05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by HopsterHarder than memorizing nonintuitive spellings for children from populations with low literacy rates.
Harder than what/when?
Harder for who/whom?
Students of other generations managed to learn it. Is this not just another step in dumbing down society? Is that not what governments and tv executives want?
Does little Jimmy need help because the language is broken, or society is broken. Little Jimmy couldn't give a toss in class, so let's make it easier for the grunt to pass state literacy tests.
Some students managed to learn it. Some didn't.
It's not something I care very much about really. Changing spelling would make all the old written material hard to use anyway.
Words like "knight" are spelled phonetically I think - they used to be pronounced "ka-nig-hit" I think (not sure about that). That's just...dumb. Waste of letters, takes up more space, uses more ink, takes more time to write...but it's not something of much importance certainly.
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Hold on. I thought we were talking about ou being replaced by just o, as in colour - color.
But some are suggesting photography and pharmacy are redundant - and should be replaced with f. Why don't we replace the y as well, that would really help the Spanish speaking illiterates out - fotografia and farmacia. But the y is a useful letter after all, so lets add it back in: fotografia y farmacia.
That's better.
Get with the program dumbass.
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI understand that. I still say it is the dumbing down of a failed education policy.
Harder than memorizing nonintuitive spellings for children from populations with low literacy rates.
Some students managed to learn it. Some didn't.
It's not something I care very much about really. Changing spelling would make all the old written material hard to use anyway.
The fact it is failing the poor, recently migrated matters none. The kids from these backgrounds go to the same school sytem and start at the same age.
It's up to them to learn the language, not vice versa. I don't demand changes to Spanish here in Chile to help me out. Words like actualmente, eventualmente have different meanings to the English -ly versions. Shoud we change the definitions in the dictionaries as well.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by HopsterSpanish spelling is much more intuitive than English.
I understand that. I still say it is the dumbing down of a failed education policy.
The fact it is failing the poor, recently migrated matters none. The kids from these backgrounds go to the same school sytem and start at the same age.
It's up to them to learn the language, not vice versa. I don't demand changes to Spanish here in Chile to help me out.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by HopsterI editted in a comment about the word "knight" as an example. What one might learn from that spelling is that English is a Germanic language. I learned that fact via those spellings. However, how many people realized that? What do the "non-dumbed down" people learn from knight being spelled all fancy-like in Germanic style?
I understand that. I still say it is the dumbing down of a failed education policy.
The fact it is failing the poor, recently migrated matters none. The kids from these backgrounds go to the same school sytem and start at the same age.
It's up to them to learn the language, not vice versa. I don't demand changes to Spanish here in Chile to help me out. ...[text shortened]... ings to the English -ly versions. Shoud we change the definitions in the dictionaries as well.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's an elegant looking word. And the k differentiates it from the distinct word night.
Harder than memorizing nonintuitive spellings for children from populations with low literacy rates.
Some students managed to learn it. Some didn't.
It's not something I care very much about really. Changing spelling would make all the old written material hard to use anyway.
Words like "knight" are spelled phonetically I think - they used ...[text shortened]... ore ink, takes more time to write...but it's not something of much importance certainly.
Of course the dumbing down of spelling might mean that night becomes nite. And regretably that is just an annoying americanism of language.
05 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI suppose it makes it easier for them to tell the difference between a dark night and a dark knight.
I editted in a comment about the word "knight" as an example. What one might learn from that spelling is that English is a Germanic language. I learned that fact via those spellings. However, how many people realized that? What do the "non-dumbed down" people learn from knight being spelled all fancy-like in Germanic style?
Edit - ah, someone else beat me to it!
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIndeed. But so what?
Spanish spelling is much more intuitive than English.
English shouldn't try and be another language. It's what makes it English. Thus, Spanish is easier to learn - good.
We don't ask the Japanese and countless other nations to scale down their languages.
Some words will go out of use, dictionaries now include text language, lots of Spanish and other words will enter the lexigon. Let it be, don't tinker unnecessary. Don't tinker because US education, for one, is failing it's most needy children.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAha.
The gh doesn't.
Now we are swimming with sharks.
night, might, fight, sight.
English has germanic and latin roots. Let's not pander to making it more latin than it needs to be.
Big distinction between the words site and sight. The tinkers committee would end up recommending a change to night, might and fight, and not sight. It will be an halfbaked tinker that still leaves a few words out there. What's the point of that?
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by HopsterThe Japanese did in fact simplify their written language in the early postwar years, restricting the number of the borrowed Chinese ideographs used in Japanese script, and simplifying the shapes of others to make them quicker and easier to write. The Chinese also simplified the shapes of certain characters. The Koreans, who like the Japanese traditionally wrote in a mixture of Chinese ideographs and native phonetic script, phased out the use of Chinese characters more or less entirely, and now write exclusively in their own phonetic script.
Indeed. But so what?
English shouldn't try and be another language. It's what makes it English. Thus, Spanish is easier to learn - good.
We don't ask the Japanese and countless other nations to scale down their languages.
Some words will go out of use, dictionaries now include text language, lots of Spanish and other words will enter the lexigon. Le ...[text shortened]... ecessary. Don't tinker because US education, for one, is failing it's most needy children.
In any case, it's not about what we might ask the Japanese to do or what the Spaniards might ask us to do. The primary issue is that the complexity of English spelling causes problems for all learners, including native speakers.
As I said in an earlier post, I think major reform is impractical, but small reforms wouldn't be.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe Korean alphabet exists because Korean literacy rates in Chinese characters were horrifically low. Literacy skyrocketed after the new alphabet was introduced.
The Japanese did in fact simplify their written language in the early postwar years, restricting the number of the borrowed Chinese ideographs used in Japanese script, and simplifying the shapes of others to make them quicker and easier to write. The Chinese also simplified the shapes of certain characters. The Koreans, who like the Japanese traditionally ...[text shortened]... I said in an earlier post, I think major reform is impractical, but small reforms wouldn't be.
05 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd I was interested to read that when the Korean hangul script was invented, the literary elite were largely opposed to it.
The Korean alphabet exists because Korean literacy rates in Chinese characters were horrifically low. Literacy skyrocketed after the new alphabet was introduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul
Hangul was designed so that even a commoner could learn to read and write; the Haerye says "A wise man can acquaint himself with them before the morning is over; a stupid man can learn them in the space of ten days."
Hangul faced opposition by the literary elite, such as Choe Manri and other Korean Confucian scholars in the 1440s, who believed hanja to be the only legitimate writing system, and perhaps saw it as a threat to their status. However, it entered popular culture as Sejong had intended, being used especially by women and writers of popular fiction. It was effective enough at disseminating information among the uneducated that Yeonsangun, the paranoid tenth king, forbade the study or use of Hangul and banned Hangul documents in 1504, and King Jungjong abolished the Ministry of Eonmun (governmental institution related to Hangul research) in 1506.