Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:53 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Simpler Spelling
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:37 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: The Strawberry Dorms
Yahoo! News Article

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?
ADVERTISEMENT

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is donut; colour, honour and labour long ago lost the British "u" and the similarly derived theatre and centre have been replaced by the easier-to-sound-out theater and center.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

____________________________________________________________

I find this ridiculous. I had no problem learning the language. It took me about half an hour to read that article, because of the constant changing of 's' and 'z', and 'wae's and 'hae's.

Maybe spellings are a little hard, but if we spell things the 'wae' they sound, then we will have to give every letter a distinct sound, as 'c' sometimes makes the sound of an 's', causing more confusion. I don't think whoever thought this up condsidered how incrediable a task it is to change an entire language, editing every word. The answer to this problem would be to have no set spelling for each word, but to spell it whatever way you want, as long as it sounds right. If this happened, we would spend hours interpreting words and wondering what things mean.

If we let spelling slip, what's next? Instead of teaching maths, we teach children what the buttons on a calculator do?

Maybe people need to just work, instead of taking the easy route.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
But foreigners have a hard time learning the language...
If you ever take another language where spelling is simpler, like Spanish, you know how ridiculous (<yeah, I would normally fix that) spelling in English is. People in Spanish-speaking countries don't even take spelling classes because every word is spelled the way it sounds. But anyways, something like this will probably never happen in English. It'd be too hard and expensive to switch. If we did that, we'd have to fix all our grammar exceptions too, and then we'd be better off using a constructed language, and that probably won't ever happen either.

BTW - don't we already teach children what buttons on calculators do?

_________________
Image


Last edited by ed 'lim' smilde on Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Like Esperanto!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 6245
So, the problem is that soem people can't learn our language, due to this being their second language, or they have a disability, or perhaps they just have lower inteligence or memory skills. So the solution: make everyone learn a new language? That's more illogical than English itself. It's similar to what I've mentioend a few times recently in the wiki awards thread - sometiems, if something has already begun, you just can't change it. It's either worth less than the work, or it's practically impossible. English may be a terrible language, but there's nothing we can do about it now (Nothing major, at least)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
Woo! Funkstar is god for proving my point of life!
my god is an awesome god!

its not another language, this makes what your parents told you when you couldnt read a word more plausible.
(Sound it out)

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:37 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: The Strawberry Dorms
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
Woo! Funkstar is god for proving my point of life!
my god is an awesome god!

its not another language, this makes what your parents told you when you couldnt read a word more plausible.
(Sound it out)

Wait, I don't quite understand you. :-|

Are you for simplified spellings, or against?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:15 am
Posts: 48
Location: Hint... it's on the planet Earth
Funkstar wrote:
Maybe people need to just work, instead of taking the easy route.


With a language like English, with its irregular pronounciation, a phonetic spelling system would be harder to learn than the one currently in use - in English, there are simply too many ways of pronouncing things to keep track of. This is probably why English isn't phonetically spelled, unlike other languages such as Spanish.

_________________
My Last.fm Weekly Top Tracks:
Image


Last edited by inandoutburger on Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Actually it's because English borrows from so many languages that we just take spellings & pronunciations all willy-nilly.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
Funkstar wrote:
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
Woo! Funkstar is god for proving my point of life!
my god is an awesome god!

its not another language, this makes what your parents told you when you couldnt read a word more plausible.
(Sound it out)

Wait, I don't quite understand you. :-|

Are you for simplified spellings, or against?

im all for it.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 10:28 pm
Posts: 4675
I would be all for it if it wasn't for one thing:

If the next generation this new dialect of english, then so much would be wasted. Endless tetrabytes of information; Books, Games, Websites, newspapers, magazines, just about everything would become unreadable, and so much knowledge would be wasted. So what if everyone can read if all of the information is in another language?

So, in closeing, heck no.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
If this new spelling catches on, our language will indeed be unreadable, just as people today can't read Middle English, such as the works of Chaucer. Modern English will become Post-Modern English.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 775
If they do simplify spelling, I'm still sticking with the old spellings. No way I'm relearning English just for the stupid kids. And if there are no more spelling bees, there will be no more awesome spelling bee episodes on Cheap Seats. Those are the best ever!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
lahimatoa wrote:
Like Esperanto!


Yay, someone else has realized the superiority of Esperanto.

It's my favorite "real language that I don't know but want to learn".

Um, on the actual topic, I can't allow this to happen. It would be a victory for stupid people everywhere, and that's no good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Why is this in R&P anyway? Just because it's in the news? Spelling reform has nothing to do with religion or politics, but if W somehow supports it, we're all screwed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 1048
Location: Look over here!
Yeah, I think this should be in the Off-subject Disscusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Penn Hizzle
I'll ask Vlaga what he thinks.

_________________
Acually, I don't think Homestar wears pants.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate to resurrect an old fad...kinda...
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Well, why don't you tell what you think? ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Penn Hizzle
Vlaga and all my teachers are right. Speling's too bizarr in English. It would be much easier on even native speakers if everything was spelled the was it was pronounced. It's not worth doing a whole bunch of reforms over though.
Here's a problem. "Th" represents dental frictatice, both woiced and unvoiced. There is no pattern to which it is in a word, so we need to make "ð" or "dh" the official representation of voiced dental frictative. Make "th" always voiceless dental frictative.

_________________
Acually, I don't think Homestar wears pants.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
homestarspants wrote:
Vlaga and all my teachers are right. Speling's too bizarr in English. It would be much easier on even native speakers if everything was spelled the was it was pronounced. It's not worth doing a whole bunch of reforms over though.
Here's a problem. "Th" represents dental frictatice, both woiced and unvoiced. There is no pattern to which it is in a word, so we need to make "ð" or "dh" the official representation of voiced dental frictative. Make "th" always voiceless dental frictative.


Even better yet, let's add thorn to the alphabet. Ya know, these little dealies: þ,Þ, in its lowercase and capital forms respectively, I think. It's an old Anglo-Saxxon and Icelandic letter for "th". Very leet.

Here's an idea: Why don't we just put little pictures above hard words so that slow people can understand them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
IantheGecko wrote:
but if W somehow supports it, we're all screwed.
Ehh... I think only really idealistic liberals would support it. So we won't have to worry about it with Dubya.
Quote:
Here's a problem. "Th" represents dental frictatice, both woiced and unvoiced. There is no pattern to which it is in a word, so we need to make "ð" or "dh" the official representation of voiced dental frictative. Make "th" always voiceless dental frictative.
Yeah, we'd have to make up some more letters for things like ch, sh, th, zh, etc.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
Peter222 wrote:
Yeah, I think this should be in the Off-subject Disscusion.
Correct. And away it goes.


Personally, I don't think that changing it will help. What would happen for us all that learned "Normal" Engligh, and then suddenly we have to change everything. I'd be way too confused.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:10 am
Posts: 14278
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
ramrod wrote:
"Normal" Engligh
Maybe you need to go back and learn English.

The simplification of the American language will only lead to an increase in stupidity among the populace. This will not be beneficial to humanity.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Beyond the Grave on Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
Beyond the Grave wrote:
ramrod wrote:
"Normal" Engligh
Maybe you need to got back an learn English.

Ahh, irony. Don't you love it BTG? I call that "Self Pwnage."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:10 am
Posts: 14278
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
ramrod wrote:
Ahh, irony. Don't you love it BTG? I call that "Self Pwnage."
What are you talking about, jerky? :p

Edit: Hehe, reverse 1337.
Edit #2: Toastpaint

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
Beyond the Grave wrote:
ramrod wrote:
Ahh, irony. Don't you love it BTG? I call that "Self Pwnage."
What are you talking about, jerky? :p
I'm talking about the fact that you can easily see that you edited your post. By the way :
Beyond the Grave wrote:
ramrod wrote:
"Normal" Engligh
Maybe you need to get back and learn English.
Get back? I assume you mean "Go back and learn English."


Toastpaint, and enough of this silly stuff.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 am
Posts: 520
Location: My shell.
Thatkidsam (of the Fanstuff Wiki) wrote:
But on the Wiki, we cherish something you killed: THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! 'omg 1337 haxxorz I DONT NED SPELEING IM ON DEH INNNANET!!!!!!!!11!!12!!! !!!!!!'


Thatkidsam was talking to a troll in that case, but I think this sums it up perfectly for me. Even though THIS case (the Yahoo! article) applies to things other then internet. But I would cry if I saw if I saw this kind of spelling in a book. Now here's a quote from Strong Bad about some more Rhythm 'n' Grammar!

Strong Bad wrote:
And I don't care how they spell things on the Internet. When you email me, you spell the whole word out. And I don't care that your cell phone has a camera in it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 1527
Location: England
What the crap? Spelling's fine as it is. Why try to kill it more than it is dead already now?

The Ghost of the English Language (KoL) wouldn't like this article very much.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 137
Location: In the rainyness of England
Why don't we scrap languages completely? Let's forget about communication, people are too lazy and learning english is obviously VERY DIFFICULT for children so we might as well!

[/sarcasm]

I really hope they don't actually introduce it. I already get irritated when people use chat speak so this is just as bad.

_________________
All rights reserved. While stocks last.

No plus no equals no. All no's lead to no, no, NO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:52 am
Posts: 2044
Location: yep
DumDeDum wrote:
What the crap? Spelling's fine as it is. Why try to kill it more than it is dead already now?

The Ghost of the English Language (KoL) wouldn't like this article very much.
Heh. Yeah.

For once, I *gasp* agree with Funkstar. This is just stupid. Think about the rest of us; screwing up English like this would change a LOT of stuff. I think just actually teaching kids is a better solution then rewriting the ENTIRE LANGUAGE.

If they keep this up, 1337speak will be declared an offical language, mark my words.....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 1527
Location: England
It's our language, too! Americans shouldn't mess it up like this. Get your own language to mess up, you're still borrowing ours.

Heh.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group