The Push For Illiteracy Continues

[DaForce]

First we had Ebonics as a second language, now Washington wants to give us this:

http://www.examiner.com/a-168451~Push_for_Simpler_Spelling_Persists.html (http://www.examiner.com/a-168451%7EPush_for_Simpler_Spelling_Persists.html)


I feel like I'm reading Helen Keller's fucking diary!!

[Jakester]

If we did that, we couldn't be able to spell the word that is a synonym for nation or state. Watch -- ****ry. They used it in the article, too!

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

U all no gud. Spel shud be ez 4 all.

:)

[Bill_the_Pony]

D00d, |\/|4%b3 1 7|-|3% 03r3P #337 4$ 4 (05r$3 |\/|0r3 |{1P$ \/\/1## 3|\|r0## :jump2:

or:

Dude, Maybe if they offered l33t as a course more kids will enroll. :)


:rolleyes:

[KingVoyeur]

You know, the first thing I thought of when I saw that "simpler" spelling was a Stephen King short story where something in the water made people peaceful and complacement, but it also made them stupid, and as they got more and more dull-witted in one of the stages their speech was spelled like that before they fell into complete idiocy. Makes ya wonder....

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

We're getting this in the UK as well. Stupid language that people use in SMS messages on their cell phones is spreading. Now teachers are saying it is turning up in school work etc. A pox on anyone who thinks this is acceptable !

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Perhaps we should start using symbolic alphabets...like heiroglyphics...shouldnt be too hard, especially for the 'net culture...for instance, how many smilies do we have to choose from here at Cinescape when we post a message? One small picture representing an idea instead of using a bunch of tedious and long winded words?

[neglet]

My brain hurts. :(

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

We're getting this in the UK as well. Stupid language that people use in SMS messages on their cell phones is spreading. Now teachers are saying it is turning up in school work etc. A pox on anyone who thinks this is acceptable !

Consider that change is inevitable, and that perhaps this trend in language usage is happening for a reason. Evolution can take some strange twists and turns. Sometimes what lies ahead may seem weird or even hideous to us, but in the end it all works out for the best, as it always does.

I don't like the fad of abbreviating and conceptualizing language based on technology or neighborhood, but it is a reality so I have to deal with it. It is having to learn what a lot of these things mean that is really the problem with me. I barely have enough time to deal with my normal affairs, let alone have to add something like learning some of these contemporary communication styles.

[sickness]

Perhaps we should start using symbolic alphabets...like heiroglyphics...shouldnt be too hard, especially for the 'net culture...for instance, how many smilies do we have to choose from here at Cinescape when we post a message? One small picture representing an idea instead of using a bunch of tedious and long winded words?
Welcome back, ya big lug!

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Welcome back, ya big lug!

Thanks Sicks, nice to be home.

[southpaw]

I can't wait til the world is one HUGH McDonald's cash register screen.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Speaking of McDonalds, has anyone seen on the menuboard the statement "picture menu available on request"?

WTF? If you need a picture menu, howinhell will you be able to read that statement letting you know to request one cause you can't read?


??

[Meathead]

Fuck that...I will persist until my dying breath in spelling everything the long and complex way, and if you can't be bothered to learn how to spell the language you speak, then fuck you too. Not aimed at anyone here, aimed at the ignorant fucks out there that think that simpler spelling is the way to go.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Fuck that...I will persist until my dying breath in spelling everything the long and complex way, and if you can't be bothered to learn how to spell the language you speak, then fuck you too. Not aimed at anyone here, aimed at the ignorant fucks out there that think that simpler spelling is the way to go.

Try to remember that most of the world is populated by "ignorant fucks," in terms of the percentage of people who've had formal educations up through a high school level.

I think it is important that we all use the same language in our society, and that that language as written should be consistent. Spelling is certainly something that contributes consistency. However, language, both spoken and written, evolves over time, and it doesn't hurt to look at our written language and consider changing some things that cause some confusion.

For example, the word: "read." It can be pronounced "reed" or "red."

Another example, the word: "no." The same pronunciation exists for the word "know."

Another example, the words: "there," their," and "they're." All pronounced exactly the same.

The point I'm getting to is that I know there are times I have misinterpreted the meaning of both spoken and written language because I was confused by the use of a particular word. Perhaps we should consider making some changes to make our language more efficient and more effective at communicating an idea with absolute clarity.

I don't support making changes based on pure laziness. If you can't use your language properly, and aren't willing to make an effort to do so, then don't make some other excuses as your reason for ignoring grammar and spelling.

[Bill_the_Pony]

So their! :romy:

:o

[Metuzalem]

Speaking of McDonalds, has anyone seen on the menuboard the statement "picture menu available on request"?

WTF? If you need a picture menu, howinhell will you be able to read that statement letting you know to request one cause you can't read?


??
Dude, figure this one out: We (and I assume our North American cousins) have cash machines with Braille. Just how the fuck does a blind person read what's on the screen? :dunno:

[DaForce]

Dude, figure this one out: We (and I assume our North American cousins) have cash machines with Braille. Just how the fuck does a blind person read what's on the screen? :dunno:


Um...they having talking ATM's with headphone jacks. At least in California and Nevada.

[neglet]

What strikes me as absurd is that the people advocating "simpler spelling" of English often use the argument, "but language evolves over time!" If that's the case, then if a specific word's spelling is truly too complicated, over time it will change, rectifying the problem without the need for intervention.

The problem is, you can't make wholesale changes to the English language and expect everyone to be able to follow it. No matter at what point you choose to do it, you'll have a considerable percentage of the population who is used to the old system--people who have been using it for forty, fifty, sixty years, and who just won't get the new changes. Shit, if the American public considers it too much trouble to convert to the metric system--something that involves less than a dozen or so measurements--how in the hell can you expect them to adjust to changing hundreds of spellings? You can't. It's not going to happen.

At least not while I'm around with my nuclear grammar spanking paddle. (Which in 100 years will probably be "nukular gramer spanking padell." :tongue: )

[Bill_the_Pony]

Dude, figure this one out: We (and I assume our North American cousins) have cash machines with Braille. Just how the fuck does a blind person read what's on the screen? :dunno:

I think I've also seen drive-up Braille ATM's. :)

That explains those bumpy things on the painted lines on the road! :D

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

What strikes me as absurd is that the people advocating "simpler spelling" of English often use the argument, "but language evolves over time!" If that's the case, then if a specific word's spelling is truly too complicated, over time it will change, rectifying the problem without the need for intervention.

Think about what you've said here. You are claiming that over time, a change will occur that rectifies a problem. Ok, what is driving that change? How does it occur and when does it become apparent?

These things don't just "happen." We cause them by doing them.

However, what you are saying here, and I agree with you wholeheartedly, is that forcing change to language within an interval of time that is not sufficient to allow change without stress is a bad choice.

I remember as a child and pre-teen creating written code languages that were understood only by myself and friends (or so I believed). So what we are probably witnessing is that same behavior (creating secret codes and languages to use between yourself and your friends) being made manifest by making text messages read like "pRT 4 Evry1," for example.

All of us have some investment in seeing that our best interests, both selfish and practical, are more effectively served by facilitating communication between each other. I mean, really.

I would prefer more formality, but if that desire interferes with effective communication with someone, I must adapt as is necessary to allow myself to both understand and be understood. I do understand your point of view and am more or less in agreement. Maybe I am behaving with some irregularity by being willing to be flexible in some cases, so that the greater good might be served? It might be that isn't something most people are willing to do, for their own reasons I seem to have discovered. That doesn't make me "right" or "better," just "different." I respect your opinion and offer no argument that supersedes what you've said.

[neglet]

I would prefer more formality, but if that desire interferes with effective communication with someone, I must adapt as is necessary to allow myself to both understand and be understood. I do understand your point of view and am more or less in agreement. Maybe I am behaving with some irregularity by being willing to be flexible in some cases, so that the greater good might be served? It might be that isn't something most people are willing to do, for their own reasons I seem to have discovered. That doesn't make me "right" or "better," just "different." I respect your opinion and offer no argument that supersedes what you've said.

Yes, but who determines "the greater good" when it comes to picking out an orthographic system? How do you balance the interests of those who spent time learning the old system (and have used that system with no trouble for decades) and those who say a new system would be easier? Would you invest in money to convert the millions of books published before the change into noo-styl speling, or would you consign these works to obscurity because they would become too hard to read? It's not a question of "being flexible for the greater good," it's a question of who determines the greater good. Language evolves by itself (Americans now have color for colour, colonize instead of colonise, license instead of licence, and no one really complains about "lite" or "nite" any more), it doesn't need us mucking about trying to "fix it." It's truly the most democratic of institutions--if enough of the people (and people of all classes and backgrounds, not just the wealthy or educated) find a new spelling or a new meaning for a word, it enters the language with no help from any governing body.