Comments on: Academic wants us all to talk like an AOL chatroom

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:46:40 +0000

It isn’t about catering to the “lowest common denominator”.

The “lowest common denominator” in this case would be keeping an inefficient and costly writing system because it’s ‘traditional’ and you’re too lazy to learn a new (easier) way to write.

Think of the money and time that schools could save if they didn’t have to teach spelling for so many years.

Why not return Latin to it’s place as the language of the educated if you thnk an attempt like this to streamline language is “regression”?

By: Cad

Cad — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:44:34 +0000

So he wants us to adopt american english?

By: Phillip

Phillip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:15:08 +0000

Yeah, gotta love that.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:29:23 +0000

Quota based systems? My experience with teachers is that most of them are doing a great job on limited resources. Quota systems merely artificially reshape the curriculum to make more students pass whatever test the quotas are based on, rather than increasing real learning. I have yet to see the standardized test that can tell the difference between someone who knows the subject and someone who knows how to take the test. In fact, they favor the latter.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:24:31 +0000

I agree with you, Phillip.

BTW, I had to laugh at your spelling of “cyrrent”. Our letter “y” came from the Greek upsilon, which many scholars think was once pronounced like our letter “u”. Coincidental typo.

By: Phillip

Phillip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:10:12 +0000

You guys made some good points, and I guess I have some additional comments. Geek Girl, I haven’t seen any regional specific dialects in chat rooms or other internet outlets. I think netspeak is just netspeak (so far). And Chip, books are reprinted in other languages and other forms of English all the time. The Bible being a pretty good example of that. There’s even a ridiculous lolcat Bible now… Just saying. Basically, I’m saying we shouldn’t just stop the evolution of language and make everyone learn the cyrrent system. It’s going to shift, and we have to roll with the punches. I’m also not advocating a shift to chat room style conversation, but it is going to gradually infiltrate our language.

By: CamBam

CamBam — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:46:50 +0000

So you want to punish people who don’t know how to spell correctly? That sounds completely…..logical. We can’t just bend over and throw dictionaries out the window because of a generational trend of idiocy. Hell, people are murdering others more often (actual numbers, not per capita), but we can’t tell the police to just bugger off in those situations. How about we try smart things like pushing for more money directed towards education and quota based teaching systems, so piss poor teachers don’t ruin thousands of atudents throughout their 30 year service.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:59:44 +0000

Not to mention the problem of not being able to read older books unless you learn all the old spellings anyway. We have this problem now with Old and Middle English and even early Modern English — why exacerbate it?

Pronunciation and vocabulary always evolve, which results in the various dialects you mention. Even if we could get them all on the same page at one time, they’d soon branch again. People use language creatively, which results in change.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:54:26 +0000

English always evolves — it may be the fastest evolving language on the planet. We adopt words from other languages, we shorten words and simplify spellings, and we make up new words all the time.

But there’s a right pace for that in the eyes of a population. There will always be some who want it to not happen at all, and others who want it to happen faster. In the end, it’s up to general usage to determine what achieves acceptance.

By: Mark O'Neill

Mark O'Neill — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:50:27 +0000

Well I just don’t like it when people make statements and then don’t back it up with examples. I know that English has some stupid spelling but I wanted you to back up your statement.

By: Jono

Jono — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:15:03 +0000

“Examples?”

I can’t believe this was asked with a straight face…but examples to follow even though they are really too numerous too list.

And don’t get me wrong on this, I’m an excellent speller and typesetter by trade – but especially when you look into the history of words, you’ll find that a lot of the spellings were arbitrary–and quite often erroneous–ideas that someone had.

Mark Twain was also a proponent of simplified spelling.

Links:
English Spelling Reform
http://www.say-it-in-english.com/SpellHome.html

Funny Poem
http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/de361/de361s53_folder/english.html

Absolutely Ridiculous English Spelling (good list)
http://www.say-it-in-english.com/SpellHome.html

By: J.R. Bernard

J.R. Bernard — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:22:51 +0000

I agree that this may be an evolution of English as we know it. Just because someone uses net-speak does not mean that they cannot use proper spellings and such. I know I often find myself typing more freely when I concern myself less with spelling.

Also, I do not think this idea necessarily applies to acronyms such as LOL, LMAO, BRB, and whatever else you can think of. It’s more a statement that is aimed at letting people talk/write with/to people without letting spelling be such a point of emphasis. However, I may be wrong with this statement.