JackFrost wrote:Then type the URL right.
Sorry, I'm not too big on having teenaged-style "e-mail", "SMS", or other craps like that into all spellings of the English language. Complaining that you can't use English right just because the spellings are weird and awkward. So that shouldn't give you the right to tell the speakers to change it so you can use it right. If you don't like a certain feature (or a few features) of the language, then quit speaking or learning it. Don't tell us to change it because the feature "A" of that language should be like this, not like that in your own opinion.
By the way, "you" doesn't refer to you, Stancel.
JackFrost wrote:No, it's not because of the missing "l". When I click on the first link, it doesn't work as it is shown.
The reason for those words to be spelt that way is traditional. It reflects the language spoken when first written down. Just like French. That's why I prefer to keep the spelling as it is.
reflexsilver86 wrote:Perhaps it's ridiculous, but a spelling reform isn't going to happen. Another problem is there are so many regional accents and dialects of English that change word pronunciation, so for example while one person would pronounce the t in "often" another might wonder why that T is in fact even there. Other areas slur their pronunciation ever so slightly so a T sound becomes similar to a D.
Sure, there are words like colonel that are borrowed from other languages and to many people don't make sense. But it would be opening up a whole can of worms, really.
And when I see people who can't even get simple words like "they're" and "their" right, I think trying to cater to this crowd is the wrong idea.
There's always going to be errors in spelling; that's why they created the wonderful spell check (which doesn't always work right!)
I don't believe in cheapening the language because some people can't learn it properly. And this has nothing to do with the addition of new words, but when you start wanting to spell things like it belongs in a text message that we send from our cell phones, then it starts getting ridiculous.
And if French ever underwent a reform to spell things the way they're actually pronounced... well it would be a lot easier to read, but the written language would go from beautiful to ugly. And being that I've learned to cope with the insane French third person plural verb tense, which adds an -ent to the end of everything and it isn't even pronounced, I can't complain at all about English.
And on a related note, I don't know why but I keep reading "speling" in my head as if the e is now a long e. So I don't think this "speling reform" would help anyone, really.
reflexsilver86 wrote:A good example of how a spelling reform sometimes just doesn't work as planned is the German Rechtschreibungsreform. In the end you have people who just plain refuse to spell things the new way; and most of those changes incorporated converting the ß in many words to an "ss," which has really confused me because some words keep the ß and others, for seemingly no apparent reason, drop it.
Car wrote:reflexsilver86 wrote:A good example of how a spelling reform sometimes just doesn't work as planned is the German Rechtschreibungsreform. In the end you have people who just plain refuse to spell things the new way; and most of those changes incorporated converting the ß in many words to an "ss," which has really confused me because some words keep the ß and others, for seemingly no apparent reason, drop it.
That rule of the Rechtschreibreform actually makes sense and is consequently used (unless many other rules). It depends on the preceeding vowel: If it's short, it's "ss", if it's long or a diphtong, it's "ß". So I really wonder why many natives find it complicated. But many now stopped using it at all, you see "ss" much more often in places where you should use "ß", that definitely wasn't common before, nowhere near as common. But maybe you were also confused because some newspapers etc. still use the old spelling, now even words like "Business" are spelt with "ß" by those people although I can't remember it being written this way before. Since it doesn't follow German pronunciation rules anyway, it IMHO doesn't make sense to spell it like this.
The dialects aren't the problem, e.g. there were a few points where people complained about that, the problem of the English language is that it doesn't have one standard, but many centres with their own standards (e.g. RP vs. General American). Unless you want to have one spelling of its own for each standard (there are, after all, different spellings used in different countries now), this is a problem.
Oh, Stancel, the RP pronunciation of laughter is "'lɑ:ftəʳ", so "laffter" wouldn't represent that well.
I'm not in general against spelling reforms, but they have to be made in a way that people accept them. I (like most people) do mix both German spellings unconsciously and the same already happens with American vs. British English. Bokmål vs. Nynorsk vs. dialects is also quite confusing. In the case of English, it's too late.
It still happens after all those years that I don't know how to pronounce a word in English I've never encountered before, but spelling was always my best aspect in school. I find the French spelling, although clearly easier to read, much more difficult to write.
Stancel wrote:What is "RP"?
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000 wrote:A pronunciation of British English, originally based on the speech of the upper class of southeastern England and characteristic of the English spoken at the public schools and at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Until recently it was the standard form of English used in British broadcasting.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest