1 « 11 12  14 15 16 19
When Josh spelled "San Jose" as "San Jozay", he showed ... /eI/ at the end of a word was usually "ay".

I wondered how he internalised the use of 'j' rather than 'h'.

He understands "initials", watches a lot of sports, and knows that San Jose is "SJ". But I was surprised that he remembered.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >between what one usually considersPalo Alto, CA 94304 >a 'difficult' problem, and what
You mean the sexual mores were diff... Oh, that sort ... who employed a maid before. Did you have footmen too?

No, and we didn't have a car either. The apartment had a maid's room off the kitchen, so we just ... my laundry. Anyway, my dad (a lawyer, working for the government) was doing quite well until the communists took over.

Rob Bannister
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
The spellings used by texters is an example.

"The spellings ... is ..." is correct here?


Rob Bannister
True - I've had quite a lot of native speakers in my French classes over the years. The ones from Mauritius and Reunion were the worst. Germans don't do badly apart from the das/dass thing, although I had one fluent speaker (born in Australia of German parents) whose spelling was unbelievable.

Rob Bannister
And how do you pronounce the "a" in "laf"?

I pronounce it the same as the "al" in "half". Don't you?
To say the people are going to laf at the ... "L-A-F" is listed as a correct spelling in the dictionary.

But it won't be. Because people don't spell it that way, and dictionaries report what people actually do, not what someone thinks they should do.

However, were a spelling reform to be accepted by large numbers of people wouldn't that lead the dictionary publishers to list the new spelling? Even if they were to list proposed reforms in a separate section that would be a step in the right direction. That may, in fact, be a proper first step in a good reform.
Catch my drift?

Of course. And it's directly toward the falls.

I love your sense of humor! I really do.
The "l-a-u-g-h" spelling becomes the archaic, less preferred spelling as time progresses if people accept the change.

But they won't. The Chicago Tribune and the highway departments have pushed "thru" for decades, and, a few nuts aside, ... There's no gain in it and plenty of risk. Just mention it to some senior official and watch him Quayle.

I know what you're saying. It has to be supported by linguists and educators on a pretty large scale before politicians will be convinced. That is probably the right way to get it done anyhow. "Thru", though you're trying to use it as a negative example, is actually a great example of a successful spelling reform. "Thru" is listed as a proper, alternate spelling of "through" in The American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. You say nobody uses it and that the dictionaries won't list it unless people are using it. Looks like the facts may be contradicting your assertions in this case.
Do you use the old spelling "olde" instead of "old"? ... say not too many people argue over that one anymore.

If a spelling changes naturally, it changes. The mossbacks object for a while, but eventually everyone falls in line. This has nothing to do with an attempt to impose new spellings from above. Nothing.

I don't know. I guess I was relating it as an obvious example of a spelling that has successfully been reformed. I'm not personally advocating the imposition of new spellings from above. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that broad consensus of the need for change and broad acceptance of any change would both be necessary for any revision to be effective. In my opinion, a good reform wouldn't need to be "imposed" at all, but someone haa to make the first move if positive changes are to ever take place. Who do you think that should be? Of course, it sounds like you might be opposed to any English spelling reform at all, but if reform was justified how would you go about implementing it?
Modernizing will never destroy our accessibility to the old stuff.

Ever read Beowulf? Also, you've used "accessibility" bass-ackwards; the issue is the accessibility of the old stuff to us.

Thanks for that. I knew there was something wrong with my wording there, but I couldn't figure it out.
(1) I do not accept "hiccough" as a proper spelling of "hiccup." And I don't care to debate this. It's an article of faith.

I agree, no debate necessary from my point of view. See how easy this can be if we just use logic? Emotion: smile
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
No one has yet mentioned the failed spelling reform during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt:
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt also promoted simpler spellings. Initially, he ordered the Government Printing Office to use the Simplified Spelling Board's 300 or so proposed spellings. This order was issued on August 27, 1906 (while the U.S. Congress was in recess). There was resistance from the Government Printing Office and others who were to carry it out, and when Congress readjourned that fall, they set to revoke Roosevelt's order. From Ken Ives' documentation (his source for this is "Our Times," Volume 3, by Mark Sullivan, Scribner, 1937), we find:

Congress ... voted, 142 to 24, that "no money appropriated in this act shall be used (for) printing documents ... unless same shall conform to the orthography ... in ... generally accepted dictionaries."

Thus, it ended up that simplified spellings were used only in written items coming from the White House itself, and at that, only 12 were used.

(end quote)
Some dictionaries of around that time did give simplified spellings.The Century Dictionary of 1895, for example, gives "catalog" as "A recent spelling of catalogue. " And its 1909 supplement lists several reformed spellings: "missil," for example, is identified as "A simplified spelling of missile. " I have seen a dictionary of around that time which had a page listing the simplified spellings which had recently been proposed. It may have been a later edition of the Century, or it may have been an old Funk & Wagnalls, the publisher of which, according to
included in its larger dictionaries a list of revised spellings proposed by the Simplified Spelling Board, and did so until sometime in the 1950s.

I don't consider this to be strictly out of bounds for descriptive dictionaries. Identifying a word as having been proposed as a simplified spelling by the Simplified Spelling Board, the National Education Association, or some other such organization is, after all, a type of reporting. This is not a betrayal of their mission, in my opinion, as long as they don't identify such novel spellings as being standard when they are still nonstandard.
Nevertheless, I expect that the metric system to be fully adopted by Americans before any simplified spelling proposal succeeds.

In other words, if we want to make efforts to improve society, we would do well to direct our efforts towards something else.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
And yet... Isn't the desire to group all of these into one, so that it can be compared with other spelling groups such as telegraph spellings or telegram spellings? Assuming this, should it be:
"The set of spellings used by texters is an example"? or is there a more natural and acceptable way?
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
I pronounce it the same as the "al" in "half". ... fact, be a proper first step in a good reform.

No one has yet mentioned the failed spelling reform during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt: From http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/histsp.html (quote) U.S. President ... if we want to make efforts to improve society, we would do well to direct our efforts towards something else.

I'm aware of this account. I believe this shows that spelling reform isn't easily accomplished. That doesn't mean that it's impossible and unneccessary. I'd say the problem with this failed attempt was that it was imposed from above rather than following a process that would seek to garner broad-based grass-roots support. I think the latter is the only approach that could hope to have any significant impact.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
And German recently, to add some more peanuts. Dutch still ... has been an ongoing effort for over a hundred years,

Why is it taking so long? Surely, if it is taking centuries, it would be easier to just let the changes happen naturally on the same sort of time scale.

Evolution of Dutch is at least 10 times faster than English,

Show more