Parker.es@Xerox.ARPA (06/11/85)
From: James Parker <Parker.es@Xerox.ARPA> i for one have a terrible time spelling - but that didn't keep me from graduating with honors in math. for me, math makes sense but spelling in english is a black art apparently understood only by english professors. Flame On why Why WHY can't we switch to spelling everything phonetically ??? it's so simple. there ARE cultures that do this. of course, we can't seem to go metric either after more than 180 years. Flame Off i had a professor who got stuck trying to spell something on the blackboard in class one day - finally he said "Oh hell, scientists aren't supposed to know how to spell anyway" and went on with the discussion. my science professors were liberal about spelling - but we caught hell for muddled or erronous thinking. interestingly, my humanities professors were the other way around - muddled and/or erronous thinking was ok if properly spelled and punctuated. another thing that i've learned as i got older: 1) competence in one field does NOT imply competence in another field 2) incompetence in one field does NOT imply incompetence in another field look around - you'll see numerous examples of people who are very competent at several things and incompetent at many other things. James
jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA (06/12/85)
From: John H. Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA> I know this kind of discussion should be kept off the list, but I can't resist the opportunity to respond. The best reason that I can think of not to change English spelling is that it reflects the rich tradition of the language, which includes those of Celtic, Germanic, French, Latin, and Greek (among others). A succession of conquerers, first Anglo-Saxon, then Roman, then Norman all had a profound influence on the language that developed into modern day English, and added their own words and spellings to the lexicon. The diversity that results makes English one of the most expressive languages for any form of literature in which lyrical qualities are important. Irregularity and variety of linguistic form within a language allow a skillful writer to make more interesting and forceful combinations of words than are possible with a highly regular language. Homeric Greek is a fine example. If you dislike flipping to the word list at the back of the book then you will find reading Homer much more annoying than, say, Plato. But if you like expressive phrases and vivd images, Homer is hard to beat. One problem scientists (and I like to include myself in the category) often have is that they tend to associate beauty with symmetry or regularity. This is, incidently, a very Greek idea (those ancients thought of everything). In the humanities, beauty is often the result of bringing together in a composition two logically dissimilar qualities. It is not "muddled thinking" so much as a different way of thinking. I for one enjoy the complexities of our language, and appreciate the diversity and subtle beauty of its words. I'd rather have to refer to a dictionary every so often (a task I find pleasant) than give those pleasures up. John
phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller) (06/14/85)
> The diversity that results makes English one of the >most expressive languages for any form of literature in which lyrical qualities >are important. > > I for one enjoy the complexities of our language, and appreciate the >diversity and subtle beauty of its words. I'd rather have to refer to a >dictionary every so often (a task I find pleasant) than give those pleasures >up. > AMEN! I, too, enjoy the complexities and subtleties of the language and would hate to see it lose its richness of expression. I've always been a good speller and have never managed to understand how someone could master the attention to details required by programming and the arcane intricacies of some programming languages but still spell at a sixth grade level. Whenever I start to read an article that is badly spelled and grammatically incorrect, I can't avoid being suspicious of the content of the article as well. I suppose there may be some _idiots savants_ in computer science, but they can't be *that* numerous! (:-)) -- John Miller (ecsvax!phco) Dept. of Pharmacology, Univ. of N.C.-Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 966-1153
ABRAMSOHN.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (06/25/85)
> Is this a product of our modern education system. Is a > lesser emphasis put on writing skills today, especially > spelling? IF THIS IS A QUESTION, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FOR" > particular care with grammar, syntax and spell- > ing, in order to avoid ambiguity" DENNIS
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (06/27/85)
> From: John H. Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA> > > I know this kind of discussion should be kept off the list, > but I can't resist the opportunity to respond. The best reason that > I can think of not to change English spelling is that it reflects the rich > tradition of the language, which includes those of Celtic, Germanic, French, > Latin, and Greek (among others). A succession of conquerers, first > Anglo-Saxon, then Roman, then Norman all had a profound influence on the > language that developed into modern day English, and added their own words and > spellings to the lexicon. The diversity that results makes English one of the > most expressive languages for any form of literature in which lyrical qualities I couldn't resist as this is one of my pet peeves. Please explain how changing the spelling of words will damage their "expressive" or "lyrical" qualities. Also explain how the written form of a language can have any "lyrical" qualities. Remember that we are talking about changing marks on a piece of paper, not the spoken words those marks represent. Is spelling "phone" as "fone" less expressive? If they are pronounced the same can one be less "lyrical"? I am constantly finding people who take arms against any change of the written language. I have always felt that the written language is primarily a representation of the spoken one. There is an easy test to tell you how you think about it. Just decide which of the following sentences is "correct". Type a "L". (or) Type an "L". I know people who argue strongly for the first form because "L" does not begin with a vowel. Our language is replete with spellings based on archaic pronunciation or the spelling rules of a foreign language. Thus to know which "rule" to use for spelling a word, one has to know what language it originated in, when that was, and how usage has modified all of that. However don't worry to much about planned changes in the language. Even the English don't use the "English" system of measurements any more. If we won't give up the inch (2.54cm) then how could we give up "Wednesday" (wenz'di). Note followup-to. This is not physics. Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (06/27/85)
In 1473@ecsvax.UUCP, phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller) writes... > I've always been a good speller and have never managed to understand how > someone could master the attention to details required by programming and the > arcane intricacies of some programming languages but still spell at a sixth > grade level. Whenever I start to read an article that is badly spelled and > grammatically incorrect, I can't avoid being suspicious of the content of the > article as well. Well, I've been a good speller (and sometime professional writer) for a long while. I go into rages when I see "to comprise" misused, or "i.e." written when "e.g." is intended. But I think it's going a little far to expect everyone to be an expert at the incredible complexities of English. I have learned to suffer silently, most of the time. The mere fact that someone misspells words or commits other errors doesn't mean that person is a fool. For one thing, that person might well be using English as a second language. Would you like to be thought an idiot because your French lacked absolute perfection? (If not, stay out of France :-).) What really drives me nuts is the practice, common among victims of high school English teachers, who attempt to write in "formal English" - that substandard, contractionless dialect of the language popular with the term paper crowd. People wouldn't even think of saying "is comprised of" if they weren't out to impress somebody by using what Michael Atkinson calls "them 75-cent words like 'mayonnaise.'" And while I'm enflamed, does anybody else vomit when newcasters insist on emphasising the words that would never be capitalized in a title? "We're looking INTO the matter, but BY 11 there should be A clearer picture." That sort of rot. Thought so. Bye now. the time. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary