Should some spellings be removed?

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

Is this like 'Big ball is big'?
Or 'Yellow ball is Yellow'?

I think this is an absurd conversation! It would be diabolical to dumb down what is arguably the most diverse and sculptured language! Would you just rather start talking 'Newspeak' and eliminate most of our bewilderingly large amounts of superlatives and indefatigable numbers of adjectives, just because you were too exceptionally indolent to learn to use her Majesties own?

EDIT: Ah, Apologies to you Mau95, I'm a slow typist, and didn't notice I had been Ninja'd! The 'Newspeak' argument is 'proper, well good' though!

 

[ntw3001]

If you pronounce "where", "were" and "we're" the same way then you are pronouncing at least two of them completely wrong, except for the first letter of course.

I would love to hear you pronounce them, I don't mean record yourself for this exact purpose but just in general life. Record yourself saying these words in normal conversations and listen to them back, I can pretty much guarantee that unless you are rubbing elbows with the queen of England that you will pronounce every were, there and which all the same way.

I've never met anyone who pronounces 'were' the same as 'we're' and 'where' (actually, maybe in Birmingham). The latter two often sound the same in practice, but not many accents rhyme them with 'were'. I think it's pretty obviously stupid to label your pronunciation as 'wrong', though; apparently this poster is unaware of accents. Accents exist! Different people pronounce vowel sounds in different ways.

Okay, the Stephen Fry video is pretty level-headed. The thing to take away from it is the part at the end, where he states that acceptable language conventions are dependent on situation. You're allowed to mix up your theres and your wheres, but there are very few situations in which it won't make you appear ignorant. If you're cool with that, go nuts; only an obnoxious pedant will care enough to feign distress. But it's like wearing bondage gear to church; no matter how much you complain, people are still going to look down on you for wearing bondage gear to church. It doesn't matter if you'd like it to be appropriate dress; what's appropriate is a matter of community consensus, the same as with everything else. What's wrong with that, unless you're the kind of tiresome adolescent who answers every disagreement with some affectedly world-weary comment about the groaning stupidity of the public at large?

 

[omega 616]

snip

Because millions of people do not need to change millennia of linguistical and grammatical evolution just so a few lazy, stupid children who cannot remember THREE different words get picked on a bit less. The smart should never adapt to the stupid, but the other way around. I'm not very good at maths, yet I don't demand that + and - should mean the same thing from now on. Christ on a crutch, what happened to the time when the ignorant people were humble and respectful towards their betters? Now we should re-write Milton and Shelley because you cannot distinguish between "they'(a)re" and "their"? Seriously? You should be the standard? Sorry, but who the hell do you think you are?

I love how it's always the most ignorant who pull out the "language is constantly evolving" card even though they cannot even spell linguistics or know what the Accademia della Crusca is.

So how come you don't talk like shakespeare? How come you are only using the most very basic words, even though there are dictionaries filled with millions of words?

You are very butt hurt over something that isn't yours or you didn't help to create. What do you think our language will be like in a million years? Do you think there will be a 50 odd languages or one unifying one? Do you think that one unifying language will be complex and contrived or the most simple and basic?

They say English is one of the hardest languages to learn, would making it more simple really be that much of a deal?

I asked should all the "theres" should be spelled the same, you think that is the same as making two opposites mean the same? Now who is the dense one?

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm for cleaning up the confusing mess that is the English language but I doubt if it will happen. People like there complicated convoluted mess as a standard. Personally I'm for a more refined elegant type of language but I'm a computer Scientist so that's part of the job.

 

[ntw3001]

They say English is one of the hardest languages to learn, would making it more simple really be that much of a deal?

I used to hear this in schoool, from other English people. I later found out that asking someone who has actually had to learn English as a second language gets you the opposite answer. In my own experience, it's unanimously agreed upon that English is just about the easiest language; of course the prevalence of English in pop culture has a big effect, but the grammar is also a hell of a lot simpler than, say, German.

Oh, and I'm not sure that homogenising spelling would help make the language easier to learn. When one is unfamiliar with a language, an abundance of homonyms doesn't make it easier to differentiate words. A sentence like 'there ball was there' requires the reader to have a sufficient grasp of English grammar to be able to suss out the meaning from context. The sum achievement of this change, from the perspective of a learner, would be to reduce the number of words necessary to learn by two. Given that a non-native speaker learns the definition and spelling of a word at the same time, this difference almost certainly makes these words easier to learn.

 

[omega 616]

So how about it, should there, where and which all be combined into just these (or which ever, I am not fussy)? I know this wont change anything in the real world, I am just asking for your opinions.

I don't mind the language evolving naturally to some degree, but I'm against modifying language intentionally because its not rational. Language is more than just a practical tool, its also part of our history and cultural heritage. Shakespeare is already almost incomprehensible to most kids these days, how much more great literature will be lost to future generations if we start meddling with English with no good reason other than to make it slightly easier to learn?

I don't mean the leader of every English speaking country comes out and orders by law that all there's, were's and which's be changed to one unifying spelling. I mean would it be better if language moved that way by it's own free will?

Hell, I bet 99% of every post on this site is in some way grammatically wrong. Misplaced full stops, things not be capitalized, sentences ending wrongly, people saying effect instead affect.

Watching this video makes me feel like I can't even speak correctly ...

 

[Cheeseman Muncher]

Why would you change the spellings when they mean completely different things? English already has many words that have the same spelling and different meanings and you want to make it "better" by making more of these just so you look a bit less stupid?

No thanks.

 

[omega 616]

So I always get grief about my weres, which and theres and not using the right one.

The way I see it is

Okay.. stop right there. This is where you run into problems -- in thinking that the way you see has any validity beyond your own self-obsession.

Hint: It doesn't.
The world is much larger than you, filled with billions of people who are not you, and who have an expectation of written communication being done in a certain manner. When it is not done in that matter, it takes these people extra time and effort to figure out what the hell it is you're trying to say.

So before you start thinking you can equate yourself with persons like Stephen Fry, who is a master of the language in much the way Oscar Wilde was, it would behoove you to master the damned language yourself and show your audience some respect.

Once you've done that and earned yourself respect on your ability to use the language, then and only then, should you consider abusing it. Doing otherwise suggests that you have either no respect for your reader, or are simply lacking the intelligence to be able to properly formulate a thought.

See, this is a forum. In forums we put our idea's across and since I didn't want to put a post about grammar in with "how do you choose your badges", I thought I would start my own thread and get some thoughts on my own thoughts ... is that okay with you? I think it would be a nice subject to talk about and as far as I know hasn't been done before ... which in these times of the internet is somewhat of a rarity, I think you would agree.

I think I put in my OP that I don't want to change anything and I know 1 silly little thread wont so, where is the problem?

Now kindly pull the stick from your arse and be polite. I don't consider myself to be on Mr. Fry or Mr Wilde's level ... shit, they are smarter than most people on this planet and anybody who consider themselves smarter than them is either very stupid or very smart!

 

[omega 616]

Actually, I COULD talk like Shakespeare. Or Goethe. Or Dante, for that matter. I don't in everyday conversation so that idiots can understand me. And who are you to judge the size of my active vocabulary? Have you ever had a conversation with me? So how do you get to make assumptions, especially since you say incredibly silly things like "dictionaries filled with millions of words", when English, being the language with the largest number of lexemes (small wonder, it being a bastard offspring of three vastly different language groups), has pretty much exactly one million of them.

You are very butt hurt over something that isn't yours or you didn't help to create. What do you think our language will be like in a million years? Do you think there will be a 50 odd languages or one unifying one? Do you think that one unifying language will be complex and contrived or the most simple and basic?

I am not "butt hurt". I am righteously indignant. Learn the difference. As for your feeble question, "a million years"? Homo Sapiens has existed for less than 1/4 of that period, and written language is only about 6,000 years old? And at any rate, if your glorious future of unintelligent children conversing exclusively in retard-speak comes to pass, I am very happy that I shall be long dead by then.

They say English is one of the hardest languages to learn, would making it more simple really be that much of a deal?

I wouldn't know, it's my second language and it's manifestly obvious that my mastery of it is rather superior to yours. As for it being hard to learn, all you do is prove your ignorance. English is very hard to MASTER, because the very erosion of its grammar has made it very reliant on idiomatic expressions. However, out of the Indo-European languages I know about, it is by far the most easy to learn in a basic fashion. Compared to, say, German or French, there is very little conjunction and declension, making grammatical agreement ridiculously easy. Anybody with a basic vocab can construct a correct sentence in English. You try that in French or German. Since the difference between a possessive pronoun and a contraction of a personal pronound and a verb is lost on you, I shall laugh at the very thought.

I asked should all the "theres" should be spelled the same, you think that is the same as making two opposites mean the same? Now who is the dense one?

Yes, I am dense. Have you ever written or said "you/they are" in your life? Because that is what "they're" means. Explain to me how this sentence makes any more sense than 4-1=5:

"there not very bright, but, for Pete's sake, they are arrogant about it."

The prosecution rests, and hopes to God that you're not older than 16.

I bet you are a riot at parties! Please, flex your epeen more! It's amazing you are pulling up on things like exaggeration and sarcasm, as if I was been accurate or serious ... all the while bragging about how smart you are.

I am not looking to change language or anything, I am simply asking a question that might not have been asked much on the internet ... which to be honest, I think is a rare thing these days. Most of the time it's the same threads coming and going, I thought it would be a nice break.

I guess I have deeply upset your very strict upbringing, I feel sorry for any children you will have ... they will lead truly boring lives.

Sorry, let me just add. You can say I bow to your argument and I am stupid 'cos I never rebutted anything you said, go ahead ... I don't care. I made this thread to make people think a little, you took it WAY too seriously! Then show off just how smart you are and actually think I give a damn about how smart 1 person out of near enough 7 billion is ... you don't matter and all that you have learned means nothing to everybody but you. Being arrogant about will just make people who know you, hate you.

So, no need to quote me back.

 

[NathLines]

Because it would mean that the people too lazy to learn proper spelling would win. Might as well make "dieing" replace "dying".

Also, where and were are pronounced differently.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

I shot an elephant wearing my pajamas.
I don't know how it got into my pajamas, but I shot it anyway.

There's already plenty of ambiguity in language.

snip

Back on topic.

Taking away the "privilege" for ponces to automatically disregard anything you say just because you used 'ware' in stead of 'where' or the wrong their or to would be a good thing.

Not that I think eliminating the different spellings among homophones is the best way to go about this, mind.

I use memory tricks to remember most of the spellings like: you hear with your ear as apposed to here. Or my personal favorite: too many o's as apposed to 'to' or 'two'

For me the case is different on punctuation. I type the words that I would normally say if I was talking, so I don't always concentrate on what the proper punctuation is. I put periods at the end of thoughts and commas at breaks in my thoughts, whether (as apposed to weather) they're correct or not. I try to use apostrophes correctly (mostly) the worst thing for me is when I see 'dont' or 'cant' or other contractions without apostrophes, and before possessive s's (just ignore that last word) but those are the only punctuation marks I use. (asides from colons and parentheses)

P.S. awesome video

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

Are you telling me these confuse you? That you can't tell what each where supposed to mean?

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

What I bolded confused me.
So I say don't change it.

This is probably because of a different dialect or something. Basing it all on one dialect is simply stupid, and that's something that *must* be done to do this. I, for one, don't pronounce "you're" and "your" the same. It would confuse me if they were, as well.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

What's to say that it isn't already happening (though perhaps not exactly as how you've detailed)? For the last two hundred years, American and British English have steadily diverged in sound, vocabulary, spelling and even definitions of certain words (even as recently as the turn of the 20th century, residents of New England spoke what Brits would identify as RP English).

Unlike some other languages (e.g. French with the Academie francaise) English has no central linguistic arbitator and the way it is spoken is influenced primarily by place of birth and the prejudices of those that teach it. There is literally nothing to stop us (the users of the English language) from changing it. The reason we don't is because it is difficult to introduce, propagate, enforce and sustain changes to a language within a lifetime except through sheer luck or force of media.

Really? Well hasn't text speak become it's own language and that is the height of simplified.

Ah, now you're talking not of the language itself, but what the language signifies. It's true that as far as communication is concerned, we (humans) have the complex form. And English is the most common of the spoken/written languages. However, the complexity is almost always required to convey not so much the definition of words, but the intent. The diversity of the vocabulary (which is yet another factor contributing to the complexity of English) is often used to demonstrate levels of the emotive, the intellectual and the objective. Should you wish to simplify English, start with removing homonyms... because English has a fuckton of them, more than any other language.

As for your perceived homophones, inflections and contractions that form said words effectively negate the necessity or possibility to introduce identical spelling for them. Besides, I'm sure that the 'Campaign for Proper English' or whatever it's called will get their backs up about it and it'll be decried as a low prestige dialect.

Chinese has three different pronunciations, we have three different spellings.

Three?! Is that it?! Good grief, what kind of Chinese do you speak?! =P

snip

...!! Marry me...!!