Phonetic English for Better Education?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Why not? We could always change it back!!
I accept what everyone is saying here and i know that to allow children who want to, to spell things phonetically would cause examiners some difficulty. I remember having difficulty with the word 'business' which i wanted to spell as 'bisness', and as a kid it seemed and still seems effin stupid.
But i don't think the accent issue would cause such a great problem as i'm sure that most words are said the same. See how it goes, that's all i'm suggesting. Allow children to spell phonetically, and then maybe the system would lean towards this naturally. I am NOT suggesting some Orwellian nightmare of making anything illegal.
As far as other issues go. Yes, Korea did have a previous alphabet which was changed over night to a phonetic system, but it was a long time ago.
There is nothing to say that the relative sizes of countries would affect the readiness to change anything, it is just probable that more people would complain.
Yes, i would be very happy if phonetic versions of all books were printed, why not? If there is a demand then good, and some students might find them easier to read.
I see no problem with having different spellings for words, why not, we have different pronunciations. Did anyone try and read Trainspotting? That was written in part in the Scottish dialect, and why not?
As far as the text speak pretending to be phonetic speak goes Volt asked why it was missing so many sounds, and indeed it was. If it was phonetic it would have had 'be' spelt like that, not spelt 'b' which is a consonant sound with no vowel. I am not arguing for text speak here.
Just ask yourself why every child needs to learn all the words which have the different spellings for the same vowel sound, and think what better use this precious learning could be put to. Why is 'beer' and 'gear' spelt differently? Why is 's', 'z' and 'c' used indiscriminantly for the same sound and why not have one combination for the 'er' sound?
I am not suggesting making it illegal to do anything, I am merely suggesting that we stop making it wrong to spell things phonetically
Obviously there would need to be some agreed rules, and if we try and it turns out to be impossible then so be it.
I accept what everyone is saying here and i know that to allow children who want to, to spell things phonetically would cause examiners some difficulty. I remember having difficulty with the word 'business' which i wanted to spell as 'bisness', and as a kid it seemed and still seems effin stupid.
But i don't think the accent issue would cause such a great problem as i'm sure that most words are said the same. See how it goes, that's all i'm suggesting. Allow children to spell phonetically, and then maybe the system would lean towards this naturally. I am NOT suggesting some Orwellian nightmare of making anything illegal.
As far as other issues go. Yes, Korea did have a previous alphabet which was changed over night to a phonetic system, but it was a long time ago.
There is nothing to say that the relative sizes of countries would affect the readiness to change anything, it is just probable that more people would complain.
Yes, i would be very happy if phonetic versions of all books were printed, why not? If there is a demand then good, and some students might find them easier to read.
I see no problem with having different spellings for words, why not, we have different pronunciations. Did anyone try and read Trainspotting? That was written in part in the Scottish dialect, and why not?
As far as the text speak pretending to be phonetic speak goes Volt asked why it was missing so many sounds, and indeed it was. If it was phonetic it would have had 'be' spelt like that, not spelt 'b' which is a consonant sound with no vowel. I am not arguing for text speak here.
Just ask yourself why every child needs to learn all the words which have the different spellings for the same vowel sound, and think what better use this precious learning could be put to. Why is 'beer' and 'gear' spelt differently? Why is 's', 'z' and 'c' used indiscriminantly for the same sound and why not have one combination for the 'er' sound?
I am not suggesting making it illegal to do anything, I am merely suggesting that we stop making it wrong to spell things phonetically
Obviously there would need to be some agreed rules, and if we try and it turns out to be impossible then so be it.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden,
Ov manz furst disobeediens, and the froot
Ov that forbidden tree hooz mortal tayst
bort def into the wurld, and all r wo
Wiv loss ov Eden.
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Aprill iz the croolest munf, breeding
Lylaks owt ov the ded land,miksing
Memoree and desyah, stirring
dull rootz wiv spring rayn
Yup, I can see the improvements phonetic English would bring to the written word.
I did attempt this with the first verse of V but it was too depressing to brutalise the language so much.
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden,
Ov manz furst disobeediens, and the froot
Ov that forbidden tree hooz mortal tayst
bort def into the wurld, and all r wo
Wiv loss ov Eden.
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Aprill iz the croolest munf, breeding
Lylaks owt ov the ded land,miksing
Memoree and desyah, stirring
dull rootz wiv spring rayn
Yup, I can see the improvements phonetic English would bring to the written word.
I did attempt this with the first verse of V but it was too depressing to brutalise the language so much.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, and do you know something? It was written by someone with an outstanding command of the written English langauge. Iain M Banks does it in 'Feesum Enjinn' with one of his characters too - but it requires the knowledge of how the language works to make such examples work so effectively.
Because 'beer' is said flat, whereas when you say 'gear' you slightly raise your intonation to say 'ge-ah'
Why not spell it as 'bizniz' instead?
This is the biggest load of toss of a thread I've read for a long time; and one which has really got me riled as well. On so many levels I think this is a bollocks idea.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
One way of doing it would be to persuade all manufacturers of keyboards and mobile phones to only use the phonetic alphabet on their products. And get all the US media to use it in their newspapers, magazines and on television. And to persuade all publisher's to start using it. Of course, for the first few years their profits would plummet, but I'm sure their inherently altruistic natures would make them see that education is more important than making money. Meanwhile, returning home from that parallel universe...
You are spot on Gmarfuse. People are disagreeing with you because they lack vision and just want to keep the masses down.
I mean sure at the moment we can communicate using a commonly accepted language so we can both understand the other person's ideas but where's the fun in that? It would be much better with dozens of regional languages all taught and marked separately. Let's not forget the fact that language changes over time and with every new word instead of having one accepted spelling we would have many completely different ones but that would only add to the fun that is the confusing bullshit of a phonetic language.
In fact why stop with just changing words to make them simpler. I mean people say great and exciting and brilliant to mean varying degrees of how good something is so why don't we just have good, gooder and goodest! If we did that with all the words no-one could ever fail a spelling test!
I mean sure at the moment we can communicate using a commonly accepted language so we can both understand the other person's ideas but where's the fun in that? It would be much better with dozens of regional languages all taught and marked separately. Let's not forget the fact that language changes over time and with every new word instead of having one accepted spelling we would have many completely different ones but that would only add to the fun that is the confusing bullshit of a phonetic language.
In fact why stop with just changing words to make them simpler. I mean people say great and exciting and brilliant to mean varying degrees of how good something is so why don't we just have good, gooder and goodest! If we did that with all the words no-one could ever fail a spelling test!
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
scifisam said:@LilMiss - it's not just the schools I was in, it was the teacher training course. There were hundreds of teachers there learning to teach using phonics. Teacher training courses are (to an extent) standardised across the country. Of course, I only know what teacher training for primary was like 6 years ago - it could be that teachers trained before that time, but after the 60s, didn't learn to teach using phonics. Two of the most popular early reading schemes are RML (Ruth Miskin Literacy), and the related Read Write scheme, and they teach phonetically. I guess perhaps your LEA hasn't taken that up. Many of the 100 most frequent words cannot be taught phonetically, (which ties in with the arguments of those who do want a phonetic language), but simple memorisation shouldn't be the main teaching tool for them. I'm sorry to hear your children haven't been getting the kind of teaching they need.
Ive Never ever heard of either and my kids have attended 4 schools in 2 seperate LEAs
I use a parenting website too and nobody has ever mentioned them there either
The most popular one seems to be oxford reading tree which is memorisation and familarisation based. If theywere as popular as you say Im sure they would be being talked about??
Unfortunately given my experience I have to doubt what you are saying to be true across the country. It may well be true in your experience but it ertainly isnt mine and RML and read and write are, as faras Im aware completely unheard of amongst the parents I know
Yu_Gi_Oh
天天好心情
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_script
For all of you with concerens, why not have a look at how a new script can be introduced and work.
For all of you with concerens, why not have a look at how a new script can be introduced and work.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Was thinking about this again coz of this article.
We have thrashed this out a few times here and I concede that it would be difficult and that some people feel that we would lose out on the aesthetic look of the language, but perhaps only making the consonants consistent would be a good compromise. Accents seem to be based round the vowels anyway, and the consonants don't change so much.
This would also cut down on the amount of rote learning a child would need for spelling, thus enabling learning elsewhere.
We have thrashed this out a few times here and I concede that it would be difficult and that some people feel that we would lose out on the aesthetic look of the language, but perhaps only making the consonants consistent would be a good compromise. Accents seem to be based round the vowels anyway, and the consonants don't change so much.
This would also cut down on the amount of rote learning a child would need for spelling, thus enabling learning elsewhere.
It will never happen, because of the employment and work thing.
I meen, if I got a leter from, say, a bank, or my loryer, riten in fonetik or txtspk, i wood not b imprest. and alot ov peeple woodnt giv a job 2 sumwon hoo rote a leter or applicashun form like dis eever.
No-one would take people seriously if they wrote like that in a work environment.
Giles..
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Shows that you can't write phonetically even when you try. Impressed has a 'd' on the end not a 't'. And 'this' has a 'th' and 'either' would be the same too. You are trying to make it look wors than it wood be.
It wood be an evolushion, over yearz. I am not stopping people from spelling, I am extending the freedom to spell it phonetically if you wish.
Az far az Scifisam goez, I am interested in the subject, and if you are not, then there are plenty of other discushionz which mite be more suitable for you...
scifisam
deleted
Actually, impressed does end in a t sound, and, in many accents, the 'th' in either is pronounced v, and the 'th' in the is pronounced d. It was a pretty good stab at phonetic writing, as it happens. It just wasn't in your own accent, so it looked wrong to you. Which, yet again, is one of the main reasons a completely phonetic language wouldn't work.
If you're really interested in the subject, try to think up some actual arguments for it.
The big problem would be one of where to start.
Presumably you would start with schoolkids, but you would then have the problem of what would happen when the first kids to have been taught like this applied for jobs, college courses etc.
They would be (justifiably, IMO) discriminated against by employers, who would look at their applications and rule them out of any job where writing was required.
And then because of that, parents wouldn't want their kids to be the first to be taught this way because they would know that their kids would then be disadvantaged in work life.
I cannot see any way around this.
Giles..
Presumably you would start with schoolkids, but you would then have the problem of what would happen when the first kids to have been taught like this applied for jobs, college courses etc.
They would be (justifiably, IMO) discriminated against by employers, who would look at their applications and rule them out of any job where writing was required.
And then because of that, parents wouldn't want their kids to be the first to be taught this way because they would know that their kids would then be disadvantaged in work life.
I cannot see any way around this.
Giles..
When the pupils got into the real world, they'd be in a whole world of fail unless they can spell properly.
NB all the Koreans that I've come into contact with seem to have no difficulty with English spelling (as a second language) so why should we make any allowances for UK kids?
This idea would create lot of employment. Everything that is written in English in the whole world ever, would have to be transcribed into the new phonetic lanuage. Otherwise the rising generation would not be able to read it.
A similar argument is used against Esperanto. It sounds a great idea a language made up from a mixture of European languages so that it would be easier for all members of the countries of Europe to communicate because they would have learned a common language. There would be no continuity with past literature of any of these countries because there is no literature already written in Esperanto and it would all have to be translated.
"
For every complex idea there is a simple answer that is wrong" I think that phonetic spelling falls into this category.
Phonics for learning reading is however indispensible. As far as I know that is the accepted method of teaching English in the National Curriculum as inspected by Ofsted. In recent years the government has talked about bringing it back as if it had gone away. I think mostly it has been used continuously as part of the teaching method.
There has been a clash of ideas between those who favour reading schemes with books having set vocabularies in different levels of difficulty as against those who advocate using 'real books' for learning.
I heard the late Professor Ted Wragg on this topic once. He said that a journalist had called him up asking which side of the fence he was on this issue. Ted Wragg refused to take sides. When the journalist pressed his question Professor Wragg asked him for help he had with a current problem. He said he was writing a book on eating. He asked the journalist if he could say whether or not it was better to eat with a knife or a fork.
As for dyslexics, changing the spelling to a phonetic (fonetik) system would not help them with their particular visual perception problems with letter recognition and sometime tendency to confuse symmetrically opposed letters like b and d.
A similar argument is used against Esperanto. It sounds a great idea a language made up from a mixture of European languages so that it would be easier for all members of the countries of Europe to communicate because they would have learned a common language. There would be no continuity with past literature of any of these countries because there is no literature already written in Esperanto and it would all have to be translated.
"
For every complex idea there is a simple answer that is wrong" I think that phonetic spelling falls into this category.
Phonics for learning reading is however indispensible. As far as I know that is the accepted method of teaching English in the National Curriculum as inspected by Ofsted. In recent years the government has talked about bringing it back as if it had gone away. I think mostly it has been used continuously as part of the teaching method.
There has been a clash of ideas between those who favour reading schemes with books having set vocabularies in different levels of difficulty as against those who advocate using 'real books' for learning.
I heard the late Professor Ted Wragg on this topic once. He said that a journalist had called him up asking which side of the fence he was on this issue. Ted Wragg refused to take sides. When the journalist pressed his question Professor Wragg asked him for help he had with a current problem. He said he was writing a book on eating. He asked the journalist if he could say whether or not it was better to eat with a knife or a fork.
As for dyslexics, changing the spelling to a phonetic (fonetik) system would not help them with their particular visual perception problems with letter recognition and sometime tendency to confuse symmetrically opposed letters like b and d.
Spelling reform would happen gradually, as in other countries, not all at once, over night, a few words here, a few letters chopped off there and both spellings, the new improoved and the Traditional, would be acceptable, and the moritorium would about 70 years.
for example it could go something like this:
(The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign)
First bunch of changes: get rid of all unnecessary 'e's, like in have becomes "hav", achievement (becomes achievment), "themselves" (becomes -themselvs), serves- (becomes "servs) "leaves" (becomes -leavs)- give (becomes giv) axe becomes ax, are becomes ar, plus groups of words that end in the suffix, "tive", as in active, relative etc. plus
opposit, doctrin, examin, famin, infinit, definit and believ. None of those new words ar difficult to read.
then twenty years later another type of change.
for example it could go something like this:
(The Unnecessary 'e's Campaign)
First bunch of changes: get rid of all unnecessary 'e's, like in have becomes "hav", achievement (becomes achievment), "themselves" (becomes -themselvs), serves- (becomes "servs) "leaves" (becomes -leavs)- give (becomes giv) axe becomes ax, are becomes ar, plus groups of words that end in the suffix, "tive", as in active, relative etc. plus
opposit, doctrin, examin, famin, infinit, definit and believ. None of those new words ar difficult to read.
then twenty years later another type of change.
Heteronyms:
1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3.The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Do you know what a buck does to does?
With every number I read, my mind gets number and number.
After having a row, the couple went out on the river to row.
I like to read. In fact, I read a book yesterday.
1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3.The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Do you know what a buck does to does?
With every number I read, my mind gets number and number.
After having a row, the couple went out on the river to row.
I like to read. In fact, I read a book yesterday.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Nope, they're close rhymes the way I say them. Beerrrr, and geerrr.
To answer the OP, there'd be so many different spellings it'd be very confusing. My phonetics would have rs at the ends of words, kyser's wouldn't (except where they don't exist in my accent, like lawr). My spellings would have hs in why, where, what, whether. Many people's wouldn't. And so on.
The argument for standardised spellings is that we, for example, know what is meant by they're, there or their. A phonetic rendering would create ambiguity. And when I write whether, you know I don't mean weather. I pronounce them differently, but some people do not. A standardised system ensures that meaning is maintained however the reader and/or writer would pronounce the words.
That doesn't mean I think there should never be updatings. Just as spoken English evolves, so should written English. Not faddishly, to include the latest catchphrase, such as "whatevvuh", but sensibly, to remove unnecessary archaisms and complications.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Bugger. I didn't realise this was an old thread.
JHE
.
It's true that English spelling is a bit of a bugger, but I think any thoroughgoing reform is probably a non-starter.
Some questions for reformers:
English is spoken with many accents. Assuming that you want English to have pretty much just one written form, which accent are you going to choose to represent when you devise your phonetic spellings?
Are you going to revise spellings every ten or twenty years to keep up with any changes in pronunciation that have caught on in the meantime? (If you are, again the question arises of whose pronunciation to map.)
Are you going to leave everything written before the Great Spelling Reform in the old spellings which before long will be largely inaccessible to people brought up after the GSR or are you going to try to transliterate everything in English to the reformed orthography?
If you choose to convert all previous English into the reformed orthography and think the effort worthwhile, do you not mind losing the evident connections with the words' origins, for example, words taken straight from French?
Some questions for reformers:
English is spoken with many accents. Assuming that you want English to have pretty much just one written form, which accent are you going to choose to represent when you devise your phonetic spellings?
Are you going to revise spellings every ten or twenty years to keep up with any changes in pronunciation that have caught on in the meantime? (If you are, again the question arises of whose pronunciation to map.)
Are you going to leave everything written before the Great Spelling Reform in the old spellings which before long will be largely inaccessible to people brought up after the GSR or are you going to try to transliterate everything in English to the reformed orthography?
If you choose to convert all previous English into the reformed orthography and think the effort worthwhile, do you not mind losing the evident connections with the words' origins, for example, words taken straight from French?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The 'correct' form would need to be based on numbers - so Queen's English - but that is not to say that different regions could not have their own versions.
I was reading Pepys' diary from the 17th century not so long ago - and he spelt 'cousin' as 'cuzen' which shows a great deal of sense on the one hand and on the other that pronunciation doesn't change that much. We could leave it to the OED or another institution if needs be to come up with the basic spellings.
Gradually I would see everything to move towards a more phonetic form because it would be easier to teach literacy that way - freeing up time in education where we could teach other things. But it would take a long time - best to start with the obvious ones such as 'through' and to move on to the vowel sounds later.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Do you mean RP? Because, there's surely very few who speak like the Queen. I'd be surprised if a small city like Bristol couldn't beat them for numbers.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I prefer a language that evolves naturally and is compiled backwards, rather than an institution deciding on what's allowed and what is not. Yo know the acadamie fracais thing right? the largely ignored body that issues edicts on what is and isn't proper french words?
JHE
.
If it were decided by numbers, the accent chosen would not be a British one at all. It would be an American one.
Whichever set of pronunciations were chosen, there would be many more people (the aggregate of all other accent users) who would not find their spoken form well represented in the new spellings.
We could, I suppose, opt for many many many many different written forms of English, but that would rather detract from the current great advantage of being able to read and write English!
Indeed.
English is a fascinating language precisely because it doesn't have some hidebound body dictating what is and isn't English, which leaves it free to borrow words and influences from all over. That's why (IIRC) French contains about 100,000 words and English nearer a million.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Similar threads
