Should we change how we spell the English language

[max]

Getting rid of homophones and homonyms would mean the death of puns.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Yes, it doesn't take a homogeneous to work that out.

[Lockjaw]

The problem with complete phonetic correlation is that you end up with so many ambiguities. Practice and practise being a particularly apposite example.

.

 

I would have thought that practise/practice is a good argument for the opposite point of view. Surely, when the wrong spelling is used, it doesn't produce any ambiguity because the context leads to the correct understanding of the word.

 

The only negative, in such a case, is that we who know which is which get mildly irritated.

[truman]

I would have thought that practise/practice is a good argument for the opposite point of view. Surely, when the wrong spelling is used, it doesn't produce any ambiguity because the context leads to the correct understanding of the word.

 

The only negative, in such a case, is that we who know which is which get mildly irritated.

 

If there was only one spelling of the word "practice" and you used it thus:

 

"He is a practicing dentist"

 

You wouldn't know whether he hadn't quite got the job right or if he was a working dentist..?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I would have thought that practise/practice is a good argument for the opposite point of view. Surely, when the wrong spelling is used, it doesn't produce any ambiguity because the context leads to the correct understanding of the word.

Contrary view: wrong spelling misleads.

Consider:

A. Solicitors' practice for sale.

B. Solicitors practise in Sheffield.

[dosxuk]

English words and spelling is constantly evolving as it is. Even texts written as recently as 100 years ago contain words and spellings which aren't used or taught nowadays.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Use of obsolete/obsolescent words is not really the problem; and nor is archaic grammatical/sentence formation.

Very few words' spellings have changed in the last century.

[Hammerstein]

I'm going with Harestone on this. Why dumb down a language that's taken thousands of years to evolve ... just for the sake of some learning difficulties numpties who prefer 'Grand Theft Auto' and aerosol paint (or whatever) to a good book.

Chicken and egg. You could say that they prefer those things over a good book because they found the written word so difficult. They find it difficult and turn away from it.

 

Surely, as a teacher (of English?), you must derive some sort of pleasure from teaching? Teaching phonetically, or text-speak is not the way to go. Although I'm not a big fan, I'd presume the millions of children who've been inspired to write (or read) by JK Rowling may agree with me.

 

Phonics is taught widely to children. The difference is that the phonics are largely taught on a letter or digraph basis. Of course I derived pleasure from it, but I would find it hard to know what to say other than 'that's just how it is' when, for example, a child asks me why 'knight' has a 'k' at the beginning. I would say that without a thorough knowledge of linguistic history there aren't many people that can give a suitable answer either, to that question and the myriad others that children ask about these things.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

But linguistics explains the history of word development- and the thoughts that influence it.

Surely that's worth knowing and appreciating?

[Hammerstein]

But linguistics explains the history of word development- and the thoughts that influence it.

Surely that's worth knowing and appreciating?

I was merely pointing out my frustrations when I was faced with these questions in the classroom, and what it would take to give a satisfying answer to those questions in general.