Push for simpler spelling (fun read, check it out!)

my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,118
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
i could care less either way, but i really loved this article...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_re_us/simpl_wurdz

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer


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is donut; colour, honour and labour long ago lost the British "u" and the similarly derived theatre and centre have been replaced by the easier-to-sound-out theater and center.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!"
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • I've wondered about this alot ...that and why make some many words that sound the same but have different spellings and meanings?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,928
    when i was learning to teach, and actually teaching, ESL in prague...it really reminded me of the complexities of the english language. that said, i really see no 'need' to simplify our language. beyond being able to learn how to spell faster, i don't see any vast improvements to be gained.


    btw - i don't usually go for pointing such things out b/c we all get the point....but while not related to spelling, i still find it humorous that you started the thread with the comment you 'could care less' in a discussion about language...gotta love it :p hehe.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


  • EchoesEchoes Posts: 1,279
    this is the dumbest fucking idea ever
    printf("shiver in eternal darkness\n");
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,118
    i still find it humorous that you started the thread with the comment you 'could care less' in a discussion about language...gotta love it :p hehe.


    sounds like an english major to me :cool:
  • JaneNYJaneNY Posts: 4,434
    I've wondered about this alot ...that and why make some many words that sound the same but have different spellings and meanings?

    I think its because words in English have originated from so many languages with different roots.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • JaneNY wrote:
    I think its because words in English have originated from so many languages with different roots.

    Yes, but it would be a lot easier for people learning the language if they would have added some kind of variations to separate them.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,928
    my2hands wrote:
    sounds like an english major to me :cool:



    actually, an art/education major.....just with a penchant/love of words and the english language. :)

    seriously, though, what a truly hideous idea imo....to change our language to make it 'simpler'.....when/why is that a goal? while i fully agree it is complex to learn/decipher at times, i actually adore that and the amalgam of other languages, the beautiful and numerous adjectives, etc...obviously, i think we can manage, we've all done ok thus far....why 'dumb it down'...what's the rush? merely my 2 cents.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


  • BlancheBlanche Posts: 247
    ...while not related to spelling, i still find it humorous that you started the thread with the comment you 'could care less' in a discussion about language...gotta love it :p hehe.
    That's 'cos the thread isn't about grammar. :)
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,928
    Blanche wrote:
    That's 'cos the thread isn't about grammar. :)


    agreed, but it's still part of my personal brand of humor. :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 28,999
    Yes, but it would be a lot easier for people learning the language if they would have added some kind of variations to separate them.

    and it would be a lot easier to learn the language if the idiots who spoke it used words in their correct context.
    dumbing down the english language is not the way to go. it all just sounds like laziness to me. educate the people.

    anyone ever read bill bryson's book 'made in america'? it's brilliant.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
Sign In or Register to comment.