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. You know what is nuts, it is YOUR STUPID SPELLING SYSTEM (and YOU wanting to keep it like it is)!

    So, since you are so smart, why do you like to keep all of those glaring errors in the English spelling system?
    Can I phone John Cleese? He is looking for material! :)

  2. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    Just one thing old chap. This forum is for the discussion of English and its teaching. The usually contributors are pretty fed up with delusional rants about the conspiracy to deprive folk of the opportunity to read and write gobbledegook. I think it should move to a more appropriate forum. Opinion seems to be a better bet.

    I understand that John Cleese writes in English, so not much hope for you there.
  3. WHAT? "This forum is for the discussion of English and teaching ..." DUH! Maybe you should pay heed to your own advice! I am talking about English and I am talking about teaching!
    I am a teacher and I teach English? WIth many years of experience!
    Where are your credentials?
    How many years of teaching experience?
    How many languages do you speak?

    Can't you read? WE (as in many reformers) are suggesting WE USE the EXISTING ENGLISH SPELLIN RULES to write ENGLISH!
    The existing English spelling system IS FLAWED! It isn't complicated! Maybe it is for you! Do you have problem understanding English?
    Your way of writing English is flawed! FLAWED! YOU write gobblegook all the time and you want everyone to do too!
    John Cleese writes in a flawed English like you do and he would probably be more open to change than you are!
    Are you still using silexes? [​IMG]

  4. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    Could you do that again but in bold?
  5. Can you reply to posts with more than one superficial line? [​IMG]

  6. lurk_much

    lurk_much Occasional commenter

    I could...
  7. Why bother?
  8. Okay! This is getting to be too childish! I am out of there!

  9. In English, that would be: I'm out of here. As eny fule kno.
  10. It would probably be against your principles to visit one of my blogs, so I'll paste in part of it here.

    English has a unique and rather complex system for showing
    whether the vowels a, i, o, u (and, to a lesser extent e) are long or short,
    as in:
    flat, flatten – inflate; hem, hemmed – theme;
    hid, hidden – hide; dot, dotty – dote; tub, tubby – tube.

    When the vowels a, e, i, o and u are followed by just one consonant (or several consonants and a vowel), they are 'closed' and are supposed to have a short sound, as in:
    at, pet, pin, dot, bun
    actor, tender, hinder, doctor, bunting.
    If a consonant after the letters a, e, i, o and u is followed by another vowel, they are supposed to be ‘open’ and long, as in:
    hale, halo; peter, period; fine, final; sole, solo; tube, tubular'.

    If a stressed vowel before a consonant and another vowel is to stay short, it is supposed to be followed by a doubled consonant:
    attitude, petty, pinnacle, dotty, bunny.
    Hence:cut + er = cutter: cute + er = cuter.

    Several thousand English words conform to this system. Unfortunately, there are also hundreds of words which break the ‘open and shut’ rule in five different ways.
    1. Nearly 400 words of more than one syllable break the doubling rule by
    failing to double a consonant after a short, stressed vowel
    (habit, very, city, body, study) .
    2. Another 158 words have doubled consonants which are
    unrelated to keeping a<u> stressed</u> vowel short
    (accommod<u>a</u>tion, hell<u>o</u>, imm<u>e</u>nse, occ<u>u</u>r, hurr<u>a</u>h).
    3. Several hundred words with short vowels have
    a misleading, surplus &ndash;e:
    have, seven, gone &ndash; cf. save, even, bone.

    4. Nearly 200 words have
    irregular spellings for the short vowels e, i and u (bread, pretty, touch),
    sometimes combined with missing doubled consonants as well
    (many, women; money).
    5.The &lsquo;open&rsquo; vowel method is disobeyed by
    87 words for long a (made - paid; make - break),
    79 for long i (while - whilst, mime - climb)
    100 for long o (mole &ndash; bowl, roll, soul)
    andthe &lsquo;e-e&rsquo; spelling is used in just 86 words
    and different ones in 366 (eke &ndash; seek, speak, shriek).

    This adds up to over 1000 common English words that disobey the &lsquo;open and closed&rsquo; method for spelling long and short a, e, i, o and u.
  11. Yes! You are right! I should have said: "I am out of here!" And, your
    point is? The truth is I have little time for people stuck in the past
    who cannot discuss matters respectfully. This kind of mindless debate
    doesn't interest me. There is a very likelihood that you will never
    change your mind on this issue.
    The actual logical transcoding
    for "As any fool know,..." would be, respecting the 91 spelling rules of
    English, "Az eny fool no!" Although, didn't you mean: "As any fool
    WOULD know?" Or "As any fool knows!"
    If you are going to criticize
    someone for the use of an extra letter, you should be careful not to
    make similar kinds of errors! Is the kettle black or the kettul blak?
    WHAT an awful spelling system you have! I mean! Come on! "kettle"?
    "<le> for /ul/! [​IMG] Are you people out of your mind that you can
    see the total idiocy of such a scheme! And, then, worst, you blame the
    new generation for not being able to write or read when your spelling
    system is completely flawed! Dumb does not come even close to describing
    the situation! That you guys can't sea this, is mind blowing! The only
    thing that comes to mind is that you actually enjoy this kind of
    entertainment! That would be even dumber!
    But, if you are going
    to play the game of finding little errors to somehow (a) discredit
    someone, (b) his ideas, (c) give credence to your own, and/or (c) to
    make you feel superior, let me suggest that you go back to school and
    learn to write yourself! However, if you feel that those puny, little
    errors should indicate that somehow the rest of my ideas are erroneous,
    by association, GET A BRAIN! Any fool would know that when someone
    writes 99% of the time without any making errors, then your idea at picking
    at a few errors here and there is childish and illogical. Beside, is that's all you can write?Is that all you've got? What a puny response!
    any case, it is plain and clear that the English spelling system is an
    ABSOLUTE JOKE and so is your inability to recognize that this is so!
    Keep hitting those flintstones! I have yet to see any sparks! [​IMG]

  12. Good for you for copying and pasting this information and trying to bring the discussion back on topic, Masha! You really show how chaotic the existing system is now!
    I am amazed at the extent to which you went to prove that the system needs a thorough reform. 2000 common words pose reading problems and about 3500 out the same 7000 words pose spelling problems. Wow! The percentage of COMMON words that are badly spelled is shocking. How can kids (and people, in general) learn to read and spell is mind boggling! Many can't, of course! Of course, if we had to account for all the English words, then the number of words that are problematic would be much higher than this. Good thing that there are spell checkers now! :) However, learning to read is a real problem, delaying learning and learning to read. What you are showing is really only the tip of the iceberg. Right?
  13. whelk

    whelk New commenter

    Oh, Masha has posted the entire iceberg many times, sunk a load of threads that didn't deserve it, has refused to respond to a single question and just spams the same old twaddle without ever stopping to think.

    She's just a troll posting stuff to show her contempt of the English language. On this forum she obviously does it because she knows it will annoy.
  14. I was quoting Molesworth, Masha. I recommend that you read Nigel Molesworth, it is very funny. Honestly, don't you spelling freaks ever actually read anything other than your own lists?
  15. As you have never heard of Private Eye, I am not surprised that you never read Nigel Molesworth's school stories. You should give them a go. They are very funny, and his spelling system should appeal to you: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Compleet-Molesworth-Geoffrey-Willans/dp/1851450017
  16. Still waiting for your credentials, name, lists of books you have written, etc.

    Don't have any? :)
  17. I am afraid that you cannot read. If we were to regularize spelling, we would not force literate people to learn to read texts spelled the right way. Read this again, until you get it. You can decode, but I am afraid that you cannot read.
  18. Why don't you while away the time you spend waiting reading Molesworth. If you aren't up to the books, here are a few key quotes: http://www.quotesstar.com/quotes/y/you-kno-who-this-is-167276.html

Share This Page