-
We don't need no educashun!
I'm as edumacated as the next man but this is disgraceful.
Quote:
They've been campaigning for a century to make the spelling of the English language easier and recently picketed a spelling bee in the US to make their point. Welcome to the Simplified Spelling Society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6250184.stm
Hey, good idea. The kids can spell anyway they like, no more need to learn and spell English. Talk about dumbing down. :wall: This will do nothing towards educating children properly.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
MB: If u hav a por memmory yor chances of becumming a good speller ar lo. But wors stil, yor chances of lerning to read ar not good either, because of phonnic nonsens like "cow-crow, dream-dreamt, friend-fiend" and hundreds mor like them.
Ouch, that made me wince. I thought I was looking at a gamefaqs post, before I realized it was intentional.
Considering the changes from, say, Shakespeare's era, we've already dumbed it down. Now they want to make it worse?
Actually, if they want writing to be easier, let them just write in SMS format.
I said it in another thread: English is fine as it is. Let it stay that way.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
i kant beleef u gies r so klosd minded abowt this
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
It isn't a bad idea. It's just a stupid idea.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Bah!
I'm not even a native speaker but that spelling is ridiculous.:thumbsdown:
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
The discussion was silly to read and so I stopped reading it very quickly. They might be linguists, but they obviously respond in ways that I would quickly disregard (at least enough that I saw to turn me off from seriously reading). Language usually isn't promoting human use of hard logic anyway.
Though some good points were made as I quickly skimmed through. The English spelling is indeed messed up to those who have no sense of the language at all. Perhaps they should just be exposed to the basic latin alphabet -- which they in most countries know already -- and TV shows -- hearing of the language wherever possible.
I think: if one knows the relevant alphabet and one knows how to understand English when hearing it (and perhaps speaking it), one would have little trouble understanding its spelling (if put together). But I am speaking from personal experience here. My exposure to English very early made me learn it very easily throughout time. It also depends on the mental capabilities and the age of the learner.
Young kids -- who have no significant mental problems and are generally healthy -- should not have much trouble in learning in the first place. The sooner you have them learn (properly) the better.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Wow, what a bunch of complete fools. I'm disgusted and sickened.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
The English spelling is indeed messed up to those who have no sense of the language at all.
Well, I daresay it is messed up in any case. There isn't that much correlation between letters and phonemes, e.g. the diphthong "ou": through, tough, though - same letters, completely different phoneme. It's alright once one gets used to it - I personally love it as long as the non-correlation thingamajig stays away from Finnish - but it's a bitch for most people taking their first steps in English. Anyone in their right minds, were they constructing a new language, would have their new language spelled completely phonetically, on the basis of having written and spoken language the least split up from each others. As my teacher used to say, written and spoken English are completely different languages.
Still, I keep wincing at that "simplified spelling" as well. I mean, come on, if you're going to simplify spelling shouldn't you have more correlation between letters and phonemes, and fer crying out loud, "u"? A linguist proposing using a bleedin' "u"? Never mind phonetic spelling, for the purposes of which "u"=you is idiotic, "u" just reeks of.. idiotism. That's just mutilating mutilating a beautiful language.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Mark
and fer crying out loud, "u"? A linguist proposing using a bleedin' "u"? Never mind phonetic spelling, for the purposes of which "u"=you is idiotic, "u" just reeks of.. idiotism. That's just mutilating mutilating a beautiful language.
:saint: Heh heh heh...
How about:
- 'R' instead of 'Are' or 'or'? R u rilly like dat?
- 'S' and 'd' instead of 'is' and 'the'? S d man over der, r not?
- Scroo dem, man.
- 'N' and 't' instead of 'and' and 'to'? Do u no where t find dose peepel n d udder 1s 2?
Hah hah hah, great!:saint:
EDIT:
In fact, how about removing all vowels? Dd u d dt rll? R ws t nt u?
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Gah!
Sad thing is, my brother spells like that. Of course he is a former Marine. j/k
Teachers are becoming concerned about all the abbreviations being exploited on the .net as corrupting their students ability to spell properly. This seems almost quaint.
Though, I agree to an extent - that altering the spelling of a few words might be in order. Downgrading all to simple phonetics is insane.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
EDIT:
In fact, how about removing all vowels? Dd u d dt rll? R ws t nt u?
Last time I checked "u" was still a vowel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
MB: If u hav a por memmory yor chances of becumming a good speller ar lo. But wors stil, yor chances of lerning to read ar not good either, because of phonnic nonsens like "cow-crow, dream-dreamt, friend-fiend" and hundreds mor like them.
My mum has a very bad memory but she manages to read and write very well, funny that.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Last time I checked "u" was still a vowel.
The original sound of [u], yes; the letter 'u' representing the English word 'you', meh. You know what I mean.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
:saint: Heh heh heh...
How about
:
- 'R' instead of 'Are' or 'or'? R u rilly like dat?
- 'S' and 'd' instead of 'is' and 'the'? S d man over der, r not?
- Scroo dem, man.
- 'N' and 't' instead of 'and' and 'to'? Do u no where t find dose peepel n d udder 1s 2?
Hah hah hah, great!:saint:
EDIT:
In fact, how about removing all vowels?
Dd u d dt rll? R ws t nt u?
What was that thing in the jokes thread a few months back about removing all the idiosyncrasies of the english language and ending up with german? :laugh4:
Bu7 n0, wh47 w3 n33d 15 2 r3p14c3 3ngr15h w17h 1337-5p34k, 45 th4t w0u1d r0x0r!1!1!1!
(a cookie for translating that)
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Bu7 n0, wh47 w3 n33d 15 2 r3p14c3 3ngr15h w17h 1337-5p34k, 45 th4t w0u1d r0x0r!1!1!1!
But no, what we need is to replace Engrish [English?] with leet-speak as that would rocks!!!!!!!
See, see? I'm multi-lingual, I tell you! Now since I'm hungry, gimme a cookie.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
It is the Esperanto conspiracy guys. Next we'll get English and Frech combined and get a new language Franglish with this new spelling.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
It is the Esperanto conspiracy guys. Next we'll get English and Frech combined and get a new language Franglish with this new spelling.
Well, we already invented Germlisch back in my high school German classes. In hindsight I'm surprised our teacher didn't have an aneurysm he'd get so mad. "'WIR FUESSEN!' IS NOT VALID DEUTSCH!!!"
:laugh4:
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Teachers are becoming concerned about all the abbreviations being exploited on the .net as corrupting their students ability to spell properly. This seems almost quaint.
I immediatly though of that cell package commercial where the 10 yearold girl is speaking in SMS. :laugh4:
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
So, no dark sarcasm in the backroom? All in all, she's just another a prick in the fall!
(apologies to our resident floyd fans)
:embarassed:
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
What was that thing in the jokes thread a few months back about removing all the idiosyncrasies of the english language and ending up with german? :laugh4:
I don't remember or haven't seen it. Illuminate me.
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
I don't remember or haven't seen it. Illuminate me.
Here's the joke. Took forever to find the damn thing.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=261
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
Beautiful beautiful. A good one. Thank you :bow:
-
Re: We don't need no educashun!
I thought this was happening in every country with cell phone/internet capability. At least it's happening here too...
Oh, but with a slight twist. Here they want to mix english abbreviations into it. Like "u", when our word is "du", with a VERY clear 'D'. If the english are out on a bender, I'd say we're lying drunk in a ditch. Although that does sound familiar...
