Is Their A Sertain Logic To This News Storie?

[sp1814]

When I beggan reeding this artical, I inittially thought, "stupid idea"...but perhaps their is a logic in alowing sertain comonly mis-spelled words into the dictionery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7546975.stm

Good idear or bad idear?

[andrea81]

Many words in the English Dictionary were spelt differently but have changed over time to accomodate modern times i.e. long words were cut down to be printed for newspapers (not sure which ones, but I did a study at Uni on this!)

This is no different!

[Quizmonster]

Spelling should be left exactly the way it is, other than whatever �natural' changes - accepted by the majority of users - may occur to it over time. Under no circumstances should it be deliberately �simplified' or otherwise tampered with.

Why? Because only the ignorant think words are just sounds. On the contrary, they have an origin, a meaning, a history and a development. 'Yacht', for example, comes from a Dutch word 'jaghtschip' or 'jachtschip' - where the 'j' is pronounced 'y' and the 'gh/ch' is pronounced as in Johann Sebastian Bach - meaning a ship for hunting/chasing. (In fact, in the north-east of Scotland, yacht is still amongst sea-going folk pronounced in exactly the same way as it was in the old Dutch word.) If we spelt it 'yot' - which is roughly how it sounds - that whole linguistic, cultural, geographical and historical association would be lost to future generations.

The ee-sound can be spelt as in: seem, team, convene, sardine, protein, fiend, people, he, key, ski, debris and quay. There are eleven ways of pronouncing ough in British speech, though only eight in �standard' English. There are also eleven ways of saying the sound represented by a, as in age, bad, bath, about, beat, many, aisle, coat, ball, beauty and cauliflower. In my view, long may these and similar anomalies exist! They're full of meaning which should not be dumbed down.

Under any simplified system, we would be unable to distinguish aisle, isle, I'll or sew, sow, so or aye, eye, I or flew, flu, flue or a lot of other homophones. It's bad enough that such nonsense is widespread in text messaging. "CUL8R"...I ask you!

[tubeway]

And why dont we take up writing in ita (initial teaching alphabet) that some of us learned in the 1960s as that is even easier.

Look here if you dont remember http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1523708.stm

[EngTeach]

Tubeway I learned to read this way (ita) in the 70's and had no problems. My brother is dyslexic and this caused a lot of problems for him.

As for the main topic, I think this is a slippery slope. There are changes that occur naturally in language, but to accept bad spelling for the sake of bad spelling is not a good idea. I blame the schools for abandoning grammar, phonics and spelling programs in favor of whole language learning to be at fault.

[jno]

I'm not so sure, Quizmonster. The fact that the spelling of some words reflects a 14th century dialect doesn't necessarily mean we should keep it. The spelling of words like 'scissors' and 'island' was just a mistake, as the C and the S were deliberately but wrongly introduced. Dr Johnson's dictionary spells 'receipt' with a P and 'deceit' without one - illogical, and I presume done by accident, but now we seem to be stuck with them. I don't see why they shouldn't be changed, though, And although it can be useful to distinguish between homophones, it often doesn't actually matter in practice.

This isn't a plea for illiteracy to be given its head; but I have no complaints when Americans decide that program is better than programme or jail is clearer than gaol. Obviously, though, broad consensus is needed for such changes to be accepted: even 'thru' never became good American, though I believe dictionaries promoted its use.

[Quizmonster]

I don't have any problem with Americans writing program or jail either, J. Why? Because they are "accepted by the majority of (American) users", as stated in my earlier response. You yourself use the phrase "broad consensus".
Thus - despite historical 'mistakes' - there simply is no general feeling among the educated British public that such changes as are proposed should take place.
You mentioned Johnson's dictionary, the then 'authority'', and my opinion is that - until The Oxford English Dictionary okays a spelling variant - it remains unacceptable now. End of.

[Lucy Thomas]

It seems that the problem of illiteracy is being tackled from the wrong end. Instead of dumbing down to suit the stupid, schools should ensure that every pupil has a good grasp of written English.

I maintain that good English is a good measure of intelligence. If you deal with job applications then you can get a good idea of how intelligent that person is even before you meet them, depending on the quality of their spelling and grammar. Also, if you are a lazy writer then you are probably lazy in general.

I am appalled that this has even been suggested.

[andrea81]

I have to agree Leg.

It doesn't take a genius to spell check and many do to make an application form or CV look good, but their ability to do a job isn't guaranteed by good spelling!

Some people generally have bad spelling for various reasons i.e. not their first language or dyslexic! I'm testament to that but I consider myself to be intelligent! I�m a graduate for a start and have been a bad speller all my life and worked hard to get it right, but I�m still rubbish!

[Avatar]

Crap idea bit if they're gonna do it, hopefully "loose" instead of "lose" and "of" instead of "have" can be entered to try and educate the thick gits of the internet age.

[Lucy Thomas]

Many employers request that the application form is handwritten to check the applicant's literacy. Yes, you could copy it into a document and check it but very few people would do that.

An ability to spell correctly is not usually a requirement for many jobs but it does prove a certain intelligence. Slovenly grammar usually means a slovenly attitude in general.

[1rovert]

There was programme on the TV the other night about this subject. A woman who trained lawyers, said that writing some of the 'new' words in legal documents, could give an entirely different meaning.
Personally I believe foreign learners of English, would find it Impossible to understand, and I do not think it right to make things easier for those who are too lazy to learn. I left school in 1949, and I wasn't very clever. In 1997, I went to college, and passed an access course. In this day and age, there is a great deal of help, given to those who want to learn, and a great deal of money, is wasted on those who don't.

[littleoldme]

Yes, of course. Let's completely change our language and rip up our dictionaries. Hey, spell things however you want. Then English teachers will be free for ever from the tyrannical burden of...erm...doing their jobs properly.