Phonetic spelling ??? 2

[mjldba]

This MSNBC article "grinds" on my eyes because it approaches IM'ing and texting-type spelling.

I find these methods of communication impossible to read because my mind ignores the content and, instead, screams "ERROR" "ERROR", but it does represent a valid topic for discussion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13716134/

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
The comment:

illiteracy rates would drop

is self-serving since they are redefining what literacy is.

( A lot like education 'standards' being set so low that no child will be left behind - and no funding lost)



To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[AnotherHiggins]

In reading the article, I kept thinking one thing: Phonetic for whom? Some of those 'simplified' spellings took a bit for me to figure out. Probably because they were spelled phonetically for an accent I don't have. 'Aulso' for 'also'?!? Who pronounces it that way? Not me.

I also think that the potential loss of preservation-of-meaning via prefixes, suffixes and roots is a great point against such a reform.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[Stella740pl]

I kept thinking one thing: Phonetic for whom?
So did I!

Some of those 'simplified' spellings took a bit for me to figure out.
Ditto!

'Aulso' for 'also'?!? Who pronounces it that way? Not me.
And I wouldn't notice the difference in the pronunciation, as English is not my first language, and pronunciation is not my strongest point in it. How would I recognize the words?

 

[IknowMe]

illiteracy rates would drop

Sounds like a great idea. Let's make everyone illiterate, paying special attention to those who aren't.

Den knowbody culd till anyonz elsz izn't litterut theirbuy eliminatin illuterazy altogother.

Wow, I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.

 

[SantaMufasa]

While we're at it, let's eliminate poverty by giving everyone $1 million, shall we?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[mmerlinn]

I can think of one MAJOR reason for leaving well enough alone, plus several minor ones.

If we went to so-called phonetic spelling, within 100 years ALL of our accumulated knowledge over the last 400 years would be lost EXCEPT that which was rewritten using the new spelling. Well, not really lost, just plain unreadable to the vast majority of people at that time. Our current books would take on the flavor of a foreign language, much like the Olde English of Chaucer's day is to us now.

Regardless, it would be a disaster.

Secondly, our spelling is not as bad as some think it is. 20 years ago I had to design an assembly language procedure to convert our English nouns into a phonetic format, similar to the Soundex code, but much better and more accurately. I was able to do that with just 1200 bytes of code, with better than 99% accuracy.

Words whose pronunciation depended on context (like 'slough' which has 6 different pronunciations) were not always rendered correctly. Words like that even Soundex has a problem with.

The bottom line is that our spelling system is already a near-phonetic system IF you understand the phonetic definitions of the character(s) used to represent the phonemes of the English language. Now if you define 'phonetic' as being a one-to-one relationship between sounds and written characters (one letter for each sound and vice versa), the English language falls flat on its face. Since there are approximately 43 sounds used in normal English, and only 26 letters, a perfect 1-to-1 system is not possible.

Another problem lies in those words that are pronounced different ways by different people. Words like 'neither' which is sometimes pronounced as nEE-ther and sometimes as nAI-ther by the same person in the same sentence. Another common example is 'the' (thUH and thEE). How would a purely phonetic system deal with that? Two different words? Ignore one? If so, which one? Leave the vowel sounds as is and only change the consonants? Don't use vowels at all since vowels usually don't carry the meaning of the word (e.g. NTHR)?

A final problem lies in the fact that pronunciations of words change over time. Are we going to rewrite the dictionary EVERY time a word pronunciation changes?

For example, take the English words ending in 'ight'. At one time the 'gh' was pronounced similar to the German 'ch' while today it is silent. In fact most of those words came directly from the same roots that the current corresponding German word came from, and the Germans still pronounce this part of the word, while we ignore it. Example is English 'night' (nite) and German 'Nacht' (nahkt).

Another example is most words beginning with 'kn'. At one time the 'k' was pronounced. Today it is silent. English 'know' and 'ken' and German 'koennen' all come from the same root. In English we dropped the vowel between the 'k' and 'n' then eventually quit pronouncing the 'k'.

Change to a 'phonetic alphabet'? Pure folly in my opinion.

BTW, I was not able to get the link to work, so I don't know what idiocy was advocated by it, although from the previous post 'ERROR -ERROR' it must have been 'UHTROSHYS'!!!!


mmerlinn

"Political correctness is the BADGE of a COWARD!"

 

[buck2506]

Somehow this reminded me of the ebonics push several years ago. If this kind of thing continues we will communicate using grunts, again.

ugh, for now

 

[Scott24x7]

I'll let my signature speak for itself on this matter...


Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[mjldba]

Sorry you're not able to access the MSNBC article so here it is:



Time to change how we spell wurdz?
Group wants Americans to adopt phonetic spelling
The Associated Press


Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET July 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - When “say,” “they” and “weigh” rhyme, but “bomb,” “comb” and “tomb” don’t, wuudn’t it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Th cuntry’s larjest teecherz uennyon, wuns a suporter, aulso objects.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[IknowMe]

While we're at it, let's eliminate poverty by giving everyone $1 million, shall we?

I'm all over this idea Santa.

<--Line starts here

Wow, I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I've forgotten this before.

 

[mjldba]

At the very least, this would spell (pun intended) the end of crossword puzzles.

 

[gbaughma]

It's just another way of lowering the bar for a lazy generation, IMHO.




Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[gbaughma]

... and while I'm at it..... their examples of phonetic spelling are terrible.....

"Issue" isn't pronounced "ishoo", it's "Ish'-yoo"

Now, if they wanted to spell words phonetically as in the DICTIONARY, with the pronunciation markers, and using proper phoneme sets, that would be interesting. *however*, that means that they would have to use more characters and symbols to represent the same word.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[columb]

This comes arround and arround and it will always flounder on the same point - as John said in post 2, 'phonetic for who?'

I'm from south east UK and I have a Thames valley accent. My wife is a Lancashire lass and has a Lancashire accent - but not a particularly broad one. So, lets take a simple example, we both enjoy going to the local wetlands to view the wildfowl. Phoneticly I go to see the dux, she goes to see the dooks, and we're two educated people with relatively mild accents. What happens when a Glaswegian meets a Geordie, and we're still in the same country! Phonetic spelling adds to the confusion, it does not make it simpler.

Ceci n'est pas une signature
Columb Healy

 

[mjldba]

I think this "ish-yoo" represents the further "dumbing-down" of America. .

Must we all suffer for the benefit of those among us who cannot remember (understand?) when to use to, too, or two ... or there, their, they're?

The English language may be difficult to learn and overloaded with homonyms and synonyms but lowering the bar down to "duh-h-h" is not the answer.

 

[SantaMufasa]

...John said in post 2, 'phonetic for who?'...

Not quite, Columb...before John (AnotherHiggins) gets blamed (inappropriately) for the "Dumbing Down of America", we should point out that he correctly said, "Phonetic for whom?".

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[gbaughma]

Speaking of which....

Our local newspaper, as well as our local "shopper", have to be the worst-edited rags on the planet. My wife and I actually sit there and see who can find more typos and gramattical errors in an issue. It's horrid.

What's the point of having editors that can't spell themselves?

And you're right, the whole Two, to, too *really* gets me.

I had a friend that was running a local BBS (dialup), and on his login screen it proudly stated "We're open 7 days a weak!"

<Smirk>

By the same token, teachers nowadays can't spell either. I once sent a letter from a teacher complaining about my daughter *back* to the school, with spelling and grammar corrections on it.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[columb]

:~/
(and I spelt 'around' phonetically as well!)

Ceci n'est pas une signature
Columb Healy

 

[snuv]

How would you spell 'phonetically' in the new system

foneticulli? - not much of an improvement methinks

Cheers
Snuv

"If it could have gone wrong earlier and it didn't, it ultimately would have been beneficial for it to have." : Murphy's Ultimate Corollary