1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Aren't spelling fascists actually spelling anarchists?

Discussion in 'English' started by inky, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    Not blooming likely - you have to join some google blog thing.
     
  2. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    you could at least credit me for my thicko loser comment. (which has an intellectual honesty that your comedy spelling reform spamming utterly fails to match). Having claimed ownership I shall push off, chortling at the idea that your ludicrous spellings would save money or create anything other than an underclass defined by its education. You are deluded.
     
  3. What is ridiculous are replies that are totally unsubstantiated, Gruoch!! For a Grade 4 studen, you are doing well! :)
     
  4. Oh! Here is the full text!
    "

    "Spelling
    fascists" (the ones who correct or ridicule people who make spelling
    errors) are in fact (if one really thinks about it long enough)
    "spelling anarchists", who are making all the spelling errors,
    continually destroying "the system" (the spelling system) and forcing
    others to disrespect the 91 spelling rules of English like them! Ironic,
    isn't it? Why are they not respecting those 91 spelling rules? Email
    them this post!







    Yes! You read well!
    "Spelling anarchists" not only misspell when they ask others to "spell
    it right", but they want everyone else to do so too * ! Isn't ironic
    that the "spelling fascists" (SF) are --in fact-- "spelling anarchists"
    (SA)! They are the ones forcing everyone to break down the system, to
    misspell those words that could be spelled phonetically, spoiling what
    is an otherwise beautiful system? Why is there a concerted effort by the
    prescriptivists to be and act as "de-scriptivists", as anarchists,
    because kids and learners --and people in general-- across the
    Commonwealth are wasting their time and money being sold a defective
    good: the current English spelling system with all its irregularities?
    After all, it is not exactly breaking news that English spelling has the
    worst phonemicity of all Western languages, retarding kids (literally)
    --disabling and labelling them as such-- and retarding learning by 3
    years on average! It is the language that is disabled ... and disabling!
    Not the kids! No wonder "those young people" don't know anything, but
    they know that the English spelling system is amiss, a mess, a
    monstrosity. No wonder they appear rebellious or lost at an early age
    while the "spelling police", AKA the SA (better known as SF), exert
    their might on them. WOW! The anarchists and the police in bed with each
    other. Who would have ever thought that this could be possible? Young
    learners want to conform ... to those spelling rules. They also want the
    anarcho-police to conform to those rules too! While English has a
    relatively easy grammar, its spelling needs to be regularized and
    regulated. Anyone arguing the opposite is THE anarchist! To that end, a
    Commonwealth committee or academy should be formed at once to make all
    the de facto "spelling anarchists" happy because everyone will finally
    be spelling words the way they really should be spelled: phonetically!








    For a much more comprehensive exposé on the matter of spelling, I invite readers to go to http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/."
     
  5. Isn't funny that those people who nclaim to be sophisiticated are anything but? You do know that in a debate you must give arguments, use logic, or give examples to win points. Seeing none, you lose! Delision? Ludicrous? Can you do better than 2 unsubtantiated sentences next time? [​IMG]

     
  6. It is because of current ludicrous spellings like
    said, head, friend, any, many....
    that we have an underclass defined by its lack of education.
     
  7. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    the underclass is defined by its lack of self respect and it does not value education. Dumbing down the entire language to meet the needs of those that can't be ***** to take their pyjamas off when delivering their kids to the school gate is pointless, condescending, and probably counter-productive.
    Not paying benefits or child allowance to the unemployed beyond a single child and getting rid of children's TV is far more likely to impact literacy. And they would be politically simpler than trying to homologate a global language.
    Do you have the slightest clue how we would homologate a global language? I don't.
    Why don't you run me through the process you envisage?

    Your idea is cloud cuckoo land until you can map out an implementation path.
    I don't know why I bother....
     
  8. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    ...wonders what created the underclass in Spain.
     
  9. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    reform-english If you and masha breed will you teach your kids to spell?
     
  10. I can do that, but not in just a couple of sentences.
    It also involves u having to look at the words which cause reading and spelling difficulties.
    It would be utterly pointless to debate this with someone who thinks that learning to read and write English is no more difficult than in languages with simpler spelling systems, that there is a difficulty which deserves a solution.
    Do u agree that the 67 words with variant spellings for e (e.g. any, many, friend.... u can see the rest on my blog, if u are really interested)
    make learning to read and write more difficult than they would do if spelt with e?
    If u don't, then trying to explain to u how reform might come about, would be utterly pointless.

     
  11. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    http://www.hearingdirect.com/
     
  12. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    I don't care for your idea. I like the language as it is. If we assumed there would be a benefit (worthwhile or not) and we wanted to implement a change how would we do it?
    First off, how would it be enforced?

     
  13. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    She ain't deaf she's my brother.
     
  14. I like the language too, just not the way it is spelt in some words.
    That is not just an assumption. There is evidence for it:
    http://improvingenglishspelling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/spelling-reform-would-make-difference.html
    If
    Let's assume there has been a public debate about it and a substantial number of people got together and identified somewhere between 1-5 really worthwhile groups of changes, such as making the spelling of short e more consistent.
    This would require no enforcing. It would simply be a matter of suggesting permissible more sensible alternative spellings to certain groups of irregular spellings currently enshrined in dictionaries, as happened with ph for the /f/ sound in Germany in the 60s. (Those who wanted to could adopt it, others carried on using ph. Now everyone uses f.)
    It would not be going back to the complete spelling freedom of England in the 16th C (when Shakespeare wrote), just permission to disobey dictionary dictates for some spellings.
     
  15. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    ITA was problematic from the start. Firstly, you have to question the morality of such an experiment where the outcomes were not predictable and many children were being used as an experiment.. It happened that many children's reading was crippled when they came to transfer to reading normal English.

    The scheme suffered all the problems of the 'Hawthorne Effect', with people being enthusiastic and full of the scheme. The Hawthorne effect was not well understood at the time. The scheme was driven by ideology rather than as a trial.

    There was no commitment to provide a range of reading resources nor the economic wherewithal to do it. Why should publishers take the chance?

    The available statistics were sporadic, overstating positives and understating or not mentioning negatives. They are not valid statistics by todays standards.

    Simple things like writing to friends and relatives, which was much more common at the time, became almost impossible.

    Parents were generally unable to read with their children. Reading became the property of the schools.

    It was a disaster of monumental proportions, leaving many children handicapped in their reading and a determination that such things should not be imposed again.
     
  16. Lurk, First thank you for being open to the idea of improving matters, no matter how faint that idea might be! :) You raise some good points, but phasing-in a regularized English spelling system in schools for 15 years using the existing spelling rules, minus the tens of thousands of exceptions (arguably a better system), starting in 2020, should give institutions a lot of time to prepare for the change (again, I insist that you will not be required to learn the new system, as there would ne no need since you know the present system). That's almost a 1/4 of a century! After all, institutions and their leaders) often expect of their workers to absorb "paradigm shifts" at a much faster rate than that! It is my experience that they expect "progress', "change" to take place in as little time as it is possible, usually days or months! While it is true that this kind of change over continents, involving institutions and governments and billions of people is not exactly similar, again we would give them about 25 years to make the change. Let's keep in mind that the change, on a linguistically level, is rather simple. We are just removing all the elements that don't conform to the rules. We are, I repeat, making the language a better and a purer language. With the digitization of most texts now, the operation of transcoding could not be easier. Surely, you could not possibly be opposed to the idea of making all English words adhere to the existing English spelling rules, removing all those flaws and unruly irregularities? Those underclass elements of the language? :)

    You use provocative words like "underclass", to give more panache to your replies! Whether or not you are creating a persona to appear more than who you are or you feel that you are indeed part of a higher stratum, your claim that people of lower classes are lazy and incapable is unfounded. You know it and everybody does. Stop pretending others will fall for that one. We --and the readers on this forum-- are not stupid!

    Lurk, so that we are clear, what is your real name, your real photo, your real experience in this domain and what are your real credentials? Are you really of the upper-class or are you just pretending to be? Surely, someone of your pedigree would not demean others like you do! That would be classless! :)

    BTW, all the questions that you could possibly be wondering about are answered on my blog (or in Masha's books and blogs)! As a member of that superior class, always searching for knowledge and always interested in bettering yourself --unlike those underclasse-- I am sure that you would rejoice in bettering yourself and learning like upper-classes do! :)
     
  17. gruoch

    gruoch Established commenter

    I think you'll find it was masha who used that first.
     
  18. Thank you for your reply! I have a faint understading of what the ITA intiative was about, but this is not about ITA! This is not about the ITA intiaitve at all !
    Masha and I are suggesting that, at last, we write English like it was meant to be, using the 91 spelling rules of English for all English words! Surely you expect kids to follow rules! Right? Well! That is what we are suggesting they do! Are you against that?

     
  19. Think harder!
     
  20. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    In the real world it is almost certain that the 'upper classes' would learn English as it is now to allow access the everything preexisting. The dumbed down version would be reserved for the 'underclass' who would be even more disadvantaged than before.

    Parallel systems are the worst possible outcome. The Turkish reform created a system of two similar languages with oral idioms for their 'underclass' and written and oral ones for their 'upper class'.
    Relatively minor changes like weights and measures in the UK have required a parallel system which still operates. Racing in the UK still operates in furlongs and the betting system survives around the guinea and the half crown. There are countless examples.

    These changes are far from trivial. They would make literature inaccessible to people who didn't know one or other system. Authors are not about to learn what is essentially a new language to write their books in. Who will decide what 'old' books would survive?

    Who decides on the 'correct' 'accent' correlation for a word? At present it doesn't matter because the language is the one we have inherited so we accept it.

    The whole idea is so poorly thought out as to be ridiculous. It could only happen under a Stalin or Franco.

    It cannot happen anyway and Masha's tens of thousands of promotional posts across many forums can be seen to only annoy people who are content with what they have.
     

Share This Page