2006-07-06 12:17:46 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Absolutely not. For one, I can't even understand this "simplified spelling" they are trying to pull on us. For two, it's going to make it harder for them in the long run not knowing long and short vowels and trying to learn other languages. For three, it will be harder for the children to become proficient readers of the system we have now if they learn simplified spelling.
2006-07-06 13:50:49 · answer #1 · answered by Sneeze. ♥ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, it looks terrible. One advantage would be the straightforward spelling (spell it how it sounds). We do have one of the hardest languages to learn to read! However, again, it looks awful and how would we make the switch? We can't even seem to change to the metric system (which was supposed to have already happened)! Does anyone use kilometers in America?
2006-07-06 18:17:33 · answer #2 · answered by elananor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only problem that I see with simplified spelling is that everyone could potentially spell every word different. Who would set all the rules for it?
2006-07-06 16:42:04 · answer #3 · answered by mike i 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A few centuries ago, it wasn't considered improper to spell an English word any way you thought it sounded. At the very least, it would not be hard nowadays to teach an auxiliary "fuhnetick" spelling to be used alongside the "formal" one. The rest of the world is trying to communicate in English too, and they are having a hard time.
2006-07-06 14:37:16 · answer #4 · answered by kanajlo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - then we would have to know two sets of spelling for each word - the existing one and the simplified one - why do that !
2006-07-13 01:06:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely NOT ... Why change the way we have always done,said,spelling,for others,they need to be taught,and changing the spelling of words that have been around for Centuries will just make All of us look kinda foolish and silly...
2006-07-06 12:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by stessie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our Strange Lingo
When the English tongue we speak.
Why is break not rhymed with freak?
Will you tell me why it's true
We say sew but likewise few?
And the maker of the verse,
Cannot rhyme his horse with worse?
Beard is not the same as heard
Cord is different from word.
Cow is cow but low is low
Shoe is never rhymed with foe.
Think of hose, dose,and lose
And think of goose and yet with choose
Think of comb, tomb and bomb,
Doll and roll or home and some.
Since pay is rhymed with say
Why not paid with said I pray?
Think of blood, food and good.
Mould is not pronounced like could.
Wherefore done, but gone and lone -
Is there any reason known?
To sum up all, it seems to me
Sound and letters don't agree.
2006-07-06 13:43:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.Dumbing it down to make it easier to teach will only bring everyone down.And anything written before that will be unreadable to an uneducated public.All knowledge and history would be lost to anyone who doesn't take the time to learn the old way.
2006-07-06 12:21:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard that on the news and that is the most horrible idea ever. Just because some incompetent people can't spell, they shouldn't press their ideas onto us.
2006-07-06 12:29:59 · answer #9 · answered by butter with a touch of scotch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! Why make our children any dumber than they already are. We can't keep lowering the expectations. We have to teach people to reach the existing ones and then raise the bar higher!
2006-07-06 12:21:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋