I just saw an article about people arguing for a complete overhaul of the way English is spelled. To me that is the worst idea I ever heard of. Could you imagine trying to speel lyk thess?
2006-07-07 05:02:55 · 31 answers · asked by marimbaman 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
I literally got a headache reading the article since it was sprinkled with the "alternate" way of spelling. It hurt my brain.
I can't imagine.
2006-07-07 05:07:32 · answer #1 · answered by iam1funnychick 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
In the past, people just spelled how they thought something sounded. However, 1700s the spelling of English was standardised based on a particular pronunciation of English. Hence a Scottish person and an American, who may pronounce each word differently, would still write the word the same way.
Languages change over time. When the spelling was standardised there was very little difference between the pronunciation and the spelling. Now there is less correspondence between them.
An overhaul of spelling would make the process of education in reading and writing more efficient as spelling would be updated to reflect current pronunciation. On the other hand, the new generation would have difficulty understanding text written before the overhaul.
-------------
Currently tear (as in tear drop) and tear (as in to tear some paper) have the same spelling. Tare and tear sound the same as does tier and tear.
A phonetic spelling using only 26 letters would probably look like this:
Indian style: teer tiir
Indonesian style: ter tir
International Phonetic Alphabet style: te:r ti:r
2006-07-07 05:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by Timbo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. We've been spelling this way for this long....why change it now? I don't think they could do it anyway....I mean think of all the words that would be spelled exactly the same way if we spelled them the way they sound. The English language just doesn't have enough letters to make enough sounds either. Like the SH on the end of English. SH doesn't look like it should say "shhhh" but it does. If we spelled that the way it sounds, what would we put for SH? Things like that would never work if we started spelling everything phonetically. Add some letters to the alphabet, and maybe it would work. It's still a stupid idea though. I made straight A's in spelling, and if other people have a problem with it, that's what spell checkers are for!
Another problem with spelling the way it sounds, what about all the different dialects/accents? Here in the South, a lot of our words sound different than the same words in say New York. So people in different parts of the country would have to spell the same word differently, and then nobody would understand each other!
2006-07-07 05:10:48 · answer #3 · answered by married_so_leave_me_alone1999 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that depends. If you're talking about eliminating silent letters and double letters and "harmonising" the way a long vowel sound is indicated, I'd say NO. Personally, I think all those variations are part of the beauty of the language. But I have heard of a "revamped" alphabet that adds 5 new symbols for long vowels, using the current ones for short vowels and eliminating x and c since their sound(s) can be replicated by other letters. Hmmm, did I just contradict myself? Must be the late hour.
2006-07-07 16:11:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should change it, because some of the way words are spelled don't even make sense. We would spell lyk thaat, we would spell stuff better, like "would', where does the L come from? It shoud be woud. And shoud and coud. The English language is so confusing, it doesn't make any sense at all. Jeez!
2006-07-07 05:09:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans can hardly spell the words they way they've been for centuries. I can't imagine actually having them "learn" another method. The posts in here from teenagers, young adults---future leaders of our nation---are astoundingly pathetic in the grammar, sentence construction, and spelling departments.
I believe we're watching a generation of illiterates reach ages where they will need private secretaries again and much more powerful and more efficient spell checks on the computers.
Good luck, corporate world!
2006-07-07 05:08:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at first it may seem hard, but in the end it should make the English spelling more universal. Many people who are learning English as a second language are struggling to understand the crap. if it made more sense than it could be more universal
2006-07-07 05:13:05 · answer #7 · answered by pingpong 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. The idea markets badly for the reasons you just outlined. Not to mention that computer spell checkers would all have to be recreated. creating those rules on how to spell stuff is not that old an accomplishment, but bands together our ability to clearly communicate in our spoken language. I think it would be a bad idea to take that away.
2006-07-07 05:09:43 · answer #8 · answered by vvxxzzvv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Benjamin Franklin suggested upon the birth of our country that we should spell the way words sound to differentiate American English from the British (King's) English. It makes sense to me. Ever try to explain silent letters (like the t in whistle) to an autistic kid while homeschooling?
2006-07-07 05:07:02 · answer #9 · answered by webfly2000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why and, even if it is decided to overhaul the language, who does it? Sounds like the people who are advocating it are looking for a job.
2006-07-07 05:08:03 · answer #10 · answered by williegod 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋