102 year old man discussing English spelling.

[Shaun__]

I hate the convoluted method of English spelling. I always wonder how drunk or drugged people were when they decided how to spell things.

​

 

[Nordling]

:lol: I remember a similar bit about the human body. The argument was that if a god created humans, he was a shitty engineer, and then proceeded to explain all the poor design elements we suffer with our bodies.

Language, like bodies, evolved.

 

[Rose]

Hah! I remember learning how to read and questioning EVERYTHING they taught me.

Little me: Why in the world do they spell necessary like that?
Mom: Because that's the way they do it.
Little me: Well that's just dumb! They should spell it the way it sounds- NE-SES-SARY makes a lot more sense to me Mom. Tell them to change it.
Mom: *facepalm* Go talk to your father.....
Dad: Nuh uh, she asks way too many questions that make sense to me, I agree with her.

:lol: 5 year old logic, can't beat it.

 

[Jupiter551]

First off, I want to thank the spambot for necroing this thread I never saw the first time around lol.

At the risk of sounding like a language nazi, one of the reasons spelling is the way it is, is because the words came from various dialects at various times and there was no true central authority for deciding things of this nature. Secondly, it really isn't that hard to figure out spelling. Language is an extremely elegant and collossally important thing, and perhaps deserves a bit of respect and hard work.

Lastly, spelling DOES make sense - if you think it doesn't then what you're lacking is background knowledge, which is sort of like saying a complex mathematical formula is nonsense just because you can't do it. Sometimes I can intuit words in another language, or words in English I've never seen before, by their similarity to latin root words, or even proto-Indo-European words that spawn an entire family of similar meaning.

Then there's heterographs (words that sound the same but are spelled differently). If you spell everything phonetically then suddenly you are faced with a whole slew of words like "hoarse" and "horse" (and "course"/"coarse" etc) that can only be figured out at all by context. So if the word is on its own, it has (at least) two completely unrelated meanings and now doesn't just SOUND like the same word, it IS the same word. What would you change "horse"/"hoarse" to? "Hors"? What about foreign words that share that spelling - like the French word for "outside", used in "hors d'oeuvres"? If you convert that as well, (and hey why not you already have two words that sound and look the same but mean something different, what's one more?) I guess you'd get "hors duh" ("Wats for dinna mum?" "hors, duh!"), or I suspect the next campaign would be against silent letters, so it would become "ors", but then it would be the same as the current "oars". Hey, what about people in some areas of England who drop their "H" when they say "horse" or "house" ('orse,'ouse) - which would you have them change, their spelling, their speech, or both? Or should they just split back off and become a regional dialect that in another couple hundred years of these kinds of changes may as well be a different language? What about other regional pronunciation diferences?

No.

Spelling is the way it is because it gives meaning to the written word, just like grammar is the way it is because it specifies meaning in the structure of groups of words. This may appear arbitrary to people without sufficient education, but it is not. It may appear useless to those who choose not to use language to its fullest, but again, it is not.

The problem isn't the language it's the education, like Rose I questioned everything, call it luck I guess that I have a family who when a child asks a question and we don't know the answer we go find out.

 

[Shaun__]

At the risk of sounding like a language nazi

You sound like a language Nazi. Trying to compare language to math is just sad. Math is based on reality, not flights of artistic fancy. Your whole argument seems to be that some dead people thought this is how things should be spelled, and it would hurt their feelings if we changed it.

 

[Mirra]

I don't think artistic fancy has a damn thing to do with it. It has more to do with the fact that language is kind of a living thing and the English language more so than most. It had its origins and has grown from that, and, English being what it is, has bastardized words from many other languages. It's almost like trying to dictate what a plant grows in to. Sure you can groom it by cutting away things here and there but you can only make it go somewhere it isn't over a long period time and you must work with what you have in the present. Yes... English as a bonsai tree.

Only it's much more difficult. Many languages vary by location. Maybe you can shape it in one area but another will continue doing its own thing. Just because it makes sense to do something doesn't mean it's even remotely feasible to follow through with it. Maybe it would make things a lot easier if English were spelled more phonetically but good luck to anyone who attempts to tackle that beast.

Language makes a lot more sense to me now than it did when I was a kid. I believe it's due in large part to understanding the roots of language and how things connect. Finally, it's made a definite improvement on my ability to spell when I realized that language is not nearly as infinite as I'd imagined despite its ever changing nature.

P.S. I intentionally used three words containing the same root in my final sentence.

 

[Shaun__]

Wait until the texting generation grows old and has grandkids. Then come tell me how English is a bonsai tree that needs respect.

 

[Jupiter551]

At the risk of sounding like a language nazi

You sound like a language Nazi. Trying to compare language to math is just sad. Math is based on reality, not flights of artistic fancy. Your whole argument seems to be that some dead people thought this is how things should be spelled, and it would hurt their feelings if we changed it.

err what the fuck? Did you even read what I wrote? I explained how and WHY spelling makes sense - and I compared it to mathematics because it only looks like it doesn't make sense IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Artistic fancy? Ensuring clear communication and a standard, understood meaning between people is artistic fancy is it? Where did I say anything about the feelings of dead people?
Mathematics as it is written, and therefore as it is percieved visually, IS a language you blithering idiot.

Let me say it really, really simply: just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

At the risk of sounding like a language nazi

You sound like a language Nazi. Trying to compare language to math is just sad. Math is based on reality, not flights of artistic fancy. Your whole argument seems to be that some dead people thought this is how things should be spelled, and it would hurt their feelings if we changed it.

err what the fuck? Did you even read what I wrote? I explained how and WHY spelling makes sense - and I compared it to mathematics because it only looks like it doesn't make sense IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Artistic fancy? Ensuring clear communication and a standard, understood meaning between people is artistic fancy is it? Where did I say anything about the feelings of dead people?
Mathematics as it is written, and therefore as it is perceived visually, IS a language you blithering idiot.

Let me say it really, really simply: just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Sorry Shaun__, but I gotta agree with Jupiter here. I'm very multi-lingual, and early on I realized that every can be made into an equation to help you translate them. Even spelling makes sense if you delve deep enough into the roots and look at the possible evolutions of words. I myself, am a terrible speller. Hell, I hate it that phonetic isn't spelled phonetically (damn the Greeks for that!). Most languages are much easier in regards to spelling though since they aren't taken from so many corners of the world. Japanese may look complicated, but it's always guaranteed to be spelled the same way it sounds. :geek:

 

[Shaun__]

err what the fuck? Did you even read what I wrote? I explained how and WHY spelling makes sense - and I compared it to mathematics because it only looks like it doesn't make sense IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Artistic fancy? Ensuring clear communication and a standard, understood meaning between people is artistic fancy is it? Where did I say anything about the feelings of dead people?Mathematics as it is written, and therefore as it is percieved visually, IS a language you blithering idiot.

Let me say it really, really simply: just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

This is a mathematical proof that 2+2=4. If you look at it you will see I had to use language to make it. If language shifts over the next 1000 years then the proof may no longer be true, but the rules that it was built upon will not have changed. Math is a solid unmoving object, while language is an artistic expression of society. It flows and shifts. Spelling changes all the time, and varies by region. Also I do not know about your country, but English degrees here are art degrees.

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))​

 

[Ann_Sulu]

err what the fuck? Did you even read what I wrote? I explained how and WHY spelling makes sense - and I compared it to mathematics because it only looks like it doesn't make sense IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Artistic fancy? Ensuring clear communication and a standard, understood meaning between people is artistic fancy is it? Where did I say anything about the feelings of dead people?Mathematics as it is written, and therefore as it is percieved visually, IS a language you blithering idiot.

Let me say it really, really simply: just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

This is a mathematical proof that 2+2=4. If you look at it you will see I had to use language to make it. If language shifts over the next 1000 years then the proof may no longer be true, but the rules that it was built upon will not have changed. Math is a solid unmoving object, while language is an artistic expression of society. It flows and shifts. Spelling changes all the time, and varies by region. Also I do not know about your country, but English degrees here are art degrees.

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))​

I get what you're saying Shaun_, but you're simply mocking what we're saying instead of trying to understand why we're saying that math is part of it. Good linguists, especially ones that are trained in cracking code, have to use mathematics all the time. I'm not talking about A=1, B=2 and etc. I'm saying that sentence structure normally follows a set of rules, and if a linguist doesn't know the language they can normally use pattern recognition and basic equations to figure out what it means. I know English, German, French, Greek, Latin, Caireen Arabic, Lebanese Arabic, and Japanese...I'm very used to translation nowadays. I realize it might be weird to understand especially if you only know one or two languages (no I'm not making fun, since most people do) I also want to say I wasn't saying spelling had to do with math. I said it had to do with roots. I said that English is more crazy than most because it came from so many places. Though spelling has nothing to do with math generally if you know the history of the word it makes better sense why it is spelled that way. Believe me Shaun_ I know why you're saying this...it makes little sense till you've actually been doing it.

 

[Jupiter551]

This is a mathematical proof that 2+2=4. If you look at it you will see I had to use language to make it. If language shifts over the next 1000 years then the proof may no longer be true, but the rules that it was built upon will not have changed. Math is a solid unmoving object, while language is an artistic expression of society. It flows and shifts. Spelling changes all the time, and varies by region. Also I do not know about your country, but English degrees here are art degrees.

Couple things here, language is NOT an artistic expression of society, it's something MUCH, much more fundamental - it shapes our ideas, and is the means by which we can communicate and understand one another. That is MUCH more profound than you are making out by disparaging it as "artistic fancy". As I already explained, the point of written language is to accurately convey meaning without the context of a speaker there to further clarify. Apart from the fact that spelling indicates the meaning of a word, if you know anything about language, a very practical reason why phonetic spelling is a huge step backwards are the many, many words in our language that are phonetically identical but have different meanings and can thus often only be given context by a) a speaker or b) a different spelling. And why should we abandon this for a minority of idiots who can't be bothered to learn?

There's another practical and important issue: should we change the whole language, all the books, every printed document, in order to please a minority of ignoramuses? Is it progress to you, to simply suggest that even after thousands of years of having written language the current generation are somehow mentally deficient and need a playschool version of English?

I get it, you're an electrician, and you think English, literature, writing and spelling etc are all just artsy-fartsy bullshit; that doesn't make you right.

 

[Shaun__]

As I already explained, the point of written language is to accurately convey meaning without the context of a speaker there to further clarify. Apart from the fact that spelling indicates the meaning of a word, if you know anything about language, a very practical reason why phonetic spelling is a huge step backwards are the many, many words in our language that are phonetically identical but have different meanings and can thus often only be given context by a) a speaker or b) a different spelling.

read

I will read the book.

I read that book.

You are saying if words were spelled the same, you would have to use context to understand their meaning. That is how things are now. I bet people arguing the merits of the imperial system said changing to the metric system was catering to ignoramuses as well.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

Okay okay, let's be calm about this...seriously are we really getting this steamed over linguists gleesh...French is the only language that I can think of that intentionally meant to make their language pretty. Even French though, makes sense grammatically when you delve in. Don't get me started on pronunciation though (No offence if FrenchKitty is reading). All languages that I know intentionally seem to have chosen letters for specific reasons. Such as if you see a word starting with a, an or anti...it probably has to do with something negative. Shaun_ I really don't understand why you're so into pursuing this other than to argue. Yes, you can figure out the meaning of a verb such as "read" depending on it's spelling and case. That is a basic of many language courses. I hope you all realize I'm not trying to start shit. I'm just trying to clear up a common misconception about linguists. Seriously though, think it over if it still doesn't make sense then let's drop it and move on. Unless, you're studying language it obviously isn't that terribly important to you. I really would rather not see pages of people arguing about something so silly.

 

[Shaun__]

Okay okay, let's be calm about this...seriously are we really getting this steamed over linguists gleesh...French is the only language that I can think of that intentionally meant to make their language pretty. Even French though, makes sense grammatically when you delve in. Don't get me started on pronunciation though (No offence if FrenchKitty is reading). All languages that I know intentionally seem to have chosen letters for specific reasons. Such as if you see a word starting with a, an or anti...it probably has to do with something negative. Shaun_ I really don't understand why you're so into pursuing this other than to argue. Yes, you can figure out the meaning of a verb such as "read" depending on it's spelling and case. That is a basic of many language courses. I hope you all realize I'm not trying to start shit. I'm just trying to clear up a common misconception about linguists. Seriously though, think it over if it still doesn't make sense then let's drop it and move on. Unless, you're studying language it obviously isn't that terribly important to you. I really would rather not see pages of people arguing about something so silly.

I have zero obligation to say I am happy with how words are spelled in English. I am also not the first person to think it should be changed.

In 1906, U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt tried to get the government to simplify the spelling of 300 common English words. However, this didn't go over well with Congress or the public.

Simplified Spelling Was Andrew Carnegie's Idea
In 1906, Andrew Carnegie was convinced that English could be a universal language used around the world, if only English was easier to read and to write. In an attempt to tackle this problem, Carnegie decided to fund a group of intellectuals to discuss this issue. The result was the Simplified Spelling Board.

The Simplified Spelling Board
The Simplified Spelling Board was founded on March 11, 1906 in New York. Included among the Board's original 26 members were such notables as author Samuel Clemens ("Mark Twain"), library organizer Melvil Dewey, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer, publisher Henry Holt, and former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Lyman Gage. Brander Matthews, professor of dramatic literature at Columbia University, was made chairman of the Board.

Complicated English Words
The Board examined the history of the English language and found that written English had changed over the centuries, sometimes for the better but also sometimes for the worse. The Board wanted to make written English phonetic again, as it was long ago, before silent letters such as "e" (as in "axe"), "h" (as in "ghost"), "w" (as in "answer"), and "b" (as in "debt") crept in. However, silent letters were not the only aspect of spelling that bothered these gentlemen.

There were other commonly used words that were just more complex than they needed to be. For instance, the word "bureau" could much more easily be spelled if it was written as "buro." The word "enough" would be spelled more phonetically as "enuf," just as "though" could be simplified to "tho." And, of course, why have a "ph" combination in "phantasy" when it could much more easily be spelled "fantasy."

Lastly, the Board recognized that there were a number of words for which there already were several options for spelling, usually one simple and the other complicated. Many of these examples are currently known as differences between American and British English, including "honor" instead of "honour," "center" instead of "centre," and "plow" instead of "plough." Additional words also had multiple choices for spelling such as "rime" rather than "rhyme" and "blest" rather than "blessed."

The Plan
So as not to overwhelm the country with an entire new way of spelling at once, the Board recognized that some of these changes should be made over time. To focus their push for adaptation of new spelling rules, the Board created a list of 300 words whose spelling could be changed immediately.

The idea of simplified spelling caught on quickly, with even some schools beginning to implement the 300-word list within months of it being created. As the excitement grew around simplified spelling, one person in particular became a huge fan of the concept - President Teddy Roosevelt.

President Teddy Roosevelt Loves the Idea
Unbeknownst to the Simplified Spelling Board, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a letter to the United States Government Printing Office on August 27, 1906. In this letter, Roosevelt ordered the Government Printing Office to use the new spellings of the 300 words detailed in the Simplified Spelling Board's circular in all documents emanating from the executive department.

President Roosevelt's public acceptance of simplified spelling caused a wave of reaction. Although there was public support in a few quarters, most of it was negative. Many newspapers began to ridicule the movement and lambasted the President in political cartoons. Congress was especially offended at the change, most likely because they had not been consulted. On December 13, 1906, the House of Representatives passed a resolution stating that it would use the spelling found in most dictionaries and not the new, simplified spelling in all official documents. With public sentiment against him, Roosevelt decided to rescind his order to the Government Printing Office.

The efforts of the Simplified Spelling Board continued for several more years, but the popularity of the idea had waned after Roosevelt's failed attempt at government support. However, when browsing the list of 300 words, one cannot help but notice how many of the "new" spellings are in current use today.

Slowly, edition by edition, Webster changed the spelling of words, making them "Americanized." He chose s over c in words like defense, he changed the re to er in words like center, and he dropped one of the Ls in traveler. At first he kept the u in words like colour or favour but dropped it in later editions. He also changed "tongue" to "tung"—an innovation that never caught on.[30]

 

[Ann_Sulu]

Shaun_ keep in mind that though several have seemed to like your original post (even myself) you haven't had anyone agree with you so far about this dead argument you keep kicking. You haven't given me any reason to agree with your point. You...(I don't know is this supposed to be a source for something?) gave a quote that talked about language evolution. Yes, I understand the concept of language evolution, which is why I brought it up in the first place...seriously dude chillax! (an evolved word coming from both chill and relax). Even if the words were to evolve yet again to make it easier for bad-spellers that is just another evolution of the language. Languages evolve all the time! Eventually English maybe easy for bad-spellers. I suck at spelling, but that's no reason to keep whining. For people who suck at math they don't easily see how things connect. I mean, I'm dyslexic, but if I look at words long enough they start to make sense over a little time.

 

[Shaun__]

Shaun_ keep in mind that though several have seemed to like your original post (even myself) you haven't had anyone agree with you so far about this dead argument you keep kicking. You haven't given me any reason to agree with your argument. You...(I don't know is this supposed to be a source for something?) gave a quote that talked about language evolution. Yes, I understand the concept of language evolution, which is why I brought it up in the first place...seriously dude chillax! (an evolved word coming from both chill and relax). Even if the words were to evolve yet again to make it easier for bad-spellers that is just another evolution of the language. Languages evolve all the time eventually English maybe easy for bad-spellers. I suck at spelling, but that's no reason to keep whining. :violin:

I made this thread to complain about English spelling silliness, and have no plans to abandon it until it bores me. If you had bothered to read the things I quoted you would have seen they were about people who changed the English language to make it easier for bad spellers. They took charge and changed the world. Or at least gave the appearance they did, it could have been a coincidence.

You seem to also be implying that I am supposed to be changing your view point on this subject. You already admitting you suck at spelling, so you tell me why you do not use the rules to improve your spelling? Is your reason that there are no real rules, just a collection of ridicules exceptions built up over time? Most people I know who are good spellers learned to spell through rote memorization.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

Shaun_ keep in mind that though several have seemed to like your original post (even myself) you haven't had anyone agree with you so far about this dead argument you keep kicking. You haven't given me any reason to agree with your argument. You...(I don't know is this supposed to be a source for something?) gave a quote that talked about language evolution. Yes, I understand the concept of language evolution, which is why I brought it up in the first place...seriously dude chillax! (an evolved word coming from both chill and relax). Even if the words were to evolve yet again to make it easier for bad-spellers that is just another evolution of the language. Languages evolve all the time eventually English maybe easy for bad-spellers. I suck at spelling, but that's no reason to keep whining. :violin:

I made this thread to complain about English spelling silliness, and have no plans to abandon it until it bores me. If you had bothered to read the things I quoted you would have seen they were about people who changed the English language to make it easier for bad spellers. They took charge and changed the world. Or at least gave the appearance they did, it could have been a coincidence.

You seem to also be implying that I am supposed to be changing your view point on this subject. You already admitting you suck at spelling, so you tell me why you do not use the rules to improve your spelling? Is your reason that there are no real rules, just a collection of ridicules exceptions built up over time? Most people I know who are good spellers learned to spell through rote memorization.

I read it and I commented on it as being what you said it was. I'm not going to explain the same thing again. I never said there were rules in spelling. Seriously, read the comment at least a couple of times before you post. You've misread things waay more than once. I'm just gonna let you reread it, since you've basically admitted you're trolling because your bored. I'm bored with this, so hence I'm done. :handgestures-salute:

 

[Shaun__]

I read it and I commented on it as being what you said it was. I'm not going to explain the same thing again. I never said there were rules in spelling. Seriously, read the comment at least a couple of times before you post. You've misread things waay more than once. I'm just gonna let you reread it, since you've basically admitted you're trolling because your bored. I'm bored with this, so hence I'm done. :handgestures-salute:

You strongly implied there were rules in spelling. Also I am not trolling, I really do think the English language should be simplified before it is done by time. I have no idea why you felt the need to come in a thread I made and tell me I am being argumentative by saying what I believe. I do not say things to be popular, I say things because I believe them.

I'm very multi-lingual, and early on I realized that every can be made into an equation to help you translate them. Even spelling makes sense if you delve deep enough into the roots and look at the possible evolutions of words.

I'm saying that sentence structure normally follows a set of rules, and if a linguist doesn't know the language they can normally use pattern recognition and basic equations to figure out what it means

Though spelling has nothing to do with math generally if you know the history of the word it makes better sense why it is spelled that way.

All languages that I know intentionally seem to have chosen letters for specific reasons. Such as if you see a word starting with a, an or anti...it probably has to do with something negative.

 

[Jupiter551]

As I already explained, the point of written language is to accurately convey meaning without the context of a speaker there to further clarify. Apart from the fact that spelling indicates the meaning of a word, if you know anything about language, a very practical reason why phonetic spelling is a huge step backwards are the many, many words in our language that are phonetically identical but have different meanings and can thus often only be given context by a) a speaker or b) a different spelling.

read

I will read the book.

I read that book.

You are saying if words were spelled the same, you would have to use context to understand their meaning. That is how things are now. I bet people arguing the merits of the imperial system said changing to the metric system was catering to ignoramuses as well.

Uhh, I said we'd be adding hundreds if not thousands MORE to the language, a language that you claim people already HAVE trouble with. Frankly, this is a non-issue because the people who have the most trouble spelling are the ones who actually don't bother to read books. That's how most people learn to spell most of the words they ever use - by READING. So you want the rest of the world to change their language systems to cater to a bunch of lazy shits who can't be bothered to read books anyway. No thanks.

 

[Nordling]

Iff yoo simmpliify langwiij too muuch u may eend upp with uggly tekkst.

I actually like that spelling and grammar nazis exist; they have a function. They cannot stop language from evolving, but they can help slow the process so we don't have communications anarchy.

If Noah Webster had simply written his dictionary to reflect British standards on spelling and grammer, the result would have been better. We would have ended up with a language that had more in common with the British way of doing it--and thus, less confusion.

Spelling and grammar, in general, weren't "decided" upon by artists or linguists. The "art" of language is the same as the beauty we find in an old growth forest--unsullied by "simplify nazis."

 

[Jupiter551]

Most people I know who are good spellers learned to spell through rote memorization.

Heh wow, okay, that might work for cat, bat, rat, and mat but like any language you improve through USING it. You improve your spelling by a) reading b) writing. Most people who actually read regularly and recreationally are not only better informed about all sorts of things, they can also generally look at a word they mispelled and KNOW there's something wrong with the spelling even if they don't know what the mistake is, at which point they go get a dictionary or check google. That's what non-lazy people do. People who aren't so arrogant as to think language should be uprooted and changed to suit THEM.

 

[Shaun__]

Iff yoo simmpliify langwiij too muuch u may eend upp with uggly tekkst.

I actually like that spelling and grammar nazis exist; they have a function. They cannot stop language from evolving, but they can help slow the process so we don't have communications anarchy.

If Noah Webster had simply written his dictionary to reflect British standards on spelling and grammer, the result would have been better. We would have ended up with a language that had more in common with the British way of doing it--and thus, less confusion.

Spelling and grammar, in general, weren't "decided" upon by artists or linguists. The "art" of language is the same as the beauty we find in an old growth forest--unsullied by "simplify nazis."

That is my point though. If you try to control the process you can try to avoid what you are talking about. Closing your eyes and ignoring the world around you will not keep the status quo unchanged. Just glance around the internet to see what the youngest generation is doing with the benefit of spell check. It is unlikely to get better.

 

[Nordling]

Iff yoo simmpliify langwiij too muuch u may eend upp with uggly tekkst.

I actually like that spelling and grammar nazis exist; they have a function. They cannot stop language from evolving, but they can help slow the process so we don't have communications anarchy.

If Noah Webster had simply written his dictionary to reflect British standards on spelling and grammer, the result would have been better. We would have ended up with a language that had more in common with the British way of doing it--and thus, less confusion.

Spelling and grammar, in general, weren't "decided" upon by artists or linguists. The "art" of language is the same as the beauty we find in an old growth forest--unsullied by "simplify nazis."

That is my point though. If you try to control the process you can try to avoid what you are talking about. Closing your eyes and ignoring the world around you will not keep the status quo unchanged. Just glance around the internet to see what the youngest generation is doing with the benefit of spell check. It is unlikely to get better.

Huh? "Benefit of spell check?" Like every generation preceding them, the "youngest generation" attempts to ignore rules. They do affect the outcome but not to the extent they may desire. The fad of "texting language" will eventually pass, and the language will have changed a tiny bit--nothing new here.

 

[Shaun__]

Huh? "Benefit of spell check?" Like every generation preceding them, the "youngest generation" attempts to ignore rules. They do affect the outcome but not to the extent they may desire. The fad of "texting language" will eventually pass, and the language will have changed a tiny bit--nothing new here.

I do not think it is a fad, it is a faster way to send information. I am no good at it, but as long as people text it will probably stick around.

 

[sweetiebatman]

At the risk of sounding like a bit of an old fart, I hate the modern world (I'm 28 by the way!)

I was brought up to use correct spelling & punctuation, write thankyou letters when I received gifts and having friends and family scattered around the world there is nothing like opening and reading a letter that someone has taken the time and effort to write. I hate "txt" talk. I'm no technophobe but if I send a text message or an email i make sure everything is correct. Spelling is becoming a lost art in the world of auto-correct

We need to slow down I believe, as we are in danger of missing the world and relationships around us!

I'm defiantly not going to get into a debate about language on here again though! :lol:

 

[LadyLuna]

read
I read that book.

This grammar nazi is confused. Are you saying that you have read that book before, or that you read that book now?

 

[sweetiebatman]

Thought i'd drop this video in, with dialects in mind..


This is where I'm from, Yorkshire and I remember my grandfather spoke like this as did the older folk when I was young. Its difficult for me to understand fully now but a lot of the words still survive, if not the dialect.

This goes back to what I was saying in a different thread about language. "English" as we understand it is not really a language until the 1700's and in different parts of the UK, different dialects are spoken and continue to be spoken/written

To understand English fully, and that includes the spelling you have to have an appreciation of history and that doesn't come form a 102 year old with a flipboard

 

[Shaun__]

read
I read that book.

This grammar nazi is confused. Are you saying that you have read that book before, or that you read that book now?

My sentence is grammatically correct, and I have no idea why you do not understand it. I assume you are being facetious, but if you look at the entire conversation the meaning should be clear. I read that book at an earlier point in time.

I was on a college reading level in elementary school, and feel very strongly the meaning of that sentence is clear. Are you saying I am not correct or is it just a personal preference on your part? Please keep in mind the sentence was never intended to stand alone.

 

[LadyLuna]

I was being picky, tongue-in-cheek. The correct English, if the sentence stands alone, is "I have read", because that puts it firmly in the past, and I don't have to read the whole sentence to figure out which way to read "read".

But, I was not being really serious. I did actually understand what you mean.