Making English into a phonetical language.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

No, same reason I gave at the beginning. English is the global language spoken by millions and millions of people. It's necessary to learn unlike French/German etc. They've simplified the vocabulary for Global English to save time, why not do the same for the spelling? It would save a huge amount of time. That's my main point. Not sure what's bizarre about the idea just because it doesn't float your boat.

I know when it's and its are used and I've known since I was maybe 10 years old and I teach it every day. I made a human error as I do quite often writing multiple posts quickly on this internet forum and it doesn't need to be pointed out to me like I'm a simpleton but thanks anyway :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how you think English spelling should be simplified, though. Sure, you could do things like replace ph with f, but there are loads of vowel sounds -how would you deal with those? I don't think English spelling can ever be phonetic in the way Spanish spelling is. One of the reasons I think Spanish speakers in particular have trouble getting their heads around the spelling and pronunciation is that their own language is so phonetic. The idea that 'gh' can be pronounced in a number of different ways is alien to them and they tend to think 'ughh, that's not logical, I just can't do it' rather than just accept that that's how it is and do their best to learn it. Speakers of languages like Korean tend to be much more open-minded and accepting of the quirks of the English language.

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think you're a simpleton. Lots of people make lots of mistakes, you don't have to take it so personally :rolleyes: It was a couple of lines appended to the end of my post ffs. Making a simple grammatical error OR typo doesn't mean you're stupid or a simpleton. :mad:

My point is, it's a simple grammatical error (and I made it in error) and doesn't need to be corrected. It's not the time or place to do that. Why do you bother? It can misconstrued as patronising by some. Many people are irritated by the Baords "grammar nazis" because they feel the need to correct posts when it's not related to the discussion. If I knew my posts had to be grammatically perfect, then I wouldn't post here. I don't see what you achieve by pointing out a very simple grammatical rule to me that a child of 10 would know. This is After Hours, not a Higher Level Leaving Cert English paper. :mad:

Edit: Yes and I'm aware I spelt "Boards" wrong in this post...please don't point it out to me ffs.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

My point is, it's a simple grammatical error (and I made it in error) and doesn't need to be corrected. It's not the time or place to do that. Why do you bother? It can misconstrued as patronising by some. Many people are irritated by the Baords "grammar nazis" because they feel the need to correct posts when it's not related to the discussion. If I knew my posts had to be grammatically perfect, then I wouldn't post here.

Why on earth are you having such a fit about it? How about "I already know that bluewolf just a typo, leave it out", not throwing your life story and "simpleton" and rants and calling my posts pathetic? It was two lines at the very end of an on topic post. A post on a thread about the English language. We're not discussing the intricacies of grammar on a thread about physics or the weather here. If it upset you that much, report me or ignore it. Or use it as an example in your case about why the language needs reform.

You asked earlier how people feel when having mistakes corrected in English. I guess now I know :rolleyes:

Edit: Yes and I'm aware I spelt "Boards" wrong in this post...please don't point it out to me ffs.

Cop on would you.

It would save a huge amount of time

I don't think it would save a huge amount of time to reform the spelling of a language that so many people across the globe are already speaking and learning (not to mention all that printed material ), particularly when it just seems to be one distinct group so far having such trouble with it. As Izzy says:

Axl Polite Nomad wrote:

I'm not sure how you think English spelling should be simplified, though. Sure, you could do things like replace ph with f, but there are loads of vowel sounds -how would you deal with those? I don't think English spelling can ever be phonetic in the way Spanish spelling is. One of the reasons I think Spanish speakers in particular have trouble getting their heads around the spelling and pronunciation is that their own language is so phonetic. The idea that 'gh' can be pronounced in a number of different ways is alien to them and they tend to think 'ughh, that's not logical, I just can't do it' rather than just accept that that's how it is and do their best to learn it. Speakers of languages like Korean tend to be much more open-minded and accepting of the quirks of the English language.

Eve_Dublin

Axl Polite Nomad wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think English spelling should be simplified, though. Sure, you could do things like replace ph with f, but there are loads of vowel sounds -how would you deal with those? I don't think English spelling can ever be phonetic in the way Spanish spelling is. One of the reasons I think Spanish speakers in particular have trouble getting their heads around the spelling and pronunciation is that their own language is so phonetic. The idea that 'gh' can be pronounced in a number of different ways is alien to them and they tend to think 'ughh, that's not logical, I just can't do it' rather than just accept that that's how it is and do their best to learn it. Speakers of languages like Korean tend to be much more open-minded and accepting of the quirks of the English language.

Yes, I understand that and I see your point. It wouldn't be easy. There's up to 25 vowel sounds in English and only 5 Spanish but I suppose start off with knocking off the silent letters first of all. Pointless in my opinion and dated. I suppose a standardised spelling of the vowel sounds, so the pronunciation doesn't change depending on the word. For example, look at these sentences:


The farm was used to produce produce.

We must polish the Polish furniture.

He could lead if he would get the lead out.

They were too close to the door to close it.

When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

The bandage was wound around the wound.

I could go on.....surely there has to be an easier way to make the pronunciation and in turn, the understanding of these words easier? When people have limited time to learn a language they need, these kinds of exceptions can be very disheartening.

How we could implement changes to the language is not my area of expertise, I'm only a lowly English teacher, so I can't suggest ways to simplify it but surely someone cleverer and with more expertise than myself could.

Eve_Dublin

bluewolf wrote: »

Why on earth are you having such a fit about it? How about "I already know that bluewolf just a typo, leave it out", not throwing your life story and "simpleton" and rants and calling my posts pathetic? It was two lines at the very end of an on topic post. A post on a thread about the English language. We're not discussing the intricacies of grammar on a thread about physics or the weather here. If it upset you that much, report me or ignore it. Or use it as an example in your case about why the language needs reform.

You asked earlier how people feel when having mistakes corrected in English. I guess now I know :rolleyes

:

There's a time and place and this is not a classroom, it's After Hours on Boards.ie and you weren't the only one to pick them out. You're the 3rd or 4th person on this thread and it's done by the usual suspects on this forum. It's irritating beyond belief.

By the way, I didn't call your posts pathetic, I said pointing out that simple grammatrical error was "a little pathetic" and my life story? What? I didn't accuse you of believing I'm a simpleton but people pointing out simple mistakes like that can be misconstrued as patronising. I'm not upset.

d.a.r.r.a.g.h

If anyone else says "obligated", I swear... It's "obliged" people.. Obligated isn't a word.

The only way you can learn to spell in English is from experience, just like in any other language. When you begin, you haven't a clue, but gradually you realise the conventions of the language and recognise patterns. That is the natural way to learn a language. A native English speaker has had to chance to recognise these patterns, learners need more time. It always takes time to learn a language, and changing spelling just so it takes less time seems ludicrous to me.

Eve_Dublin

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

If anyone else says "obligated", I swear... It's "obliged" people.. Obligated isn't a word.

The only way you can learn to spell in English is from experience, just like in any other language. When you begin, you haven't a clue, but gradually you realise the conventions of the language and recognise patterns. That is the natural way to learn a language. A native English speaker has had to chance to recognise these patterns, learners need more time. It always takes time to learn a language, and changing spelling just so it takes less time seems ludicrous to me.

Obligated is a word. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 675

"obligated" remains in Scottish and American use, but has dropped out of British English. Both "obliged" and "obligated" mean "being constrained legally or morally". When the constraint is applied by physical force or circumstances, "obliged" is used. "obligated" is also used to been "indebted for a service or favour".

I tend to use words that are similar in Spanish because I speak both languages daily. It's a force of habit at this stage. Obligar means "to force" in Spanish.

Johro

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Both "obliged" and "obligated" mean "being constrained legally or morally". When the constraint is applied by physical force or circumstances, "obliged" is used. "obligated" is also used to been "indebted for a service or favour".

Heard it said plenty of times. 'I wouldn't have, but I kinda feel obligated'. 'Oblige' comes from 'obligation' after all.

Duck's hoop

I like its eccentricities.

Ghoti is a constructed word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is a respelling of the word fish: i.e., it is supposed to be pronounced /ˈfɪʃ/. It comprises these phonemes:

• gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tʌf/;
• o, pronounced /ɪ/ as in women /ˈwɪmɪn/; and
• ti, pronounced /ʃ/ as in nation /ˈne͡ɪʃən/.

d.a.r.r.a.g.h

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Obligated is a word. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 675

"obligated" remains in Scottish and American use, but has dropped out of British English. Both "obliged" and "obligated" mean "being constrained legally or morally". When the constraint is applied by physical force or circumstances, "obliged" is used. "obligated" is also used to been "indebted for a service or favour".

I tend to use words that are similar in Spanish because I speak both languages daily. It's a force of habit at this stage. Obligar means "to force" in Spanish.

Touché

Johro

Making written English phonetical seems like a daft idea, especially since two thirds of posters on this seem to have different ideas of what constitutes phonetic spelling. It's not text speak, it's writing words like they sound.
You'd still have to learn how to spell them as there would be differences in how people perceive pronunciations, and you'd have to allow for accents.
'Moind' comes to mind.
If you want people to learn how to spell properly you have to get them to read books. A lot. Not alot.

Eve_Dublin

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

Touché

You'll need to work on your Grammar Nazi skills there bud....

Catari Jaguar

I sight read, so it makes it hard 2 understand all diiisss bebo ritin babii ox.

Johro

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

English is the language of international communication and business but it's spelling is beyond bizarre and makes zero sense a lot of the time making it unnecessarily difficult for learners.

What say you?

I'm Dutch and I found English the easiest language to learn. By far.

Eve_Dublin

Johro wrote: »

Making written English phonetical seems like a daft idea, especially since two thirds of posters on this seem to have different ideas of what constitutes phonetic spelling. It's not text speak, it's writing words like they sound.
You'd still have to learn how to spell them as there would be differences in how people perceive pronunciations, and you'd have to allow for accents.
'Moind' comes to mind.
If you want people to learn how to spell properly you have to get them to read books. A lot. Not alot.

Yeah...I know. As I said before, up to 25 vowel sounds in English and 5 in Spanish, so I can see how it would be more difficult. My Dublin 'U" causes problems with classes as that's not what they've been taught. I suppose they've more problems with the actual pronunciation of the vowel sounds as supposed to reading it...

Can we at least drop the silent letters?

pickarooney

Singaporeans write the best English of any group of non-native speakers I've ever come across. Most of them in fact are far better than the average native.

FTGFOP

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Can we at least drop the silent letters?

Nevergh!

Eve_Dublin

pickarooney wrote: »

Singaporeans write the best English of any group of non-native speakers I've ever come across. Most of them in fact are far better than the average native.

Well I only have experience with Spanish speakers and yes, I have heard they've the most problems with pronunciation in comparison to other languages because of fewer vowel sounds and their phonetic language...

I just chose Singapore at random. I've no experience with them.

Okay, I'm changing my mind here..

Eve_Dublin

Johro wrote: »

I'm Dutch and I found English the easiest language to learn. By far.

You said in your edit that Spanish is a piece of piss...it is but the grammar is a mudda****a, particularly as a speaker of a language where verbs aren't conjugated. It's confusing for me.

Once you have the grammar down though, it's easy peasy (although they'd disagree).

Johro

Johro wrote: »

Making written English phonetical seems like a daft idea, especially since two thirds of posters on this seem to have different ideas of what constitutes phonetic spelling. It's not text speak, it's writing words like they sound.
You'd still have to learn how to spell them as there would be differences in how people perceive pronunciations, and you'd have to allow for accents.
'Moind' comes to mind.
If you want people to learn how to spell properly you have to get them to read books. A lot. Not alot.

Too turds. There's your problem.;)

pickarooney

Johro wrote: »

I'm Dutch and I found English the easiest language to learn. By far.

Ah but anything would be compared to "The most difficult language in the word (TM)" as everyone in Holland seems to think Dutch is

Johro

pickarooney wrote: »

Ah but anything would be compared to "The most difficult language in the word (TM)" as everyone in Holland seems to think Dutch is

I don't think it's difficult. I hate speaking it though, English flows and sounds so much better. Speaking Dutch sounds like you're choking on something.

Eve_Dublin

pickarooney wrote: »

Ah but anything would be compared to "The most difficult language in the word (TM)" as everyone in Holland seems to think Dutch is

I think everyone believes their own language is the most difficult. I would've though the grammar in English is a piece of cake but our vocabulary must be the largest in the world and hard to keep up with. It seems English is a lot less precious about letting words into the dictionary than other languages. You can make any old ****e up and use it and within a few years, it'll be entered into the dictionary.

I saw the word "Edutainment" written somewhere today...I mean, what in the love of gawd is that? It's hard to keep yourself updated with developments. Didn't they enter lol and into the Oxford English dictionary last year?

Don't get me wrong, I like that English is more flexible than other languages and it's maleable but even as a native whose supposed to have a decent vocabulary when teaching, it difficult. I can imagine it must be frustrating for learners.

Johro

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I saw the word "Edutainment" written somewhere today...I mean, what in the love of gawd is that?

I'd guess it's 'education made fun', or playing and learning at the same time, which is what good teaching would be anyway.
For me it's one of those words I'd stay the fuck away from.
Like 'infotainment', 'docudrama' or 'rockumentary'.

Eve_Dublin

Johro wrote: »

I'd guess it's 'education made fun', or playing and learning at the same time, which is what good teaching would be anyway.
For me it's one of those words I'd stay the fuck away from.
Like 'infotainment', 'docudrama' or 'rockumentary'.

The meaning is obvious but what a terrible word. Does that kind of thing exist i Dutch?

Chuck Stone

It's amusing to read Irish people getting all defensive and hyper-conservative when it comes to preserving the odd spellings of the bastard language that English is.

I find that many of the U.S. spellings make more sense and they're also acceptable now in academic documents (probably tacit approval of their greater efficiacy).

So it disney matter that people want English to freeze-frame because if history is anything to go by it most certainly will not.

Now I must goe to ye olde shoppe to get some chocolate sponge cake.

Johro

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

The meaning is obvious but what a terrible word. Does that kind of thing exist i Dutch?

All kinds of shite exist in Dutch. But not that one. I think. Awful language though. Words like 'verschrikkelijk'. Suck on that.

d.a.r.r.a.g.h

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's amusing to read Irish people getting all defensive and hyper-conservative when it comes to preserving the odd spellings of the bastard language that English is.

I find that many of the U.S. spellings make more sense and they're also acceptable now in academic documents (probably tacit approval of their greater efficiacy).

So it disney matter that people want English to freeze-frame because if history is anything to go by it most certainly will not.

Now I must goe to ye olde shoppe to get some chocolate sponge cake.

When I think of American English, I think of dumbed-down. Doesn't English English have a bit more class to it! Not to sound pretentious or anything...

Good point. Language is constantly evolving, but people shouldn't feel the need to change it for the craic. It evolves naturally.

Eve_Dublin

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's amusing to read Irish people getting all defensive and hyper-conservative when it comes to preserving the odd spellings of the bastard language that English is.

I find that many of the U.S. spellings make more sense and they're also acceptable now in academic documents (probably tacit approval of their greater efficiacy).

So it disney matter that people want English to freeze-frame because if history is anything to go by it most certainly will not.

Now I must goe to ye olde shoppe to get some chocolate sponge cake.

Somebody...actually.....agrees with me! Oh sweet mother of holy monkey...SOMEBODY AGREES WITH MEEEEEEE!!!

If you weren't so far away, I'd offer to have a child for you (it can be arranged....wink wink)

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I find that many of the U.S. spellings make more sense and they're also acceptable now in academic documents (probably tacit approval of their greater efficiacy).

'Lift' is easier than 'elevator' though.
But okay, elevator is a better description.

Eve_Dublin

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

When I think of American English, I think of dumbed-down. Doesn't English English have a bit more class to it! Not to sound pretentious or anything...

Good point. Language is constantly evolving, but people shouldn't feel the need to change it for the craic. It evolves naturally.

What's "English English"? English from England? Yeah, tell THAT to Pat Butcher.

By the way, you're Irish.

Johro

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Somebody...actually.....agrees with me! Oh sweet mother of holy monkey...SOMEBODY AGREES WITH MEEEEEEE!!!

If you weren't so far away, I'd offer to have a child for you (it can be arranged....wink wink)

Tramp.

Chuck Stone

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Somebody...actually.....agrees with me! Oh sweet mother of holy monkey...SOMEBODY AGREES WITH MEEEEEEE!!!

I think you just want what will probably happen natually to hurry TF up is all.

If you weren't so far away, I'd offer to have a child for you (it can be arranged....wink wink)

http://www.dewdadsweb.com/emoticons/blush.gif

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

..getting all defensive and hyper-conservative when it comes to preserving the odd spellings of the bastard language that English is..

I'm not too fussed about that, but the idea of changing to phonetics is a different one altogether.

Chuck Stone

Johro wrote: »

I'm not too fussed about that, but the idea of changing to phonetics is a different one altogether.

Phonetic streamlining would be one of the principle reasons for changing a spelling though.

Take 'Centre' (UK) and 'Center' (US).

I much prefer the US spelling and I daresay the vast majority of children (like me :P) would too.

d.a.r.r.a.g.h

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

What's "English English"? English from England? Yeah, tell THAT to Pat Butcher.

By the way, you're Irish.

Hiberno-English is rarely written, and besides that, it is more aligned to English from England than English from America.

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Phonetic streamlining would be one of the principle reasons for changing a spelling though.

Take 'Centre' (UK) and 'Center' (US).

I much prefer the US spelling and I daresay the vast majority of children (like me :P) would too.

Yoo mutch preefur dee yoo ess spelling? 'Center' would probably turn into 'centur' though, phonetically. Maybe not. It would be like having to learn a whole new way of spelling, because some words, like 'think', aren't so easy to work out phonetically. Some, like 'phone' are easy and obvious but you'll still end up having to learn phonetic spelling and it won't eliminate 'bad' spelling. Bad spelling is down to not having learned it properly, and that's just a case of repetition, repetition, repetition.

Chuck Stone

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

When I think of American English, I think of dumbed-down. Doesn't English English have a bit more class to it! Not to sound pretentious or anything...

I don't feel the same way tbh. I just think many of the U.S. spellings are more efficient (if that makes any sense at all).

Good point. Language is constantly evolving, but people shouldn't feel the need to change it for the craic. It evolves naturally.

The only languages which don't evolve are dead ones iirc.

Johro

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

Hiberno-English is rarely written, and besides that, it is more aligned to English from England than English from America.

Though lately it's like, so random.

pbowenroe

jipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijpjipjipjijpjijp

Eve_Dublin

d.a.r.r.a.g.h wrote: »

Hiberno-English is rarely written, and besides that, it is more aligned to English from England than English from America.

British English then.

It's a myth that it's dumbed down just because some of the words are spelt a little more logically. They're vocab is as extensive as ours but whether people choose to use it is up to them.

Like England, you'll find people who speak a dumbed down version of their native tongue and who won't use the full extent of the vocab available to them, just like anywhere else. I don't see how different spelling makes it any less sophisticated.

As Chuck pointed out, at one stage they spelt Shop with an extra p and e...does that somehow make it any better? Personally I don't see how it does. I think it's a little pretentious to think it does.

Chuck Stone

Johro wrote: »

it won't eliminate 'bad' spelling. Bad spelling is down to not having learned it properly, and that's just a case of repetition, repetition, repetition.

Ah yeah but some words have these letters stuck in them and it looks like someone was taking the piss when they decided they'd be spelled in that fashion.

Here's a few.

pneumonia
wrought
through
thorough
bough

There are many words that could be made so much easier to spell.

Johro

I don't know, it seems like a massive waste of time to me, a lot of bother for something the majority of people don't have a problem with if they just learned the thing right in the first place.
My ex girlfriend had a little girl who was getting bad marks for reading and spelling, I got her into reading books, first by just reading her bedtime stories and she'd learn because she was looking at the words I was reading, then after a while we'd take turns reading a page, then she got into it and started borrowing books from the library and reading in her own time. It wasn't long at all before her reading and spelling improved dramatically, so much so that her teacher commented on it, and she now gets great marks.
I think we just read and write less, and it's not so familiar, doesn't come to mind too easy. If you start them early and get them books to read you won't find half the spelling mistakes people make so commonly.
It's not like kids don't like stories, they love books if they give them a chance.

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah yeah but some words have these letters stuck in them and it looks like someone was taking the piss when they decided they'd be spelled in that fashion.

Here's a few.

pneumonia
wrought
through
thorough
bough

There are many words that could be made so much easier to spell.

Sure there are, those are the words that make ya scratch your head when ya learn english alright, but again it's just a matter of learning them. There would be words like that in most languages, I don't think changing them all to phonetic spelling would be helpful. Phonetics are great for learning pronunciation (pro-nun-see-yay-shun) but that's about it, for me anyway.

Johro

Phonetical spelling is for eejits.

Chuck Stone

I read* a good bit as a child and I still get confused with double letters like carefull and necessary. I also have trouble with ie words and often spell them ei by mistake.

Funny enough my 'rote' spelling has gotten better from posting here although I still make loads of mistakes.


*impossible to tell the tense by the spelling of 'read'

Toby Take a Bow

Language is like an organism, constantly changing. Bar the half-hearted attempt by Americans to change some spelling of their words, attempts to officially change language tend to be disasters. And any attempt at 'creating' a global language is doomed to failure. English is the global language of today, and if a more simple language is required, that's what will evolve.

To attempt to sanction a new global English would be a disaster, mainly because we'd have to settle on one type of phonetic spelling and also the native speakers would have to relearn.

No thanks.

Johro

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I read* a good bit as a child and I still get confused with double letters like carefull and necessary. I also have trouble with ie words and often spell them ei by mistake.

Funny enough my 'rote' spelling has gotten better from posting here although I still make loads of mistakes.


*impossible to tell the tense by the spelling of 'read'

Careful has only one 'l':D We all make mistakes, I see grammar nazis on here making mistakes, and just about everybody writes 'reciept', and 'wierd', both of which are wrong, and sometimes I'm guilty of pointing it out, but I don't do it to look clever. I make mistakes too, I don't mind someone telling me when I do, it's how ya learn. People shouldn't get too uptight about it if they're not writing for a living, or teaching.

Chuck Stone

Johro wrote: »

Careful has only one 'l':D

Thankewe fur fixing that thier fur me. :pac:

Da Shins Kelly

To be honest, I don't really care if non-native speakers find it difficult. If they really want to learn, they'll make the effort just like anyone who is serious about learning a new language does. English is very aesthetically pleasing once it is grasped fully, and phonetical spelling is far more difficult to understand than some might think. It would never work.