as simplified as possible. "ill tyep haueva i liek 2 eaz lish ftw!" It also happens in Finnish, which is really stupid.

Captain Maxx Power
07-07-2006, 10:39 AM
Call me crazy, but seeing "tu b or nut tu b, dat is th kueston" on a page would probably cause my bladder to rupture.

Anaisa
07-07-2006, 10:50 AM
I think it's a ridiculous idea. It's bad enough that they waste time teaching children at school that silly kiddy alphabet. Just teach them the proper one to begin with. Curly k?! Pathetic.

Shoden
07-07-2006, 11:46 AM
I struggled enough learning how to speak and spell and write in the first place, geez this is going to be hell, I will rip the balls off the guy to confirms and allows it.

Rye
07-07-2006, 11:50 AM
How about parents, you know, read with their kids instead of watching TV? We're losing to countries like Cuba with an over 99% literacy rate.

Seriously. Kids need to freaking read.

vorpal blade
07-07-2006, 12:21 PM
After a few generations, the Newwrite, as I shall call it, will be a easy to read (for those who grew up on it) as Nowwrite (as I shall call this) is to us. Actually, it will be easier. And by dumbing down the nation, the general population gets relatively smarter. That is to say, fewer people will be considered dumb.

That's no a good thing. If we switch to Newwrite, it will become quite difficult for Americans to read things written in England, Australia, Canada, and anywhere else where Nowwrite is used. We would have to translate British books to American. "I translate books from English to American." Sounds dumb. And frankly, I don't see the big deal about armour, favourite, colour, theatre, centre, etc. In fact, I, like Reine, prefer the English spelling.

And what right do we have to complain? Sure we've got words with complicated spellings, but what about other languages? German, Spanish, French... spelling is pretty easy. But what about Japanese? Sure, pronunciation is easy, and it's quite easy to write, but they have THREE systems of writing: hiragana, katana (the last two are very easy to read and write) and kanji. Oh, kanji! You hurt my brain! So many different pronunciations for each kanji, and so many kanji... But are the Japanese trying to get rid of that? Not to my knowledge (though in the 60s, I believe, the Japanese government did simplify a few kanji). And what about the Chinese? They only have kanji. They have to memorize thousands of kanji, many of which are very complicated. So who are we to demand Newwrite?

Monster Hunt
07-07-2006, 12:27 PM
I'd say bad idea- It's not right and it's too late: even you may not be too good at spelling, you might of caught on some simple spelling rules (eg: i before e, except after c) so even when you're spelling simple words, you could get them wrong and just get more confused.

Alive-Cat
07-07-2006, 12:56 PM
I think that this is PREPOSTEROUS. In fact, I think words should be LONGER. There should be letters added on to every word, silent letters. Yes.

Raven Nox
07-07-2006, 02:10 PM
But what about Japanese? Sure, pronunciation is easy, and it's quite easy to write, but they have THREE systems of writing: hiragana, katana (the last two are very easy to read and write) and kanji. Oh, kanji! You hurt my brain! So many different pronunciations for each kanji, and so many kanji... But are the Japanese trying to get rid of that? Not to my knowledge (though in the 60s, I believe, the Japanese government did simplify a few kanji). And what about the Chinese? They only have kanji. They have to memorize thousands of kanji, many of which are very complicated. So who are we to demand Newwrite?

I was kind've thinking of that as well. Japanese has like 80 characters of hiragana, double that when you add katakana, and then it uses around 2,000 kanji, if I remember correctly. Only about 1,000 of them are taught in schools, and people are expected to learn the rest as they go along.

English really isn't that hard anyway, I really don't think we need to change it. It just makes it annoying to read (and makes your head hurt, owie! ;_; )

Zeromus_X
07-07-2006, 02:14 PM
Oh. I've just been reminded of my inner hatred of kanji.....

I can imagine English being really difficult for non-native speakers.

Doing this would just confuse the hell out of everyone.

Shauna
07-07-2006, 02:15 PM
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. :D I found it difficult to read half of that article thing.

Maybe if it does happen, we can form secret groups who spell right, and then we're all hunted by the police and... I'll just stop there. Silly imagination. :rolleyes2

bipper
07-07-2006, 02:35 PM
It is about time we start catering to the st00pidz of the world...

...oh wait

Raistlin
07-07-2006, 05:24 PM
Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.
... and the World Cup celebrates the ability of a few athletes to master a difficult sport that many others fail at but could do just as well if it was much easier.

People are stupid.

Tavrobel
07-07-2006, 05:35 PM
Mie bran has ben fried frum thet. It huurts.

Mo-Nercy
07-07-2006, 05:44 PM
German is a language that more or less already does that.

English is already a relatively easy language to learn. Especially when compared to the East Asian languages, you'll find there's a lot less to take in and you can get a lot more out of much less knowledge. So not only is this a stupid idea with silly looking results, but it's also a pointless one.

Kuzotz
07-07-2006, 05:53 PM
What the hell? No. Enough people can't even bother to use words with more than four letters, of course not. I'm not supporting illiteracy.
Same here man. I hate how conservatives are now advocating mediocricy.

Distain
07-07-2006, 06:12 PM
Way to make amarica look like a dumbass you conservitive dumbasses

DarkLadyNyara
07-08-2006, 12:48 AM
Can we stop with the conservative-bashing, please? (Never thought I'd type that.) This is not a conservative idea, it's a fringe group of idiots. :rolleyes2 Actually, this is the kind of stunt that the far left is prone to.

feona17
07-08-2006, 12:51 AM
NO. That's destroying the awesome, intricate English language. It's beautiful, and not a lot of people take time to appreciate it because it's their native language. I don't care about stupid a** MSN talk, please, I like the language the way it is.

We're living in an age where funnily enough, with all this progress, children are doing progressively worse in school. We're lazy, can't do anything for ourselves, and now we're supporting this idea of ruining the English language simply because it's easier?

It's not easier, it's simply unnecessary and idiotic.

Dignified Pauper
07-08-2006, 12:54 AM
terrible idea.


however, as an English Major and having studied German. A Language ultimately simplifies itself with time. In another hundred years or 2, there will be no more strong verbs in German. Give or take the same time, English will have a lot of different rules simplifying grammar and style.

Dixie
07-08-2006, 12:55 AM
Reading that hurt my brain. ;_; I really don't think it's a good idea...I'd rather not relearn english. I like it just the way it is.

feona17
07-08-2006, 12:59 AM
terrible idea.


however, as an English Major and having studied German. A Language ultimately simplifies itself with time. In another hundred years or 2, there will be no more strong verbs in German. Give or take the same time, English will have a lot of different rules simplifying grammar and style.

Yeah, English used to be a lot more difficult. Just because some people don't understand, doesn't mean we should abandon it's modern form. Should we cancel math schooling just 'cause it's hard?

.. Yeah I didn't think so.

KentaRawr!
07-08-2006, 01:01 AM
Why did he make an A sound by going AE? Wouldn't that be Ah-ee?

Anyway, I agree that a simplified way of spelling would be pretty good. Today, reading isn't as much about sounding it out as it is memorizing. Of course, anyone who can read will tell you it isn't a problem. Because, quite frankly, it isn't. We all can read. It just takes a little bit of work is all. Then it's like walking. But if we were to make it more of sounding it out rather than memorizing, it would be easier to learn, and would be good. It's just that it would cause many problems for this generation, but in the next, it will be good. That's the whole issue, really. We won't be around to witness the good side.

I would love to say I support it, but it would make my ability to read almost non-existant. I can read quicker than anyone I know, type faster than anyone I know, and it's all because I memorized it all. Changing the way we read and write would force me into memorizing again.

Xaven
07-08-2006, 01:55 AM
This idea is really silly. I don't want to drop our standards and simplify things for America's lazy dumbasses.


Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.
... and the World Cup celebrates the ability of a few athletes to master a difficult sport that many others fail at but could do just as well if it was much easier.

People are stupid.
Um, yeah, exactly.

fire_of_avalon
07-08-2006, 02:40 AM
How about parents, you know, read with their kids instead of watching TV? We're losing to countries like Cuba with an over 99% literacy rate.
Word freakin' up, Yamaneko. Most kids of average intelligence with no learning disabilities can learn to read, and read well, before they even start school, if their parents just read with them.

Why should everyone who can already read have to accept a change meant to promote laziness? Stupid stupid stupid.

It was so hard to read those messed up sentences it wasn't even funny.

Garland
07-08-2006, 04:09 AM
If this passes, forum trolls will have to wreak havoc using Victorian English, since their net-speak will have been made normal and proper.

Jess
07-08-2006, 01:21 PM
That is dumb. People have different accents therefore everybody would write differently.

I didn't even try to read half of that. :jess:

jesteranimefreak
07-08-2006, 03:00 PM
I think we've reatched a consencus that we all would rather have our beautiful English language untampered with, thank you very much. Ughh... God after reading that I'm having typing issues!! BAH!!!:mad2: :mad2:

Rengori
07-09-2006, 12:04 AM
Wow, America will become the laughing stock of the world all over again. I can't even read that.

DoomAntenna
07-09-2006, 12:22 AM
...After we simplify the spelling, we can start doing away with all those redundant synonyms our language still contains. Why should people have to memorize, for example, so many different words for 'good'. Excellent, Fantastic, Great, etc. We should get rid of them all. 1984 anyone?

Seriously, I think that languages/spellings grow and change over long periods of time, but any 'official' attempt to artificially alter them is a doubleplusungood idea.

fantasyjunkie
07-09-2006, 12:32 AM
English is just fine the way it is :)

Zell's Fists of Fury
07-09-2006, 12:45 AM
Was anyone else reminded of Newspeak from 1984?
I mean seriously.

jesteranimefreak
07-09-2006, 01:01 AM
...After we simplify the spelling, we can start doing away with all those redundant synonyms our language still contains. Why should people have to memorize, for example, so many different words for 'good'. Excellent, Fantastic, Great, etc. We should get rid of them all. 1984 anyone?

Seriously, I think that languages/spellings grow and change over long periods of time, but any 'official' attempt to artificially alter them is a doubleplusungood idea.

ACK!!! No no 1984!!!

Moon Rabbits
07-09-2006, 01:48 AM
This idea is terrible. Once the kids learn english this way it will be difficult to teach them proper english. ._. Plus it is just painful to decode and read.

NorthernChaosGod
07-09-2006, 03:10 AM
Fuck that. American English should stay just the way it is. People all over the globe already think we're stupid because of the way our school systems are run. If anything, we should make things harder, and make people go to school more.