quote: 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.
What do you think of the idea of simplified spellings? Have children really become so lazy/stupid that we need to reshape our language in order to make it easier to spell?
I wonder if there would be different spellings for different regions. For example, the article mentioned the word 'stoodents' which would presumably be spelt 'styoodents' in British English.
Edit- this couldn't ever realistically be implemented, as it would totally confuse a generation of schoolkids stuck between the two. You can't enforce changes on a language- they evolve naturally. This story is just to make people like me even more angry at semi-literate mongtards.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
That is the stupidest idea of which I've ever heard. For one thing, most people manage to get their heads round the current system so clearly it's not too difficult. My response to anyone complaining about the language as it stands and advocating simplified spelling is MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE SUCH A THICKY SPASTIC, SPASTIC THICKY BOY! THICKY SPASTIC MCSPAZZ!
This is making want to become a teacher.
Also the 'logical' spelling thing is - you know - FUCKING IDIOTIC as a concept because there's no real empirical logic in the shapes on a page and the sounds we make to represent them anyway. I mean, if you showed some kind of ape creature (say - 50 Cent) the word 'mauve' and the word 'mow-v', neither of them immediately present an obvious method of pronunciation just because of the shape of the letters. They're pronounced a certain way simply because we say they are. This whole idea of 'oh that's a more 'logical way of spelling it' is absurd; like looking at Japanese characters and claiming the English alphabet 'makes more sense'. It's just an encoding of speech that's arbitrarily been decided over the course of thousands of years. Claiming there's a more logical way of spelling is the act of a FUCKING IDIOT.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: This whole idea of 'oh that's a more 'logical way of spelling it' is absurd;
Yeah, surely the flaw in the scheme is that you have to know what letters sound like in combination before you can make up your own spellings with them, or avoid making confusing spellings with them. And if you're going to spend time learning those rules then you might as well just learn the right spellings, or at least something very close to right.
Also, there'd be so many variations that a reader would always be stuttering across a page having to decode everything, even if each word was actually logical in itself. It's the shapes of words we recognise, and there'd suddenly be millions of unfamiliar shapes.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic