We don't need no educashun!

[Husar]

Bah!
I'm not even a native speaker but that spelling is ridiculous.

[Bijo]

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.

[naut]

Wow, what a bunch of complete fools. I'm disgusted and sickened.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[AntiochusIII]

omgwtflol

[Csargo]

[The_Mark]

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.

[Bijo]

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.

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!


EDIT:
In fact, how about removing all vowels? Dd u d dt rll? R ws t nt u?