View Full Version : Should we simplify spelling?
Article from the BBC..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6250184.stm
Masha Bell, a member of the society and author of Understanding English Spelling, believes that reform of the spelling of the English language could help children learn to read and make life easier for some adults too.
Prof Vivian Cook, a linguist, expert in second language learning and author of Accomodating Brocolli in the Cemetary, believes changing spellings would be unnecessary, expensive and could harm children's ability to read.What do you guys think? This article talks about dumbing down the spelling of the English language, to make life easier for those who can't spell.
I think it's a silly idea, plenty of people have managed to learn how to spell properly, and there are spellcheckers and the like for people with dyslexia or learning difficulties. I agree spelling is a problem these days, but most of it is laziness i think.... I have always been able to spell, so maybe i'm snobbish about it but i do think people should try harder.
However, I do think people are way too harsh on people with spelling difficulties , i see it all over this forum, lots of posts saying things like "err can we have that in English now"...... okay so maybe it's hard to read it but why be so rude? That person may already have a complex about their spelling and may not have felt courage to post on a forum, but at the end of the day who are we to be so rude to them?:)
So, should we simplify spelling for the new generation?
smiffing
10-07-2007, 19:20
Too much text talk these days, and yes it is laziness.
zing_deleted
10-07-2007, 19:23
Article from the BBC..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6250184.stm
What do you guys think? This article talks about dumbing down the spelling of the English language, to make life easier for those who can't spell.
I think it's a silly idea, plenty of people have managed to learn how to spell properly, and there are spellcheckers and the like for people with dylexia or learning difficulties. I agree spelling is a problem these days, but most of it is laziness i think.... I have always been able to spell, so maybe i'm snobbish about it but i do think people should try harder.
However, I do think people are way too harsh on people with spelling difficulties , i see it all over this forum, lots of posts saying things like "err can we have that in English now"...... okay so maybe it's hard to read it but why be so rude? That person may already have a complex about their spelling and may not have felt courage to post on a forum, but at the end of the day who are we to be so rude to them?:)
So, should we simplify spelling for the new generation?
its dyslexia ;)
Dumbing things down is never the answer with things like this, we'd pretty much have to learn our language over again when it comes to the writing side of it all.
Besyds, if we werr to start wrytin lyk this then were wud the progress be in teeching kids how to reed?
Newspeak is double-plus good. US oldspeak is double-plus ungood.
I read that article this afternoon. Masha Bell's spelling makes her sound like a small child. If she had her way we would raise a generation that got to the linguistic level of a primary school kid and no further. We would end up with a horrible, denuded excuse for a language while the rest of the world happily went on learning 'classical' English. It would rapidly get even more difficult for anyone to read classic English literature like Shakespeare.
I can't escape from the niggling thought that Masha Bell is overcompensating for some disappointment in her own childhood. Thankfully I don't think there are sufficient people in this country who think that language is such a cold, dead thing that you can just re-write the rule book and expect everyone to fall into line. Whatever her campaign gets up to I can't see it coming to anything.
zing_deleted
10-07-2007, 19:34
language evoles over years . Go back 200 years and you would struggle to understand go forward 200 and im sure it will not be the same as now
Sirpingalot
10-07-2007, 19:40
|-|3310...|/\||-|/\+ r |/\|3 +alking about..oh forget it, I can't be bothered..
---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------
language evoles over years . Go back 200 years and you would struggle to understand go forward 200 and im sure it will not be the same as now
True, but the way things are going then we'll all be talking like this=
Besyds, if we werr to start wrytin lyk this then were wud the progress be in teeching kids how to reed?
i find it mad how the younger teens actually write/spell, i can never understand what makes it easier, if i tried to write the way they do it would take me even longer.... i wish good spelling came naturally to everyone but it seems it's going to get worse and this txt spk and poor spelling is going to make it even more complex.
---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------
its dyslexia ;)
I dunno what you're talking about:shrug: ;):p:
So rather than the minority making an effort to learn, the suggestion is the rest of us ought to dumb down?
No fanks.
Another stupid idea from some crackpot.
its dyslexia ;)
It's It's ;)
zing_deleted
10-07-2007, 21:06
It's It's ;)
arrr but I didn't (;)) start a thread on spelling. I personally have more to worry about than grammer im afraid ;)
homealone
10-07-2007, 21:34
For my 2p I found the sections of text spelt in the alleged 'easy' way, very hard to read. I tend to recognise whole words when I read, but with her spelling I had to slow down & sound it out.
arrr but I didn't (;)) start a thread on spelling. I personally have more to worry about than grammer im afraid ;)
You could do worse than worry about grammar. :p:
georgepomone
10-07-2007, 21:44
Hi Homealone,
I thought exactly the same, it's dumbed down to read letters instead of words. This makes it slower to read surely.
George.:)
rogerdraig
10-07-2007, 21:59
as a dyslexic myself i agree and disagree
ok spelling and grammar are thought to much of by many grammar is useful in some settings but is not even in those a perfect set of rules
forcing those who have problems with spelling to conform does end up in many areas in them not progressing as far as others even though their understanding of the subject in hand may be as good as or better than those who spell correctly
if you look at ( and i am not putting in a list here ) a lot of those who over the last few centuries we have considered to be great in many fields a lot have been dyslexic or at least horrendous spellers
so though not agreeing with a whole sale dumbing down a more relaxed attitude i do agree with
and i take it those here who don't like txt spelling don't use things like IOU or OK
English is such a great language because it grows and changes and that change is brought about not by english teachers or those who compile dictionaries but by the people using and changing the language in the real world
According to that article, in the cultures with really difficult languages, like Chinese and Japanese, dyslexia is almost unheard of. It appears that the harder you are made to work to get to grips with your written language, the better it is for dealing with any inbuilt difficulty you may have. I would say you are better off with things the way they are.
virginmedia
10-07-2007, 22:05
Oups... Pressed top one by mistake. Ohh well.
I vote 'No, people should try harder or use other methods to ensure correct spelling'
John
smiffing
10-07-2007, 22:23
Oups... Pressed top one by mistake. Ohh well.
I vote 'No, people should try harder or use other methods to ensure correct spelling'
John
There's always one.
:angel:
According to that article, in the cultures with really difficult languages, like Chinese and Japanese, dyslexia is almost unheard of. It appears that the harder you are made to work to get to grips with your written language, the better it is for dealing with any inbuilt difficulty you may have. I would say you are better off with things the way they are.
Not a fair comparison really. In Chinese, the characters stand for words, so the rules are relatively arbitrary. What the complaint in English is about is that the orthography to phonology rules are incredibly inconsistent. It could be argued that it is more difficult that learning an inconsistent system is more difficult than an arbitrary system. Having said that, I say keep it as it is. I like the quirkiness of English :)
Sirpingalot
10-07-2007, 22:46
English is just fine. Leave it alone. American on the other hand..
alot of people are using PC to write nowadays
so they can check the spellings easily
and the amount of SMS MSN ICQ YAHOO other IMs and online forums (points at cableforum :P ) where people dont need to spell correctly or shorten the words
people are bound to forget how to spell correctly and have bad grammer
Tezcatlipoca
10-07-2007, 23:31
Too much text talk these days, and yes it is laziness.
I cannot stand it.
Especially online... YOU HAVE A FULL KEYBOARD YOU FOOLS! AGH!
It has long been said that the English language is one of the easiest to learn to speak but one of the hardest to learn to write. George Bernard Shaw used a fine example to indicate how pronunciation bears little resemblance to the written word.
If you look at the word GHOTI you'd say "goatie what's that then?" In fact the word is actually FISH, :confused: confused? Well if you take:
GH - from the word tough where [GH] is pronounced as an F
O - from the word women where [O] is pronounced as an I
TI - from the word station where [TI] is pronounced as a SH.
You end up with the word FISH - Make sense now....?
With the above complicating things even further it's little wonder that some people struggle. However, for a foreigner (learning the language) that (to my mind) is understandible, but to someone born and educated in the UK (barring true dyslexics) there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever.
Modern technology doesn't help - phone texting is a typical example of how to demonstrate communication like a two year old, but (to be fair) that's more out of necessity than bad spelling.
On the other hand, if you listen to the way some people converse with each other (face to face), I.e. street (pleb) dialogue especially phrases like: Innit, no whaha meeeen, wikkid, Choool! How on earth can one even hope to imagine that there's any semblance of literary English behind the minds of those creating such an idiom.:erm:
Anyway, there's a far simpler way of ensuring perfect written English - it's called a spell checker, just make sure that you've got it selected to UK english..!;)
Toodle pip and Si Thee.
We have already dumbed down our language to the point that Shakespeare's use of language and certain words has to be explained to present day generations.
Also the vocabulary store that each and everyone of us has at our disposal has become smaller and smaller.For some this means a vocabulary of mainly swear words plus what ever technical language they require to discuss the latest fads and gadgetry.
I have a rich and varied vocabulary that I have acquired through extensive reading which I use when talking to the students. My depression deepens when they don't appear to understand what I just said to them..and very rarely does anyone put a hand up to ask what a word means. :(
It's frightening when dealing with the last crop of year 7(11-12) who don't understand fairly simple words and phrases that I wouldn't have had to explain 10 years ago.
An old nugget, shamelessly ripped from the web:
Why English is Hard to Learn
1. We must polish the Polish furniture.
2. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
3. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
4. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
5. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
6. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
7. I did not object to the object.
8. The bandage was wound around the wound.
9. The farm was used to produce produce.
10. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Says it all really :)
An old nugget, shamelessly ripped from the web:
Says it all really :)
It's a great language that everyone else WANTS to learn...And you will get confusion if people will try and apply the rules of classic old DEAD languages to a living one.Latin rules cannot possibly encompass the richness and oddness of our language.Let's be like the French and fight to retain it in all it's diversity.I love the way we add words to our dictionaries and I see nothing to gain by removing words from the dictionary.
rogerdraig
11-07-2007, 00:41
According to that article, in the cultures with really difficult languages, like Chinese and Japanese, dyslexia is almost unheard of. It appears that the harder you are made to work to get to grips with your written language, the better it is for dealing with any inbuilt difficulty you may have. I would say you are better off with things the way they are.
dyslexia is almost unheard of in school here too as many schools and local authorities will do anything to avoid paying for it
and implying that those with it are not working hard ( whether you meant to or not ) speaks volumes on how much you know about it
It's a great language that everyone else WANTS to learn...And you will get confusion if people will try and apply the rules of classic old DEAD languages to a living one.Latin rules cannot possibly encompass the richness and oddness of our language.Let's be like the French and fight to retain it in all it's diversity.I love the way we add words to our dictionaries and I see nothing to gain by removing words from the dictionary.
Don't get me wrong. I love the English language. It's actually relatively easy to learn to speak, as it has relatively little morphology (i.e. no complicated verb conjugations as in Spanish, or a case system like German). When it comes to going from the written to the spoken form however, it is probably one of the most idiosyncratic languages in the world, which is what the Simplified Spelling Society objects to. I don't agree with the call for spelling to be changed (or most forms of dumbing down), but they are correct in pointing out that English is a very difficult language to learn in this respect.
rogerdraig
11-07-2007, 00:48
It's a great language that everyone else WANTS to learn...And you will get confusion if people will try and apply the rules of classic old DEAD languages to a living one.Latin rules cannot possibly encompass the richness and oddness of our language.Let's be like the French and fight to retain it in all it's diversity.I love the way we add words to our dictionaries and I see nothing to gain by removing words from the dictionary.
i agree with that but that serves the same purpose as we just add the alternative spellings and then everyones spelling ok which is fine in my book ( or should that be dictionary ;) )
Anonymouse
11-07-2007, 08:16
She needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Let's face facts: whether the rest of the world wants to admit it or not, English is this world's lingua franca. Never mind that there are more people for whom their first language is Chinese rather than English - I doubt there's a single country on this planet in which English is not taught, even if only to a minimal extent. To the best of my knowledge, it is taught in every European country.
I suspect someone will now prove me wrong via Google. :p: I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong, though. But regardless of that, it would be worse than useless to change English as she suggests, because you'd have to change it everywhere. Impossible. Impractical. It would be a major deterrent to tourists who might already have a bit of trouble with its idiosyncrasies and inconsistency. Yet those very same qualities are the reason for its success - it's idiosyncratic for the simple reason that over time it's absorbed bits of virtually every other language, even Sanskrit and Afrikaans (yes, it has - 'aardvark' and 'wildebeest' are both words in Afrikaans), which is why almost everyone on the planet can speak at least some English. The same is true of every other language (even French, though they definitely won't admit it :p:), but to nowhere near the same extent. Except possibly Basque - I recall reading somewhere that Basque resembles no other language in terms of structure, and no other language seems to be derived from it.
BTW, whatever its proponents might claim, Esperanto is no more consistent than any other language. :)
It's too late to change. The time to change it - if it were even necessary, of which I'm not convinced - was when the British Empire was expanding, carrying the English language with it.
ITA is definitely a bad idea IMO. What's the point of teaching kids one way to spell when they'll only have to unlearn that later and learn the proper way to do it? I don't even agree with the notion of teaching them always to pronounce (note the avoidance of the split infinitive there!) letters as hard, i.e. 'a' as in 'vast' rather than 'a' as in 'vain', 'c' as 'k' and so on. To me, it just seems confusing.
Has anyone asked Lynne Truss (Eats, Shoots & Leaves and Talk to the Hand) what she thinks? :D
dyslexia is almost unheard of in school here too as many schools and local authorities will do anything to avoid paying for it
and implying that those with it are not working hard ( whether you meant to or not ) speaks volumes on how much you know about it
Speaks volumes about the fact that two of my closest friends growing up had dyslexia, which didn't stop the three of us running a youth club magazine together. :dozey: Don't be so quick to leap to judgement, mate, I know plenty about it thank you very much. Including what their LEAs did (and didn't do) to assist.
If you have read the article linked at the top of the thread then you ought to have realised that I was merely summarizing the argument put there. I can't see how that argument can be taken as a complaint that dyslexic pupils don't try hard enough. The argument is that the complexity of those languages somehow mitigates against dyslexia - whether by super-stimulation of the language centres of the brain, or by requiring a rigorous educational approach that mitigates against the effects of dyslexia is unclear.
eye 4 1 dont wont 2 B americanized or do this horibal txt speek.
its not that hard, parents should help out with teaching kids, and reading with them, I know a couple who don't talk to their kids, but let the nanny bring them up.
I for one say not to americanisation of our langauge or text/leet speak.
ik
cookie_365
11-07-2007, 17:59
I don't believe that making language easier is equivalent to 'dumbing down'.
For instance, I don't think that someone who writes 'gaol' is any cleverer than someone who writes 'jail'.
In fact, I'd say they're dumber, because I'd assume that the reason why they were writing was too show off how clever they are, and not to communicate with me. Which is a pretty dumb impression to give ;)
And there's rarely a good reason to use the word 'purchase' when 'buy' means exactly the same thing yet is much easier to scan, write and learn.
Having said that, what's been suggested just won't work, for two reasons.
Firstly, it assumes a specific accent. So anyone with a different accent will have to unlearn a traditional non-phonetic word and learn a new arbitrary non-phonetic word in its place.
Secondly, even if everyone spoke with the same accent, the existing phonetics are so hotch-potch that no one will be able to agree on the correct phonetic spelling for each sound.
Example: example, eggsample, exampull, ecksampal, ixumpl, ugsimple could all be ways of spelling my own pronunciation of the word example. So again, whichever one was chosen, you'd have to unlearn the existing word and learn an arbitrary replacement which would be no easier to spell than the original.
The only way it could work would be by going right back to square 1 to find a set of phonetics that everyone agreed on, then rebuilding the whole language again from the ground up sticking to that single set. Perhaps adding accents to separate syllables so there's no confusion. Likelihood of that happening? Err, nil.
But, some individual words could benefit from an update. The language manages to survive with some alternative spellings already.
No one pronounces the d in Wednesday, so the language would benefit if we mutually agreed to allow Wensday (for instance) as a valid alternative spelling. And maybe anser as an alternative to answer, that kind of thing.
zing_deleted
11-07-2007, 18:13
Speaks volumes about the fact that two of my closest friends growing up had dyslexia, which didn't stop the three of us running a youth club magazine together. :dozey: Don't be so quick to leap to judgement, mate, I know plenty about it thank you very much. Including what their LEAs did (and didn't do) to assist.
If you have read the article linked at the top of the thread then you ought to have realised that I was merely summarizing the argument put there. I can't see how that argument can be taken as a complaint that dyslexic pupils don't try hard enough. The argument is that the complexity of those languages somehow mitigates against dyslexia - whether by super-stimulation of the language centres of the brain, or by requiring a rigorous educational approach that mitigates against the effects of dyslexia is unclear.
how old are you ?? When I was at school firstly I remember being mocked for painting a tree with brown leaves and a green trunk .This was by the teacher btw. I think I was about 6 or 7 (1976-77) It wasnt until my medical at 14 years of age it was discovered I was colourblind. Then for the 12 years I failed at school I was constantly told I was lazy because I couldnt write neatly I was bundled into the extra English class for the "less intelligent" My schools never looked further than the end of their noses when looking at the reasons why I couldnt write and I still cant now. I find it hard enough to spell and make what I write to the best part understandable to worry about the grammer a missing ' here or a , there never killed anyone. Guess what im now 37 and I still cant write neatly and I never will I put myself through college using an old Atari 800 xe and a dot matrix printer and now I have google ;)
I was 20 years old before I had enough confidence in myself to realise I wasnt as dumb as the schools I went to made me feel
I don't believe that making language easier is equivalent to 'dumbing down'.
For instance, I don't think that someone who writes 'gaol' is any cleverer than someone who writes 'jail'.
In fact, I'd say they're dumber, because I'd assume that the reason why they were writing was too show off how clever they are, and not to communicate with me. Which is a pretty dumb impression to give ;)
And there's rarely a good reason to use the word 'purchase' when 'buy' means exactly the same thing yet is much easier to scan, write and learn.
If we all stick to the same narrow criteria then our language becomes the poorer..if we embrace diversity in culture then why not in our vocabulary?I.I happen to like exploiting the richness that is the English language.I intend using every one of the words that I know whenever I feel like it and if anyone is intimidated too bad.If they find it a put down then that's a reflection on them not on me.
So, should we simplify spelling for the new generation?
Nope.
My spelling is not very good but I get by (with the occasional howler :disturbd: )
English (which isn't my first language) is a beautiful, crazy, rich and historical language. It allows us to express ourselves beautifully. It's a wonderful language and should simply evolve naturally over the years as it has always done; not suddenly, to pander to people like me who can't spell properly.
Btw.....did you know that plurals used to be denoted with a 'n', not a 's'......hence "children" and "brethren" :)
---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------
how old are you ?? When I was at school firstly I remember being mocked for painting a tree with brown leaves and a green trunk .This was by the teacher btw. I think I was about 6 or 7 I wonder if that teacher is still alive.....because i'd like to slap him/her :mad::(
---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------
I happen to like exploiting the richness that is the English language.I intend using every one of the words that I know whenever I feel like it and if anyone is intimidated too bad.If they find it a put down then that's a reflection on them not on me.Absolutely! English is beautiful.......so many different words for the same things. Fantastic! :tu::)
Absolutely! English is beautiful.......so many different words for the same things. Fantastic! :tu::)
Eskimos have 50 words for snow. The Brits have 50 words for idiot :D
Language is "fluid", it will change (if it didn't, words such as "thou" and "verrily" would be in common use), but change should not be forced.
Spelling is difficult for a lot of people but most people in my experience (including Dyslexics -some of my friends are dyslexic) can work around that difficulty. Even if it's just a case of using a spell checker. One of my dyslexic friends is one of our Unix admins at work, so you could say his spelling in important: He spends most of his day typing scripts and command lines.
I've been working for a good few years now, and I have noticed that since the move toward electronic communications, and, in particular, internet-based comms (such as Forums, email, IM), spelling standards have dropped. It's as if the mere act of putting a communication on paper makes us think about the spelling more carefully.
I think that if there is an increase in bad spelling, we should be looking at sorting out why that is happening rather than altering the language to "hide" the problem.
zing_deleted
11-07-2007, 21:53
Language is "fluid", it will change (if it didn't, words such as "thou" and "verrily" would be in common use), but change should not be forced.
Spelling is difficult for a lot of people but most people in my experience (including Dyslexics -some of my friends are dyslexic) can work around that difficulty. Even if it's just a case of using a spell checker. One of my dyslexic friends is one of our Unix admins at work, so you could say his spelling in important: He spends most of his day typing scripts and command lines.
I've been working for a good few years now, and I have noticed that since the move toward electronic communications, and, in particular, internet-based comms (such as Forums, email, IM), spelling standards have dropped. It's as if the mere act of putting a communication on paper makes us think about the spelling more carefully.
I think that if there is an increase in bad spelling, we should be looking at sorting out why that is happening rather than altering the language to "hide" the problem.
The best way to get around it is for most people not to be to anal about punctuation or grammar when they know full well what it all means anyway. Pointing it out is often quite belittling
cookie_365
11-07-2007, 21:56
If we all stick to the same narrow criteria then our language becomes the poorer..if we embrace diversity in culture then why not in our vocabulary?I.I happen to like exploiting the richness that is the English language.I intend using every one of the words that I know whenever I feel like it and if anyone is intimidated too bad.If they find it a put down then that's a reflection on them not on me.
I would say our language becomes the poorer when it's used to intimidate people rather than to communicate with them.
The best way to get around it is for most people not to be to anal about punctuation or grammar when they know full well what it all means anyway. Pointing it out is often quite belittling
Which is why, unless the document in question is important, I do not do it.
Although it is worth pointing out that ignoring errors does not solve the problem, merely hides it.
zing_deleted
11-07-2007, 22:04
I wasn't accusing then btw :)
I wasn't accusing then btw :)
Actually, I didn't think you were.
homealone
11-07-2007, 22:08
I would say our language becomes the poorer when it's used to intimidate people rather than to communicate with them.
I don't often disagree with what you post, cookie, but this is one occasion, sorry :p:
- I don't agree that the use of 'rich' language should intimidate people, rather that they should, either, try harder to understand what is being said - or ask for a simpler explanation?
- 'communication' being a 2 way thing, presumably ;)
zing_deleted
11-07-2007, 22:12
Which is why, unless the document in question is important, I do not do it.
Although it is worth pointing out that ignoring errors does not solve the problem, merely hides it.
it all depends on how it is done.Often its done with an air of arrogance or smugness which is where the belittling comes in. Carefully pointing out errors is helpful but scoring points off them isnt its small
cookie_365
11-07-2007, 22:16
I don't often disagree with what you post, cookie, but this is one occasion, sorry :p:
Tsk - I'll be having words later ;)
- I don't agree that the use of 'rich' language should intimidate people, rather that they should, either, try harder to understand what is being said - or ask for a simpler explanation?
Just replying to Coggy's comment about not caring if it intimidates people. People who feel intimidated by the way you speak to them are NOT going to 'try harder' or ask for a simpler explanation. Human nature says they'll withdraw and hope their 'stupidity' goes unnoticed.
- 'communication' being a 2 way thing, presumably ;)
The way Coggy put it made it sound like it was a 1 way thing for her ;)
I occasionally correct typing/spelling errors in posts I reply to :blush:
As long as someone has tried to spell something properly and the meaning is clear I do not have a problem with spelling or missing or incorrect punctuation (blummin lousy at it myself at times). However anything such as text speak and completely new spellings which dilutes English would be a huge loss to the richness of the language.
Always better to aim high than dumb down.
how old are you ?? When I was at school firstly I remember being mocked for painting a tree with brown leaves and a green trunk .This was by the teacher btw. I think I was about 6 or 7 (1976-77) It wasnt until my medical at 14 years of age it was discovered I was colourblind. Then for the 12 years I failed at school I was constantly told I was lazy because I couldnt write neatly I was bundled into the extra English class for the "less intelligent" My schools never looked further than the end of their noses when looking at the reasons why I couldnt write and I still cant now. I find it hard enough to spell and make what I write to the best part understandable to worry about the grammer a missing ' here or a , there never killed anyone. Guess what im now 37 and I still cant write neatly and I never will I put myself through college using an old Atari 800 xe and a dot matrix printer and now I have google ;)
I was 20 years old before I had enough confidence in myself to realise I wasnt as dumb as the schools I went to made me feel
I'm mid 30s, but younger than you. ;)
The friends in question are both rather younger than me - it was a youth club mag, not a school class one. I think they were growing up in a (slightly) more enlightened age when it came to recognition of the condition, and treatment.
Tsk - I'll be having words later ;)
Just replying to Coggy's comment about not caring if it intimidates people. People who feel intimidated by the way you speak to them are NOT going to 'try harder' or ask for a simpler explanation. Human nature says they'll withdraw and hope their 'stupidity' goes unnoticed.
The way Coggy put it made it sound like it was a 1 way thing for her ;)
So because I speak and write well I should stop using what I know in case I frighten and belittle others.?Are you serious? Frankly if someone uses a word to me that I don't know, I'm not intimidated, I'm delighted because it's a new word to add to my vocabulary.I definitely ask them about it.:)
Frankly I'm more intimidated by people who can only express themselves by using the same three swear words over and over..I'm amazed at how many meanings the F word can be put to.:erm: Mind if someone can swear fluently for 5 minutes without repeating themselves once I'm definitely impressed.That's a real art form.:D
Actually it's the tone that one employs when speaking to someone that indicates whether you are trying to talk down to them and to intimidate.As I said if anyone is intimidated by me expressing myself in my normal manner then I can't see how it's a reflection on me..it just indicates that the other person lacks self confidence.
---------- Post added at 23:08 ---------- Previous post was at 23:06 ----------
Pah! Welsh is easier :D
Yep if I can develop a second set of vocal chords...:D
homealone
11-07-2007, 23:11
The way Coggy put it made it sound like it was a 1 way thing for her ;)
much snippage, but I doubt that, myself, without denying your perspective, I don't think Incognitas has the arrogance you imply? ?
on in an hour!
11-07-2007, 23:22
i voted yes,but dont agree with the term 'dumbed down'.why should making something simpler be branded as dumbing down? if say flat pack furniture building instructions were made simpler would we call it 'dumbing down' (as im sure weve all been in the same boat at 1 time or another (dont lie) i say it would be greeted with 'thank god they've made it simpler to understand' or other such comments.i pride myself on my my grammar but do find at times that i wonder 'is there an e or an a,and if there is does it go after the l or isnt there 1 there,or if there is i cant remember'!!! totally confusing but seeing as how the words/spellings are so deeply rooted in our language the only way i can see to making it simpler is going back to what i remember at primary school,it was called 'ita' writing then.anyone remember that???
The difficulty I have with easing off on the spellings is regional accents at least with the current system it has consistency regardless of the accent.
Such as I say Bath pronounced Barth (like harth with a long A sound) and my husband says Bath (like haf with a hard A sound) :shrug:
i voted yes,but dont agree with the term 'dumbed down'.why should making something simpler be branded as dumbing down? if say flat pack furniture building instructions were made simpler would we call it 'dumbing down' (as im sure weve all been in the same boat at 1 time or another (dont lie) i say it would be greeted with 'thank god they've made it simpler to understand' or other such comments
I see what you're saying, but i don't think it's quite the same as making instructions easier. Spelling is something rather basic and essential for people to need to know, building furniture isn't;)
edit= by basic (i know it's not easy for everyone) i mean an everyday need and something which is taught from a very young age, which is the only reason i used that term.
rogerdraig
12-07-2007, 00:47
Speaks volumes about the fact that two of my closest friends growing up had dyslexia, which didn't stop the three of us running a youth club magazine together. :dozey: Don't be so quick to leap to judgement, mate, I know plenty about it thank you very much. Including what their LEAs did (and didn't do) to assist.
If you have read the article linked at the top of the thread then you ought to have realised that I was merely summarizing the argument put there. I can't see how that argument can be taken as a complaint that dyslexic pupils don't try hard enough. The argument is that the complexity of those languages somehow mitigates against dyslexia - whether by super-stimulation of the language centres of the brain, or by requiring a rigorous educational approach that mitigates against the effects of dyslexia is unclear.
WOW a couple of friends with it
i have it
the bit here "It appears that the harder you are made to work to get to grips with your written language, the better it is for dealing with any inbuilt difficulty you may have. I would say you are better off with things the way they are."
is hard to take any other way than repeating the often heard thing by dyslexics of "TRY HARDER"
yes lots of dyslexics do well and get jobs but that is because we have had to work much harder than most to get through school and have learned ways around it
but thats not a reason to make those coming through the system go through the same distress a lot have had to go through to get where they are now
... Masha Bell's spelling makes her sound like a small child. If she had her way we would raise a generation that got to the linguistic level of a primary school kid and no further. ...
Isn't this Labour's education policy?
Isn't this Labour's education policy?
Labour's education policy in my experience, is to encourage as many people as possible to go for exams (even up to degree level), and then reduce the requirements so as many as possible pass.
WOW a couple of friends with it
i have it
the bit here "It appears that the harder you are made to work to get to grips with your written language, the better it is for dealing with any inbuilt difficulty you may have. I would say you are better off with things the way they are."
is hard to take any other way than repeating the often heard thing by dyslexics of "TRY HARDER"
yes lots of dyslexics do well and get jobs but that is because we have had to work much harder than most to get through school and have learned ways around it
but thats not a reason to make those coming through the system go through the same distress a lot have had to go through to get where they are now
Actually I was thinking more in terms of a system that facilitates trying harder. And yes, you do have to try harder, you face a difficulty that you have to overcome, just the same as someone with a physical disability has to try harder to walk, or whatever.
Aside from thinking in terms of the educational system, there is, of course, a difference between being told to try harder because someone thinks you're just being lazy and being told to try harder as a means of offering encouragement to overcome a recognised condition.
If you could get that chip off your shoulder for five minutes you might be better able to tell which was which.
rogerdraig
12-07-2007, 17:54
Actually I was thinking more in terms of a system that facilitates trying harder. And yes, you do have to try harder, you face a difficulty that you have to overcome, just the same as someone with a physical disability has to try harder to walk, or whatever.
Aside from thinking in terms of the educational system, there is, of course, a difference between being told to try harder because someone thinks you're just being lazy and being told to try harder as a means of offering encouragement to overcome a recognised condition.
If you could get that chip off your shoulder for five minutes you might be better able to tell which was which.
which again shows your missing the point we dont need it to be that dyslexics ( or those with other learning dificulies ) have to work much harder
spelling isnt the be all that people seem to think it is and although if you read through my other posts that i dont entirely agree with the idea put forward i dont see why other spellings cant live along side old ones
the only chip i have is seeing still kids being told they are stupid or not trying because the system wont statement them because, then they have to pay, and putting forward yet another work harder idea just reinforces that idea among many people
cookie_365
12-07-2007, 19:00
much snippage, but I doubt that, myself, without denying your perspective, I don't think Incognitas has the arrogance you imply? ?
That's why I was so surprised to read what she said ;)
homealone
12-07-2007, 19:24
That's why I was so surprised to read what she said ;)
I honestly think it is more to do with someone being inspired by language, but perhaps being frustrated that others don't share that same enthusiasm.
I know I'm putting words in her mouth, but I don't think Incog meant she would deliberately use 'big words' to brow-beat someone, rather that, to an extent, she would rather express her thoughts as they come naturally?
I think I agree with you that some people might feel 'inferior' if they don't understand all the vocabulary, but am also saddened that it isn't seen as an opportunity to learn more?
In my opinion our society is sometimes inclined to be disparaging of academic achievement (swots, nerds etc), while simultaneously encouraging those who only seem to seek publicity by outrageous behaviour (eg big brother), rather than intellect???
the only chip i have is seeing still kids being told they are stupid or not trying because the system wont statement them because, then they have to pay, and putting forward yet another work harder idea just reinforces that idea among many people
I believe that Chris was making the point that the system should be changed, not the language.
You appear to be making the point that the students should be taught a simplified form of spelling which, while it would be easier to teach, and easier to learn, may leave them at a disadvantage when dealing with situations where paperwork is important, or legally binding.
Also, have you considered that while it is meant with the best intentions, this idea may make things worse for dyslexic students when other kids find out they are being taught simplified spelling? While it is often swept under the carpet, Bullying is a major problem.
I don't see how simplifying spelling would make life easier for dyslexics anyway, i thought it was a case of getting your letters in the wrong order/mixing them up a little, rather than not knowing how to spell. So surely they'd still mix up any letters/numbers? I don't know though, so i'm prepared to be told i'm wrong abou that.
rogerdraig
12-07-2007, 22:39
I believe that Chris was making the point that the system should be changed, not the language.
You appear to be making the point that the students should be taught a simplified form of spelling which, while it would be easier to teach, and easier to learn, may leave them at a disadvantage when dealing with situations where paperwork is important, or legally binding.
Also, have you considered that while it is meant with the best intentions, this idea may make things worse for dyslexic students when other kids find out they are being taught simplified spelling? While it is often swept under the carpet, Bullying is a major problem.
no i am suggesting alternative spellings could be recognised too not instead off and not taught a seperate set in anyway
as to putting them at a disadvantage i disagree as they already are as they can often not understand the "proper" spelling anyway
the majority of dictionaries already use American words along side "English English" with some even putting Australian versions in too
English changes and if it means less red lines through work that will have taken a lot of effort to start off with i can only be to the good
it should be the ideas and content that is the most important not whether they use weather or weather or if they spell night as nite night or knight
If you change the language like that, however, it will change nothing. The system that you appear to be objecting to will remain in place, unchanged.
TBH, while I am not dyslexic myself, surely dyslexia causes one to mix up the letters in words? If that's the case, changing the spelling won't help. People will just have fewer letters to mix up..
rogerdraig
12-07-2007, 22:50
I don't see how simplifying spelling would make life easier for dyslexics anyway, i thought it was a case of getting your letters in the wrong order/mixing them up a little, rather than not knowing how to spell. So surely they'd still mix up any letters/numbers? I don't know though, so i'm prepared to be told i'm wrong abou that.
your right and wrong Dyslexia can cause many different things i could easily spell a word 20 different ways in an essay though most would be at least phonetically recognisable where as my nephew mostly spelled them the wrong the same way
allowing alternatives could mean the difference between staying in the mainstream rather than having to be made to look diferent by having to have special classes or different exam conditions
i didnt get any help as it wasn't recognised in my day ( dam that makes me feel old ;) )
my nephew after we fought the system did ( long story ) but he was made to feel that he was less clever because he had to be taken out of his class to do certain lessons with the other slow learners as they were often referred to as
and his only crime to get low marks was mostly his spelling
when he left the school environment and went to collage where they were quite happy to make allowances for spelling and he was in the same class as the rest of them doing his chosen course he did exceptionally well
so i see this as something that would help it wouldnt be an perfect solution for every one but then nothing ever is
Also going a little off topic, but does anyone think that it sounds like Orwell's 1984 is coming true? Society is being increasingly monitored, the Government appears to be trying to introduce papers (the ID card), now people are seriously suggesting "simplifying" English. The language spoken (and indeed, the language the book is written in) is called "Newspeak" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak ) and is a simplified version of English.
rogerdraig
12-07-2007, 23:01
If you change the language like that, however, it will change nothing. The system that you appear to be objecting to will remain in place, unchanged.
TBH, while I am not dyslexic myself, surely dyslexia causes one to mix up the letters in words? If that's the case, changing the spelling won't help. People will just have fewer letters to mix up..
wasn't relay objecting or agreeing with the original idea i dont think though that allowing alternative spellings is dumbing down its just change
whens the last time you use beget or thou do you really care whether we use center or center and would you be thrown by centar or senter
i am not suggesting ( lol i always type that as sujesting ) that this would be perfect but i do think it could help
and i mean alongside the curent system not forcing any one to type like me with out a spell checker ;) and not as a special set just for dyslexics
---------- Post added at 23:01 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------
The best way to get around it is for most people not to be to anal about punctuation or grammar when they know full well what it all means anyway. Pointing it out is often quite belittling
exactly
Actually, I did make the point earlier that English does change from time to time (as with all languages). I just don't think that change should be forced.
rogerdraig
13-07-2007, 00:34
Actually, I did make the point earlier that English does change from time to time (as with all languages). I just don't think that change should be forced.
it depends what you mean by forced
dictionaries are the repository of the words used by the populace not the words to be used by the populace
they should also be there to explain words you see if you don't understand them so adding commonly misspelled words seems to be an aid to me not an hinderence
though ( lol ) as i couldn't spell to save my life i used to always find a dictionary rather a baffling idea as if i new how to spell it i wouldn't have been looking it up ;)
it depends what you mean by forced
dictionaries are the repository of the words used by the populace not the words to be used by the populace
By forced, I mean large scale changes to the language (such as this).
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but there's too much to read now.
I'm old enough to remember when they tried this back in the 60s. Some kids were taught using simplified spelling. This 'experiment' had a name but, for the life of me, I can't remember what it is. Anyway, these poor kids had a dreadful time in a world full of 'real' spellers. Through no fault of their own, they were put at a huge disadvantage because they had difficulty, or were embarrased by, communicating with others. It'll never work!
smiffing
13-07-2007, 12:45
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but there's too much to read now.
I'm old enough to remember when they tried this back in the 60s. Some kids were taught using simplified spelling. This 'experiment' had a name but, for the life of me, I can't remember what it is. Anyway, these poor kids had a dreadful time in a world full of 'real' spellers. Through no fault of their own, they were put at a huge disadvantage because they had difficulty, or were embarrased by, communicating with others. It'll never work!
Wasn't it called "phonetics"?
I was reading a thread on Facebook about spelling issues with the 'younger generation':D and someone posted these links..... an example of kids today?! lol
(actually i think the threads might have been about people who change the spelling of their names to Kafryn and stuff)
I'm only 22 and i can't make out these pages http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=1204409984
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=561457447
:LOL:
I think teenagers revel in text speak because it's a way to baffle the older generation..but when it comes down to it later, they will be using the normal means of communicating because that will be what the world in general is doing because it avoids the pitfalls of mis-communication in life.
For certain jobs we do have to be all on the same page after all.In the law courts,in the emergency services,in hospitals and the armed services and other jobs where clear precise communication is vital we do need to have standardisation. :)
cookie_365
13-07-2007, 18:02
For certain jobs we do have to be all on the same page after all.In the law courts,in the emergency services,in hospitals and the armed services and other jobs where clear precise communication is vital we do need to have standardisation. :)
I work with lawyers - clear precise communication is far away from what they're aiming for ;)
Actually, that's a bit unfair on a lot of lawyers; many of them are beginning to realise the benefits of plain English writing. Though you'd struggle to find any mention of it on the Law Society website.
And law drafting - or should I say draughting ;) - has improved remarkably too. If you've got plenty of time on your hands it's interesting to read some of the Acts from the 1980s and compare them with Acts from the 2000s covering similar subject matter. The difference is often very obvious indeed.
Legal writing would probably cope fairly easily with the 'alternative spellings, pick the one you want' scenario. They'd just use the old spellings until the new ones were the norm for The Times. I don't think it would cope so well with the 'let's rewrite the language from scratch' scenario. Though I don't think many of us would, on reflection. :)
I work with lawyers - clear precise communication is far away from what they're aiming for ;)
Actually, that's a bit unfair on a lot of lawyers; many of them are beginning to realise the benefits of plain English writing. Though you'd struggle to find any mention of it on the Law Society website.
And law drafting - or should I say draughting ;) - has improved remarkably too. If you've got plenty of time on your hands it's interesting to read some of the Acts from the 1980s and compare them with Acts from the 2000s covering similar subject matter. The difference is often very obvious indeed.
Legal writing would probably cope fairly easily with the 'alternative spellings, pick the one you want' scenario. They'd just use the old spellings until the new ones were the norm for The Times. I don't think it would cope so well with the 'let's rewrite the language from scratch' scenario. Though I don't think many of us would, on reflection. :)
I'm just saying we need standardisation so as to avoid major mistakes particularly for the emergency services.After all we already have enough trouble with semantics with our language as it is without changing it.
As for the solicitors confusing matters well they can't confuse each other..I only have to waive a legal document under my brother-in-law's nose and he can tell me what it means straight off the top of his head. :D
cookie_365
13-07-2007, 19:45
I'm just saying we need standardisation so as to avoid major mistakes particularly for the emergency services.After all we already have enough trouble with semantics with our language as it is without changing it.
Yes, I agree. I'd only support changes that didn't confuse, like anser and wensday, where people'd still understand what was meant.
As for the solicitors confusing matters well they can't confuse each other..I only have to waive a legal document under my brother-in-law's nose and he can tell me what it means straight off the top of his head. :D
Ah, but if you then took the same document and waved it under my cousin's nose, she'd confidently tell you it means something completely different :)
Most legal docs are 'boiler plate' - made up of standard phrases that 100 years of case law have decided means abcxyz - which any lawyer will instantly recognise as they use them themselves. Of course they're terrified of rewriting them in clear English in case they actually rewrite them to mean abcxzy :shocked:
But those big, one off contracts that don't fit into the everyday run of the mill cases and are written bespoke - I expect if you gave 10 lawyers a copy of the Sky/Virgin Media contract, they'd come up with 20 different interpretations. :D Each :D:D
I wouldn't like to see the spelling of Wednesday to change....it reflects the origins of the name..Wodensday and I think it's had enough changes already.;)
cookie_365
15-07-2007, 09:59
I wouldn't like to see the spelling of Wednesday to change....it reflects the origins of the name..Wodensday and I think it's had enough changes already.;)
Just looked it up on Wikipedia - if you're reading Woden, it wasn't my idea, honest :shocked:
Don't zap me, please - I've got so much more to give ;)
Just looked it up on Wikipedia - if you're reading Woden, it wasn't my idea, honest :shocked:
Don't zap me, please - I've got so much more to give ;)
Actually I'm a Goddess...;)
Callumpy
15-07-2007, 15:23
New English: hoos dis marsha bell person, sum weetard?
Standard English: Who is this Marsha Bell Person, some ret***
Text Message Language: hu's dis marsha bell, r8 retrd
cookie_365
15-07-2007, 20:06
New English: hoos dis marsha bell person, sum weetard?
Standard English: Who is this Marsha Bell Person, some ret***
Text Message Language: hu's dis marsha bell, r8 retrd
It's the Chavetta Stone :)
It's the Chavetta Stone :)
Can you buy those from Lizzie Duke @ Argos? :D
rogerdraig
15-07-2007, 23:41
I was reading a thread on Facebook about spelling issues with the 'younger generation':D and someone posted these links..... an example of kids today?! lol
(actually i think the threads might have been about people who change the spelling of their names to Kafryn and stuff)
I'm only 22 and i can't make out these pages http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=1204409984
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=561457447
:LOL:
those arnt really what i be talking about ;) lol that sort of spelling is like leet where the writer knows perfectly well how to spell but chooses not to
the original thing the thread was about is about making spelling easier for those who don't know it now
and although i dont agree wth the way they want to do it i see nothing wrong with i bit more leeway on spelling and maybe the inclusion of the common varieints to help out those ho do have a difficulty with it
---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------
Pah! Welsh is easier :D lol i dont think so i have been trying to learn that for 5 years now since my kids entered a welsh medium school
---------- Post added at 23:41 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------
Also going a little off topic, but does anyone think that it sounds like Orwell's 1984 is coming true? Society is being increasingly monitored, the Government appears to be trying to introduce papers (the ID card), now people are seriously suggesting "simplifying" English. The language spoken (and indeed, the language the book is written in) is called "Newspeak" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak ) and is a simplified version of English.
different thing that, and one i do disagree with
when i say recognise alternative spellings i am not talking about new made up words that politicians or spin doctors or even pressure groups make to try and sound good or on message etc
dictionaries should and were intended to be the repository of the words spoken at that point in time by the populace not the words that the elite think should be spoken
those arnt really what i be talking about ;) lol that sort of spelling is like leet where the writer knows perfectly well how to spell but chooses not to
the original thing the thread was about is about making spelling easier for those who don't know it now
and although i dont agree wth the way they want to do it i see nothing wrong with i bit more leeway on spelling and maybe the inclusion of the common varieints to help out those ho do have a difficulty with it
My point was that i see loads of this from the kids who live round here, or friend's kids, a lot of them actually spell like that all the time, it comes natural to them.... So they're likely to make spelling mistakes all the time, why not just write properly if they already know how to?!
different thing that, and one i do disagree with
Mass alteration of the language to suit the needs of one part of society? Sounds the same to me.
rogerdraig
16-07-2007, 20:49
Mass alteration of the language to suit the needs of one part of society? Sounds the same to me.
not mass alteration just inclusion the use of color rather than colour hasnt brought English to its knees and neither would the use of some of the phonetically spelt or spelled words wont either
nothing would prevent any one using the other spellings ( except maybe this online spelling thing that keeps giving me z instead of s lol )
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.