steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (10/08/84)
***
In a letter to 'The Economist' in Readers Digest (ages ago),
M.J.Shields, of Jarrow, England, points out that George Bernard
Shaw, among others, urged spelling reform, suggesting that one
letter be altered or deleted each year, thus giving the populace
time to absorb the change...
* * * *
"For example, in Year 1 that useless letter 'c' would be
dropped to be replased either by 'k' or 's', and likewise 'x' would
no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which 'c' would
be retained would be the 'ch' formation, which will be dealt with
later. Year 2 might reform 'w' spelling, so that 'which' and 'one'
would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish 'y'
replasing it with 'i' and Iear 4 might fiks the 'g-j' anomali wonse
and for all.
"Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears
6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist
konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik
ius ov thi ridandant letez 'c', 'y' and 'x' - bai now jast a memori
in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais 'ch', 'sh', and 'th'
rispektivli.
"Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking
werld...
Iorz feixfuli,
M.J. Yilz"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382
109 Torrey Pine Terr.
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
ihnp4!pesnta -\
fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny
ucbvax!twg -/
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382
109 Torrey Pine Terr.
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
ihnp4!pesnta -\
fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny
ucbvax!twg -/mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/09/84)
Besides being a reactionary old fuddy-duddy when it comes to spelling
(it took me years to learn to misspell vichyssoise, they can't take it
away from me), I also have some practical objections. I intend to
voice these objections every time someone brings up Shaw's ideas.
In order to make spelling logical and consistent, there must be some
outside standard to compare it with, and that standard is usually
pronunciation. The question is, whose pronunciation. In the example
given, there are several incorrect spellings:
while ==> wile (this example was given before reform of vowels)
after ==> aafte
letters ==> letez
Where is the (clearly pronounced) 'h' sound in while?
Where is the (clearly pronounced) 'r' sound in after and letters?
I expect to hear some flaming about the 'h', because most people leave
it out, but I am not the only person who pronounces it. Personally,
I think any reform of vowels should diphthongize (or worse) every
syllable, as is done down here in God's country. It is much easier
to justify leaving out letters than putting them in where they're not
written.
Fortunately, spelling reform is about as likely as direct popular election
of the U.S. President, so the hole diskushon iz mute.
--
_Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/ North Carolina State Universitymrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/09/84)
> [Don Steiny] > In a letter to 'The Economist' in Readers Digest (ages ago), > M.J.Shields, of Jarrow, England, points out that George Bernard > Shaw, among others, urged spelling reform, suggesting that one > letter be altered or deleted each year, thus giving the populace > time to absorb the change... There was a classic short story (I believe it was in an Astounding anthology) entitled "Meihem in Ce Klasrum" along the same lines, but longer and thus easier to follow. I've long wanted to have a xerox of it.... -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
wombat@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/11/84)
In a similar vein, see Dolton Edwards' "Meihem in ce Klasrum." It's hard to start reading with the last paragraph ... Wombat
andyb@dartvax.UUCP (Andy Behrens) (10/12/84)
> From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) > > In order to make spelling logical and consistent, there must be some > outside standard to compare it with, and that standard is usually > pronunciation. The question is, whose pronunciation. In the example > given, there are several incorrect [phonetic] spellings: > > while ==> wile > after ==> aafte > letters ==> letez > > Where is the (clearly pronounced) 'r' sound in after and letters? Your objection "whose pronunciation?" is a good one. But I think when you count the English-speakers in England, most of New England, and Brooklyn, (and other places too, for all I know), you'll find that the r-pronouncers lose out to the r-droppers. Sorry, Jon, but you're out- voted. Andy Behrens andyb@dartmouth.csnet <Dahtmouth College, New Hampsha> {astrovax,dalcs,decvax,cornell,linus}!dartvax!andyb
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (10/12/84)
| > [Don Steiny] | > In a letter to 'The Economist' in Readers Digest (ages ago), | > M.J.Shields, of Jarrow, England, points out that George Bernard | > Shaw, among others, urged spelling reform, suggesting that one | > letter be altered or deleted each year, thus giving the populace | > time to absorb the change... | | There was a classic short story (I believe it was in an Astounding anthology) | entitled "Meihem in Ce Klasrum" along the same lines, but longer and thus | easier to follow. I've long wanted to have a xerox of it.... "Meihem in Ce Klasrum" was reprinted in the book "A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown and other essays for a scientific age" edited by Robert A. Baker (Prentice-Hall, 1959). The original, written by Dolton Edwards, was, according to the credits in aSAoaSEG, published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1946. If you can still get your hands on it, aSAoaSEG is an interesting sampler of scientific and engineering humor. My personal favorites from this small volume (192 pages) include "The Chaostron" - design of a completely random computer which was to learn to solve problems, rather than be programed. "The Postal System Input Buffer Device" - an instruction manual for the use of a mailbox. "Mathmanship" - A classic. Instructions on how to write a technical paper in such a way as to force the reader to "... concede his mental inferiority to the author." Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (10/12/84)
Reply-To:{amd, ihnp4, cbosgd}!fortune!plard; polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry )
In article <2696@ncsu.UUCP> mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) writes:
>
>...In order to make spelling logical and consistent, there must be some
>outside standard to compare it with, and that standard is usually
>pronunciation. ...
It ain't necessarily so. One way of viewing consitency in a writing system
has to do with being able to derive the pronounciation of a word from
its written representation. Consider:
divine
divinity
both words have the same root. A competent speaker of English knows
that if one adds the suffix -ity the pronunciation of the second
syllable of divine changes. There are many other such alternations in
English, all relics of the Great English Vowel Shift. So it might be
more appropriate to have a spelling system based on the consistent
spelling of word _roots_ (which is how the present system works,
in the main).
In the case of wh-, many people _do_ pronounce the h, even though it's
pronounced at the same time as the w. So one of the tasks of an English
writing system is to be useful for speakers of many dialects.
Some obvious targets of spelling reform are superfluous letters
as in knight, and glaringly inconsistent representations of sound
as in the -gh of through, tough and though.
Does anyone else have ideas for reasonable and practocal spelling reform?
--
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/12/84)
>> after ==> aafte >> letters ==> letez >> >> Where is the (clearly pronounced) 'r' sound in after and letters? > you'll find that the r-pronouncers lose out to the r-droppers. > Sorry, Jon, but you're outvoted. I know. That's why I'm so opposed to spelling reform. I don't want Yankees and Limeys imposing their funny pronunciations on me (by the way, many Southern accents drop r's too). I have my minority rights! -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
wombat@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/16/84)
*Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Dress* was reprinted a couple of years ago, I think as a Dover paperback. It's worth looking for. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/16/84)
> Some obvious targets of spelling reform are superfluous letters > as in knight, and glaringly inconsistent representations of sound > as in the -gh of through, tough and though. > > Does anyone else have ideas for reasonable and practocal spelling reform? > If English orthography is to be reformed, then the way to do it is through a few changes to the most problematic cases. The various uses of -gh is probably the single biggest offender. Other candidates that spring to mind are the choices between ance/ence, ant/ent, able/ible, and ei/ie. The newspapers have already given us employe and cigaret; they could give us nite, flexable, and beleve if thay wonted tu. The solution is not a logical, phonetical (unattainable, inhuman) system, but merely one which doesn't have quite so many exceptions. Mind you, I think the words are prettier left the way they are. -- *** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR LINE *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
netnews@wnuxb.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (10/17/84)
> "Meihem in Ce Klasrum" was reprinted in the book "A Stress Analysis of > a Strapless Evening Gown and other essays for a scientific age" edited > by Robert A. Baker (Prentice-Hall, 1959). The original, written by > Dolton Edwards, was, according to the credits in aSAoaSEG, published > in Astounding Science Fiction in 1946. > > Rich Strebendt > ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res I acquired my copy within the past 1-2 years, so it is probably still in print. The ISBN is 0-13-852608-7. Have fun! -- Ronald W. Heiby AT&T Something (used to be Comp Sys Div, but don't ask me now.), Inc. Lisle, IL (CU-D21) / ...!ihnp4!wnuxa!heiby or ...!ihnp4!wnuxb!netnews
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (10/18/84)
***LINE YOUR PLACE WITH THIS RE-MASSAGE*** A lot of spelling reform could take place without interfering with dialects, and fairly painlessly. I already, even in my more formal writing, use 'nite' and 'thru.' Some changes which could take place easily, and yet make it a lot easier to learn to spell, include: 1) All 'k' sounds spelled with a 'k.' E.g. cut, cat 2) All 'sh' sounds spelled 'sh.' E.g. sure, nation 3) All 's' sounds spelled 's.' E.g. nice, scent, cent 4) All 'z' sounds spelled 'z.' E.g. is, says, balls On a side note, I notice that many continental Europeans make the following mistakes: - pronounce 'idea' as 'idee' - don't remember that the vowel in 'says' is pronounced different than is 'say' - haven't learned the difference in pronounciation between 'south' and 'southern' - can't hear the difference between 'hungry' and 'angry' alan
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/19/84)
-- >> If English orthography is to be reformed, then the way to do it is >> through a few changes to the most problematic cases. The various >> uses of -gh is probably the single biggest offender. Other candidates >> that spring to mind are the choices between ance/ence, ant/ent, >> able/ible, and ei/ie. The newspapers have already given us employe >> and cigaret; they could give us nite, flexable, and beleve if thay >> wonted tu. >> Jon Mauney Some of these seemingly random spellings, though, are not. Many of the -ance/-ence and -ant/-ent words reflect the Latin conjugation their root verbs came from (-are/-ere). And one newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, in fact tried to give us "nite", "thru", and a few others. They stopped trying some time ago. A better answer is an educational system that stresses reading, writing, and Classical languages--not a band-aid (tm) to cover the festering sore of American illiteracy. Anyone who's had enough practice at it can spell. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Oct 84 [27 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
cmb@ihima.UUCP (Christine M. Buss) (10/20/84)
In the ongoing discussion of the inconsistencies between English spellings and English pronunciations, I haven't seen the following point made. Although having spelling conform well to pronunciation would make English much easier to learn, it would not necessarily make it easier for native speakers to read. Because many homonyms (e.g. knight and night) are spelled differently, reading is fascillated. The reader doesn't need to apply context to determine the meaning of "nite". Where we have words with different meanings that are spelled the same (for example, the present and past tenses of read) we sometimes require a lot of overhead to process a sentence correctly, as we try to figure out which word is meant. In some ways, the two goals of having a language that is easy to learn and easy to use are at odds with each other. The large number of words in the English language, with their subtle differences in connotation, add to the richness and expressiveness of the language but make it much more difficult for a beginner. Christine Buss soon to be ihnp4!ihlpm!cmbuss
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/24/84)
> Some of these seemingly random spellings, though, are not. Many of the > -ance/-ence and -ant/-ent words reflect the Latin conjugation their root > verbs came from (-are/-ere). > ... > A better answer is an educational system that > stresses reading, writing, and Classical languages--not a band-aid (tm) > to cover the festering sore of American illiteracy. Anyone who's had > enough practice at it can spell. Most if not all of English's bizarre spellings have good historical reasons. I like it that way, and I don't have much trouble with spelling. But it is unreasonable to expect the average person to study Latin, Greek, French and German, just so they can write in English. One might argue that there would be fewer illiterates if the written language made sense. The problem with spelling reform proposals is similar to the problem with FORTRAN reform proposals: they suggest superficial fixes. If superficial fixes are to be applied, then I favor a conservative approach: fix only the few worst offenders. What is needed (if anything is needed) is not a simple, phonetic approach, but a sweeping, phonemic approach. A really good orthography would have words that sound similar being spelling similarly, and words that are structurally related being spelled similarly. Thus, if you see a word written, you know how to pronounce it; if you know how to pronounce a word, and how it relates to other words in the language (not to other languages) then you know how to spell it. Logical, consistent, useful and no one would go for it because it would be too radical. -- *** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR LINE *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/29/84)
-- >> The problem with spelling reform proposals is similar to the problem >> with FORTRAN reform proposals: they suggest superficial fixes. If >> superficial fixes are to be applied, then I favor a conservative >> approach: fix only the few worst offenders. What is needed (if >> anything is needed) is not a simple, phonetic approach, >> but a sweeping, phonemic approach. A really good orthography would have >> words that sound similar being spelling similarly, and words that are >> structurally related being spelled similarly. Thus, if you see a word >> written, you know how to pronounce it; if you know how to pronounce a >> word, and how it relates to other words in the language (not to other >> languages) then you know how to spell it. Logical, consistent, useful >> and no one would go for it because it would be too radical. >> Jon Mauney And he'd be right. Why play with English spelling? The only reason --and it underlies the whole "plain English" movement--is that so many people are so bad at it. Well, that's what happens when you don't get enough practice. The truly logical solution is to teach kids how to write. Of course, there's no telling where that might lead--it could topple the very pillars of our mindless consumerist society. But I digress. I state that spelling is easy *IF* you just practice it. Look at the bizarre grammars of other languages, which even their respective national idiots master--because they speak it. English is quite simple in comparison to Russian, or Icelandic. You could claim that English spelling is really worse than convoluted European grammars because it's so arbitrary. But so is life. Our arcane orthography serves as a silent sentinel (you know, like the "m" in "mnemonic") against the most invidious threat to American democracy--the one Thomas Jefferson saw when he proposed free public education--illiteracy. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 28 Oct 84 [7 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** <--PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS!
tim@scc.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (11/01/84)
> > "Meihem in Ce Klasrum" was reprinted in the book "A Stress Analysis of > > a Strapless Evening Gown and other essays for a scientific age" edited > > by Robert A. Baker (Prentice-Hall, 1959). The original, written by > > Dolton Edwards, was, according to the credits in aSAoaSEG, published > > in Astounding Science Fiction in 1946. > > > > Rich Strebendt > > ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res > > I acquired my copy within the past 1-2 years, so it is probably still > in print. The ISBN is 0-13-852608-7. Have fun! > -- > Ronald W. Heiby > AT&T Something (used to be Comp Sys Div, but don't ask me now.), Inc. > Lisle, IL (CU-D21) / ...!ihnp4!wnuxa!heiby or ...!ihnp4!wnuxb!netnews I got this from MIT-MC about 3 years ago... is it generally available these days?... -------------------------------------------------------------------- In a letter to 'The Economist' in Reader's Digest (ages ago), M.J.Shields, of Jarrow, England, points out that George Bernard Shaw, among others, urged spelling reform, suggesting that one letter be altered or deleted each year, thus giving the populace time to absorb the change... * * * * "For example, in Year 1 that useless letter 'c' would be dropped to be replased either by 'k' or 's', and likewise 'x' would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which 'c' would be retained would be the 'ch' formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform 'w' spelling, so that 'which' and 'one' would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish 'y' replasing it with 'i' and Iear 4 might fiks the 'g-j' anomali wonse and for all. "Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez 'c', 'y' and 'x' - bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais 'ch', 'sh', and 'th' rispektivli. "Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld... Iorz feixfuli, M.J. Yilz" --------------------------------------------------------------------
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/04/84)
rite. Once, a couple adult students who were previously non-literate came to a class and learned some of the basics of reading and writing. They couldn't stay more than a few days or so, but did take a couple of the reading books with them when they left. Within a month or so, they returned knowing how to read! I'm not sure about advocating reforming English spelling completely, though some reform would probably be useful. One problem I can foresee is that we could lose our literature written in pre-reform days. After a new generation had learned to read in new-spell, they would find it very difficult to read literature in the old spelling -- that would create a real big generation gap! Anyone for getting all books written in English computer scanned and reproduced in new-spell? -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/05/84)
-- [I said] > ... Why play with English spelling? The only reason > --and it underlies the whole "plain English" movement--is that so many > people are so bad at it. Well, that's what happens when you don't get > enough practice. The truly logical solution is to teach kids how to > write... I state that spelling is easy *IF* you just practice it. > Look at the bizarre grammars of other languages, which even their > respective national idiots master--because they speak it. English is > quite simple in comparison to Russian, or Icelandic. You could claim > that English spelling is really worse than convoluted European grammars > because it's so arbitrary. But so is life. Our arcane orthography > serves as a silent sentinel (you know, like the "m" in "mnemonic") > against the most invidious threat to American democracy--the one Thomas > Jefferson saw when he proposed free public education--illiteracy. [Mike Huybensz] >> Spelling IS easy if you practice it: however, with proper >> modifications, less practice would be required. >> Learning grammar and spelling are quite different tasks, that take >> place in different ways. It is inappropriate to compare the two in >> your argument. Not at all. The tasks are indeed different, but the learning of both comes through practice. Kids everywhere get to practice the grammars of their native tongues by speaking them. But spelling practice requires a lot of both reading and writing. >> That life is arbitrary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether English >> spelling should be improved. That's the "tu quoque" (sp?) fallacy of >> argument. It has a lot to do with it. I refuse to call something bad just because it is difficult, or more to the point, because it appears to be difficult. If it's worth modifying English spelling simply because it seems hard, why stop there? There's lots of subjects that really are hard. Take math, for instance. We could start with PI=3.14159... --which is awfully tricky--and simplify it to 3.14, or maybe an even 3. >> I can only view difficult spellings as a means to discourage literacy. >> Using your metaphor, perhaps we should make our "sentinel" even sharper- >> eyed by making spelling still more difficult? :-) >> Mike Huybensz Discourage literacy? Hey, it's hard enough to read Shakespeare as it is, what with all those Elizabethan in-jokes, but it's clear at least what the words themselves are. Get a new generation addicted to "nu-spel" and you can kiss literature goodbye. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Einstein -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Nov 84 [14 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** <--PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS!
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/07/84)
[Mike Huybensz] > >> Learning grammar and spelling are quite different tasks, that take > >> place in different ways. It is inappropriate to compare the two in > >> your argument. [Ken Perlow] > Not at all. The tasks are indeed different, but the learning of both > comes through practice. Kids everywhere get to practice the grammars > of their native tongues by speaking them. But spelling practice > requires a lot of both reading and writing. I won't let you conceal your ignorance under an umbrella generalization such as "practice". That's like comparing learning to run marathons and learning to ride as a passenger under the generalization "travelling". An immense amount of research has been done on how grammars are learned by humans. Much of that learning takes place before a word is spoken. Children START speaking with grammar. The mechanisms involved in learning grammar seem to be quite different that the memorization used for learning spelling. > Hey, it's hard enough to read Shakespeare as it > is, what with all those Elizabethan in-jokes, but it's clear at least > what the words themselves are. Get a new generation addicted to > "nu-spel" and you can kiss literature goodbye. Reading alternative spellings is actually rather simple. The rules for sounding out words tend to be much less complex than the information required to represent their spellings. I've not had difficulty with my few exposures to antique English spellings or fanciful spelling systems as in "Meihem in ce Klasrum". Nor is respelling literature going to be a significantly difficult task with computer dictionaries and machine readers available. They can remove the drudgery from the task, allowing humans to tend to the places where the program can't make distinctions, and providing the benefit of making literature available for further processing. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
scw@cepu.UUCP (11/07/84)
In article <1310@ihuxq.UUCP> ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) writes: Ken, when you include an article, Please trim it a bit. >-- >[I said] >> ... Why play with English spelling? The only reason >> --and it underlies the [..] free public education--illiteracy. > >[Mike Huybensz] >>> Spelling IS easy if [...] It is inappropriate to compare the two in >>> your argument. > >Not at all. The tasks are indeed different, but the learning of both >comes through practice. [...]ng and writing. > >>> That life is arbitrary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether English >>> spelling should be improved. That's the "tu quoque" (sp?) fallacy of >>> argument. > >It has a lot to do with it. I refuse to call something bad just because >it is difficult, or more to [...]rt with PI=3.14159... --which is awfully >tricky--and simplify it to 3.14, or maybe an even 3. > Oh, come on now, PI is a physical constant like e, it is not a *VERY* arbitrary descision on the part of Noah Webster (that is the correct Webster isn't it?) that said sukses should be spelled success. The reason that English spelling is difficult is the fact that English is a mish-mash of many different languages each with its own spelling rules, and all mutually incompatable. You should try Russian some day, EVEN having to learn a different Alphabet, and with regessive assimilation (following sounds affect preceding sounds), it should take only about a week to learn to read (you might not understand what you are reading, but a Russian speaker should if you're careful), and to write anything that you hear (in Russian of course). >>> I can only view difficult spellings as a means to discourage literacy. >>> Using your metaphor, perhaps we should make our "sentinel" even sharper- >>> eyed by making spelling still more difficult? :-) > >Discourage literacy? Hey, it's hard enough to read Shakespeare as it >is, what with all those Elizabethan in-jokes, but it's clear at least >what the words themselves are. Get a new generation addicted to >"nu-spel" and you can kiss literature goodbye. People translate Old Norse and Sanskrit to English, there is no reason that Shakespeare wouldn't cross the gap from Elizabethan to Nu-spel also. In fact, I suspect that you'd find it very difficult to read Shakespeare as it was printed then (the spellings of many words have changed GREATLY since the 16th Century, not to mention world that have just plain vanished). > >"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Einstein >[long .signature deleted] -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/12/84)
--
OK, OK, I give up. When we've finally adopted nu-spel, all of
English literature can be translated into it, and the future of
mankind will be saved. Whew, that was a close call.
As for my selection of the next hard thing to make easy (pi=3.14159...),
perhaps I'd have done better to choose the English system of weights
and measures, which I do every day without hesitation. You mean you
actually *like* metric, you commie traitors? What do you think we
fought--and *WON*--W W II for, anyway?
"Gud speling--not djest a gud ydea, it's xe lau!"
ooo <-- That's a nu-spel ":-)"
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 11 Nov 84 [21 Brumaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (11/14/84)
> From: iuvax!brennan (JD Brennan) > I couldn't agree less! The penalty for mispelling can be > quite severe. Just try mispelling a few words on your resume > and see how many job offers you get. Try the same thing > in a letter to a prospective buyer and how many sales you > make. Of course, this is assuming that the prospective employer or buyer can spell better than you. From talking to a few friends that have worked in secretarial jobs, many manager types couldn't spell to save their lives. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/18/84)
--
References: <179@scc.UUCP> <2696@ncsu.UUCP> <4483@fortune.UUCP> <2701@ncsu.UUCP> <1287@ihuxq.UUCP> <2709@ncsuRe:Re: Spelling Reform
--
OK, OK, I give up. When we've finally adopted nu-spel, all of
English literature can be translated into it, and the future of
mankind will be saved. Whew, that was a close call.
As for my selection of the next hard thing to make easy (pi=3.14159...),
perhaps I'd have done better to choose the English system of weights
and measures, which I do every day without hesitation. You mean you
actually *like* metric, you commie traitors? What do you think we
fought--and *WON*--W W II over, anyway?
"Gud speling--not djest a gud aydea, it's xe lau!"
ooo <-- That's a nu-spel ":-)"
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 11 Nov 84 [21 Brumaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***ccb@decvax.UUCP (Charles C. Bennett) (11/20/84)
Subject: Spelling Reform Newsgroups: net.nlang Distribution: net Regards what dialect to use for our phonology... Many Americans speak and are accusomed to hearing english pronounced with a Chicago/St. Louis accent because of 2 decades of network television news. Provided that the folks that sell the soap keep giving us voices like Walt Cronkite and Coky Roberts to listen to, things are likely to remain this way. chas. --------------------------- "had a chat with Lizard God lately?" decvax!ccb