How do We Fix Spelling? can be argued, perhaps, if they wish, that it's a question of style and beauty in the language, and that to make new words and new parts of speech might destroy that. But they cannot argue that respelling the words would have anything to do with the style. There's no form of art form or literary form, with the sole exception of crossword puzzles, in which the spelling makes a bit of difference to the style. And even crossword puzzles can be made with a different spelling. And if it's not the English professors that do it, and if we give them two years and nothing happens--and please don't invent three ways of doing it, just one way, that everybody is used to---if we wait three years and nothng happens, then we'll ask the philologists and the linguists and so on because they know how to do it. Adid you know that they can write any language with an alphabet so that you can read how it sounds in another language when you hear it? That's really something. So they ought to be able to do it in English alone.


If we can write words with letters from the English alphabet to phonetically reproduce words in other languages, like Mandarin or ARabic, then why can we not rearrange the letters in our own words to phonetically match the way they sound when we speak them?

Folksonomies: phonetics

/hobbies and interests/games/board games and puzzles (0.448128)
/science/social science/linguistics/translation (0.297770)
/hobbies and interests/reading (0.265059)

crossword puzzles (0.902081 (positive:0.204516)), sole exception (0.721870 (neutral:0.000000)), new parts (0.704078 (negative:-0.385486)), different spelling (0.702538 (positive:0.204516)), words (0.700655 (negative:-0.383090)), English professors (0.670426 (neutral:0.000000)), art form (0.670233 (neutral:0.000000)), literary form (0.669918 (neutral:0.000000)), new words (0.667298 (negative:-0.385486)), English alphabet (0.659929 (neutral:0.000000)), style (0.607858 (negative:-0.062435)), language (0.573363 (positive:0.526005)), way (0.503958 (negative:-0.363355)), letters (0.500167 (negative:-0.363355)), philologists (0.492934 (positive:0.308563)), linguists (0.474782 (positive:0.308563)), everybody (0.470195 (neutral:0.000000)), question (0.468777 (positive:0.337996)), difference (0.466911 (neutral:0.000000)), Mandarin (0.466748 (neutral:0.000000)), beauty (0.465796 (positive:0.337996)), bit (0.465514 (neutral:0.000000)), speech (0.465419 (negative:-0.385486)), ARabic (0.457671 (neutral:0.000000)), ways (0.456862 (neutral:0.000000)), nothng (0.456386 (neutral:0.000000)), Adid (0.455722 (positive:0.620009))

three years:Quantity (0.010000 (neutral:0.000000)), two years:Quantity (0.010000 (neutral:0.000000))

Linguistics (0.972837): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Literature (0.630166): dbpedia | freebase
Language (0.553711): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Art (0.465982): dbpedia | freebase
Alphabet (0.430878): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Writing (0.428432): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Orthography (0.427601): dbpedia | freebase
Grammar (0.389311): dbpedia | freebase

 This Unscientific Age
Books, Brochures, and Chapters>Book:  Feynman, Richard (April 1963), This Unscientific Age, From the Danz Lectures, Retrieved on -0001-11-30
Folksonomies: phonetics


31 DEC 2010

 Arguments for English Spelling Reform

This schema is a collection of arguments about how proper grammar, with its illogical and inconsistently applied rules, is used by academics and intellectuals to create a privileged class of people who's ideas deserve considering because they have successfully learned the irrational system.
Folksonomies: phonetics grammar
Folksonomies: phonetics grammar