Should some spellings be removed?

[TehCookie]

I heard/read somewhere that the amount of words people know today is like half or a quarter of what people USED to know.

Could you imagine knowing 4X as many English words as you do now? I love my vernacular.

Is that words we know total or we only use a quarter of the words they used back then? I'm sure we only use a quarter of the words used back then because we created new words, but if you mean they had 4x (or even double) the vocab I would be a lot more skeptical.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i believe you are hinting at phonetically spelling everything, am i right?

while yeah, i do that sometimes, just for lulz, i don't think doing YOUR version of it makes that much sense, it is an extreme example, but nonetheless here we go:


like i said, extreme example, but still applies.

i'm the laziest piece of shit when it comes to english/grammar, but i do not want your changes.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I heard/read somewhere that the amount of words people know today is like half or a quarter of what people USED to know.

Could you imagine knowing 4X as many English words as you do now? I love my vernacular.

Is that words we know total or we only use a quarter of the words they used back then? I'm sure we only use a quarter of the words used back then because we created new words, but if you mean they had 4x (or even double) the vocab I would be a lot more skeptical.

this, no offense but the average person "back then" did was not educated half as well as most average people now a days, so trying to say they used 4x as much words back then would be an utter "wtf"

 

[omega 616]

snip

You forgot hyperbole .... and it's spelled separate. You know for somebody who is pro it should stay the way it is, it's weird you spelled a word wrongly.

Also, are you idealising a future with no thesaurus?

NO, the thesaurus is a good read!

Again, You know for somebody who is pro it should stay the way it is, it's weird you spelled a word wrongly

I'm sorry but you're wrong, each word is pronounced completely differently, so spelling them all the same would make absolutely not sense.

Where - Wh-air
Were - Wur
We're - Wee-er
Wear - Wair

There - Th-air
They're - They-er
Their - Thair (ok less so on this one)

This whole discussion has as much use as a chocolate tea pot, you may as well say "Why don't we remove capital letters?" or "Who needs full stops?"

Sure I agree with Fry's point about people going overboard with corrections, but he doesn't mean we should go around butchering our language for no reason, they're there (see what I did there) for a reason, because without them who would you know whether I meant "There there" or these here?

I have deduced that accents play a big role in pronouncing stuff, where I am from it is all the say ... in fact I have never heard it different.

I didn't say I wanted it butchered.

Nope, I didn't see what you did.

 

[Skoosh]

Snip

All I can say is go to 1:44 of that vid if Oscar Wilde can not give a shit about it, then "I will let that which does not matter truly slide" as was said in Fight Club.

There's a big difference between someone writing hundreds of pages by hand while letting an editor fix minor technicalities, and writing a paragraph on a machine that fixes glaring mistakes for you. See, that sentence I just wrote wasn't correct, but my meaning was translated across. We aren't talking about that. We are talking very, very basic mistakes. Things that should have been learned in 3rd grade, not sophomore year in college.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

As someone who loves the English language, they type of evolution you are talking about is just silly, and perhaps boils down to simply being lazy. It's easier to understand spoken language due to the inflections and subtleties of the voice, but written language, where this come into play, needs the differences in order to be understood. Language, of course, will evolve over time, but the negating of words based on some people being to lazy to understand the differences shouldn't be part of that evolution. It would end up just confusing readers in the end.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Is that words we know total or we only use a quarter of the words they used back then? I'm sure we only use a quarter of the words used back then because we created new words, but if you mean they had 4x (or even double) the vocab I would be a lot more skeptical.

Fairly sure it's the latter...

But I think that's more to do with the evolving habits surrounding use of language rather than actual knowledge of language. In the nineteenth century, English people regardless of class were rather circuitous in their expression and used roundabout language with expansive vocabulary to imply, rather than indicate. You'll find that a lot of pre-C20 'classic' literature (though not all) can be condensed to about two thirds their length merely by removing supernumerary and extraneous descriptions and dialogue...

They were like Ents... -_-

NO, the thesaurus is a good read!

Again, You know for somebody who is pro it should stay the way it is, it's weird you spelled a word wrongly

Which word... 'idealising'...? Fairly sure British English has the 's'...

 

[omega 616]

Snip

All I can say is go to 1:44 of that vid if Oscar Wilde can not give a shit about it, then "I will let that which does not matter truly slide" as was said in Fight Club.

There's a big difference between someone writing hundreds of pages by hand while letting an editor fix minor technicalities, and writing a paragraph on a machine that fixes glaring mistakes for you. See, that sentence I just wrote wasn't correct, but my meaning was translated across. We aren't talking about that. We are talking very, very basic mistakes. Things that should have been learned in 3rd grade, not sophomore year in college.

What's a sophomore?

No, really? Oscar never had a computer? I know the difference, I am saying if a great writer like that can not care all that much that he made the odd mistake in his profession, then I am okay with making a good number of mistakes about the same thing 'cos I am in no way a writer.

 

[meryatathagres]

I definitely pronounce "where", "we`re" and "were" differently.
Same with "there" and "their"; "your" and "you're"; etc.
The difference is subtle but still obvious.

 

[Phototoxin]

Burglarize, Directionality.

When the Americans exercise some sense and remove these words I will be happy.

 

[Jodah]

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.

Where rhymes with air, were rhymes with slur, and we're rhymes with peer. If you are saying them all in the same way, then there are a lot of people who are going to be trying not to piss themselves laughing every time you open your mouth.

OT: They're written differently so we can understand what you're saying.

Nope, I have moved around and no matter where I hear it, it always sounds the same. Unless I hear some American actor trying to do a British accent then I always hear "were" said the same, as you put it the one that rhymes with peer.

Although to me air and slur rhyme...

Well then I recommend a speech coach.

It's the scouse accent, it's not great.

Sure lets make it easier rather than educating people. That's the problem with everything these days, rather than trying to fucking educate themselves people demand things are made easier. If people want to look like a moron on the internet let them, I just can't wait for them to try that shit on a job application or university report.

Then lets let language stagnate and not change it out of fear that it may be "dumbing" it down. Well, it already has changed a lot so lets go back to it's original form?

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.

Where rhymes with air, were rhymes with slur, and we're rhymes with peer. If you are saying them all in the same way, then there are a lot of people who are going to be trying not to piss themselves laughing every time you open your mouth.

OT: They're written differently so we can understand what you're saying.

Nope, I have moved around and no matter where I hear it, it always sounds the same. Unless I hear some American actor trying to do a British accent then I always hear "were" said the same, as you put it the one that rhymes with peer.

Although to me air and slur rhyme...

Then perhaps your own accent is interfering with speech but the rules for speech and written language are different. It is not the languages fault in this case, it is yours. Do something about it or deal with it, not make us all stoop down to the same level of grunting onto paper with ink.

Go and read the other 5 or 6 posts that I have written that say that it is just a topic to discuss, something to think about. nothing more.

Running out of ways to make this more clear ...

Changing it for good reason is fine. Like finding a new object or element that no word can describe. Hell, even adding slang words to the accepted dictionary is okay if they are commonly used. Removing words because "it's too hard" isn't a good reason. It's lazy is what it is.

edit:

As someone who loves the English language, they type of evolution you are talking about is just silly, and perhaps boils down to simply being lazy. It's easier to understand spoken language due to the inflections and subtleties of the voice, but written language, where this come into play, needs the differences in order to be understood. Language, of course, will evolve over time, but the negating of words based on some people being to lazy to understand the differences shouldn't be part of that evolution. It would end up just confusing readers in the end.

^ This.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I don't mind different words that sound the same having different spellings.

I mind words that have multiple spellings, and words with letters that don't make sense.

There is no good goddamed reason that "through" needs to end with "-ough", and there is no good goddamned reason for someone to put a "u" in "color". Extra letters are pointless if there is no solid, or even partially solid, grammatical reason or precedence.

 

[peruvianskys]

Yeah I'm not terrible offended by it but where/were/we're without the different spellings would definitely be annoying. Grammar really does help make things clearer most of the time.

 

[aashell13]

What? four pages into a thread on eliminating "superfluous" spellings and nobody's mentioned Mark Twain's excellent treatise on the subject? This must be rectified immediately!

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" --bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez-- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivili.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

 

[meryatathagres]

Does it really have to be mentioned that surely linquists of far more skill have determined the need for those letters?

 

[Skoosh]

Snip

All I can say is go to 1:44 of that vid if Oscar Wilde can not give a shit about it, then "I will let that which does not matter truly slide" as was said in Fight Club.

There's a big difference between someone writing hundreds of pages by hand while letting an editor fix minor technicalities, and writing a paragraph on a machine that fixes glaring mistakes for you. See, that sentence I just wrote wasn't correct, but my meaning was translated across. We aren't talking about that. We are talking very, very basic mistakes. Things that should have been learned in 3rd grade, not sophomore year in college.

What's a sophomore?

No, really? Oscar never had a computer? I know the difference, I am saying if a great writer like that can not care all that much that he made the odd mistake in his profession, then I am okay with making a good number of mistakes about the same thing 'cos I am in no way a writer.

Are you trying to correct my spelling or really not know? A sophomore is someone in their second year of high school or college. It's a very common word, I can't imagine you haven't heard it unless you didn't attend high school.

You aren't making that many mistakes though, that's the thing. I don't think most people here care about small mistakes, even if they are frequent. It's the glaringly large mistakes we--or at least I--are talking about. It's not understanding very simple, core words in the language. And hell, it would be different if the change to these core words happened over 200 years or even 50 since language evolves faster with our instant-communications. But trying to force it over the last decade is pointless. And again, you have to go out of your way to mess a lot of these things up, our computers fix it for us.

 

[omega 616]

snip

I am from the uk we don't have sophomores, we have year 1-6 in the first/primary school, 7-11 in high school, then college for about 1-5 years, then uni. The only name like sophomore we have is "fresher" and that is first year of uni.

I am not saying it should change or it has to, I am saying "hypothetically, what would it be like to do this?", absolutely nothing more! I am getting quotes with things like "lets not cater to the lazy", "you have to be retarded not to know the difference", "why are you trying to ruin the English language" ... WOAH! I am making a mole hill, not a mountain ... it's like "what would win in a swimming race a horse or a rabbit?" that's the level I am on! Not breaking down how the first caveman made the first word!

 

[red the fister]

sounds like someone's homophobic, the meaning homonyms aka words that sound alike yet have different meanings like ***** (weakness) and fag (cigarette), not the other homophobic. you know. the one that's discriminatory.

before you bust out the ban-hammer, take a moment to understand why i used "homophobic" in the way that i did and then take into consideration that i the meaning behind the usage. the OP states a dislike of Homonyms. and after checking dictionary(dot)com for that very word i understand that i have just added a new meaning to the word.

my intent here is to draw the OPs attention to the confusion that would result if his(?) proposal was to take effect.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh]
noun
antipathy toward homonyms.
Origin:
2011; homo(nym) + -phobia

Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective

i have contacted dictionary(dot)com in an attempt to have this new meaning added to the official entry.

TL;DR? quit being a lazy git and enunciate the damn words and you'll find that "they" "there" "they're" "their", "where" "where're" and the others all have distinct sounds

 

[floppylobster]

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?

Some language variation has come about through general boredom. It's why we have different verb conjugations for common words like 'go' etc...

And teenagers are always coming up with a new way to say 'go',
'let's blast off'
'jet'
'bounce'
'gap the scene'
'boost'
'split'
'make like a tree and leave'
And so forth from the last 60 years.

People get bored with the repetition and so modify the language. Trying to consolidate it will not work, nor last.

 

[AD-Stu]

This idea sounds doubleplusungood, IMO. Meaning is what is important, and we'd lose it if we removed those words from the written language.