"definately"...the importance of spelling

[madviking]

The Cupertino effect is the tendency of a spellchecker to suggest inappropriate words to replace misspelled words and words not in its dictionary.

That had me for a second...

 

[Dachs]

Put eloquently by a friend of mine:

http://blog.grapesmoker.com/?p=48

Jerry has a blag?????????

 

[Rashiminos]

If one can communicate and be understood, then spelling differences are immaterial.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Jerry has a blag?????????

I wish he updated it more It's easily my favorite blog outside the poetry one I often link to.

 

[uppi]

Sounds like he didn't enjoy last year.


It depends on what you want from spelling. English spelling can give you a history of the word and imply nuances that the mere sound when spoken does not. It helps people distinguish words. The obvious and much cited example is that there's a difference between paed- and ped-:
a pedophile is someone with unusual but harmless sexual taste
a paedophile is a criminal

Having the roots of a word be obvious makes words interesting and makes the nuances and differences in language more accessible to non-academics. With basic study at school you can understand and predict the backgrounds of words. If spelling were to be reformed now then we'd lose all those little indicators of meaning.

Wait...what?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile

paedophile or esp ( US ) pedophile (ˈpiːdəʊˌfaɪl)
— n
a person who is sexually attracted to children

At least according to this, these are just different spellings of the same word. And the root would be παῖς (paîs), which agrees with neither spelling. So your example nicely illustrates my counterpoint: I agree it would be nice if one could determine the original root by looking at its spelling, but the point is moot in the case of English because usually the word is mangled in such a way already, that it does not match the original root anyway. English rarely retains the spelling of the original word anyway, so this is not an argument against spelling reform.

And if there was a sound spelling system, then the pronunciation (wait...the verb is spelled pronounce, there you have another example) would probably align more with the spelling. So if two words have the same root with the same spelling, people would start pronouncing it the same way.

Lastly, if you hate English spelling because it doesn't agree with your pronunciation, why should changing the spelling be the priority over changing your speech?

I would be fine either way. I do not hate it because it does not match my pronunciation, I hate it because if I read a new word, I have no idea how to pronounce it. And this is a huge problem if you read far more English than you listen to.
As it is, I often have to change my pronunciation anyway, because apparently people do not pronounce it like I thought they would.

 

[Martacus]

Four pages already? I don't rightly know what teh heck is teh big deal.

 

[warpus]

I hate it because if I read a new word, I have no idea how to pronounce it. And this is a huge problem if you read far more English than you listen to.

Everyone goes through this when learning English. The pronunciation of many words doesn't follow a standard set of rules, so a lot of it has to be picked up by way of experience. It's annoying but at least the other aspects of the language are far less so

 

[Brighteye]

Yes, I made a mistake with paedophile. Although paed- is very recognisably derived from paidos.

But how about cough, cognate with old german (and/or similar languages) verbs like kuchen (Dutch) and keuchen (German)?

If we were to spell it coff, the way it's mostly pronounced, it'd be nothing like any other language's words.
I certainly found languages much easier because of the similarities between English words and their roots. I have a Dutch friend who often cites the spelling when explaining how she knows what a word means: it reminds her of Dutch and German words.
Of course, I also know a Spaniard who claims that English spelling is a complete joke. But presumably he doesn't care so much about the Germanic roots of English.

 

[uppi]

Yes, I made a mistake with paedophile. Although paed- is very recognisably derived from paidos.

But how about cough, cognate with old german (and/or similar languages) verbs like kuchen (Dutch) and keuchen (German)?

If we were to spell it coff, the way it's mostly pronounced, it'd be nothing like any other language's words.
I certainly found languages much easier because of the similarities between English words and their roots. I have a Dutch friend who often cites the spelling when explaining how she knows what a word means: it reminds her of Dutch and German words.
Of course, I also know a Spaniard who claims that English spelling is a complete joke. But presumably he doesn't care so much about the Germanic roots of English.

That is a very weak example because first, because the link is so weak that you have to know it to recognize it (before you mentioned it I never equated those words) and second, because cough means something different than keuchen in German and presumably kuchen in Dutch. So it does not help at all. And it it another example of English mangling the root in such a way that it is barely recognizable anyway.

And there are examples, where the only difference between English and German is the spelling. For example house and mouse are pronounced almost exactly like the German Haus and Maus, but are spelled differently. A spelling reform might align it even more to the German counterpart.

The point is, the links to the Germanic, French, Latin, Greek or whatever roots are pretty obfuscated anyway, so who cares if a spelling reform obfuscates them a bit further. And in some cases it even might make the link a bit clearer.

 

[PaxImperator]

Alright, what governing body do you suggest? Will it be a fair representation of English as it is spoken -- that is, will Americans make up the majority of the panel, or will it be full of Oxford scholars?

If we're going to represent the English language fairly, the majority of the panel should be non-native speakers of English.

That is a very weak example because first, because the link is so weak that you have to know it to recognize it (before you mentioned it I never equated those words)

to cough/kuchen/keuchen looks perfectly obvious to me, actually. Like ship/schip/Schiff, fish/vis/Fisch or plough/ploeg/Pflug. If you have a good grasp of English and Dutch and/or German, you can spot dozens of these when reading a text in one of those languages.

and second, because cough means something different than keuchen in German and presumably kuchen in Dutch. So it does not help at all.

kuchen and to cough are about as perfect a word pair as you can get. The difference in meaning is only one of nuance, since kuchen, according to my dictionary, means to produce a (brief and dry) cough. That's a small enough difference that it's irrelevant in casual usage. It's not like kuchen means something completely different like to fish. As for keuchen, that too is still in the 'air movements in the oral-nasal cavity' sphere, like to cough and kuchen.

And it it another example of English mangling the root in such a way that it is barely recognizable anyway.

There must be words that better illustrate 'English mangling' than the cognate triplets under discussion so far, really.

 

[Mathalamus]

if it helps, i hate it when people shorten words to save time or space. i consider that form of English to be uncivilized, and refuse to understand it.

 

[uppi]

to cough/kuchen/keuchen looks perfectly obvious to me, actually. Like ship/schip/Schiff, fish/vis/Fisch or plough/ploeg/Pflug. If you have a good grasp of English and Dutch and/or German, you can spot dozens of these when reading a text in one of those languages.

From the spelling it is no way obvious that it's related to keuchen instead of, say, kaufen - to buy, or Kuchen - cake. If you know the meaning of both and know that they are related that way, you can spot some relationship in the spelling as well. But there is no way to rely on spelling alone for this.

And there are a lot of words that look very similar but mean something entirely different. For example sensible in English and sensibel in German have a totally different meaning despite looking almost exactly the same.

If one is interested in the etymology of a word, then a spelling that is somewhat related to the original root might help. But for everyday use, the spelling is quite useless to determine the meaning.

kuchen and to cough are about as perfect a word pair as you can get. The difference in meaning is only one of nuance, since kuchen, according to my dictionary, means to produce a (brief and dry) cough. That's a small enough difference that it's irrelevant in casual usage. It's not like kuchen means something completely different like to fish. As for keuchen, that too is still in the 'air movements in the oral-nasal cavity' sphere, like to cough and kuchen.

I am not familiar with Dutch, but in German translating cough with keuchen would be plain wrong. The meanings are somewhat related as they do stem form the same Germanic word, but in current usage they denote definitely distinct things. And Kuchen in German is something completely different.

And in reverse, couch would be even closer to keuchen in spelling, yet it has a totally different meaning.

There must be words that better illustrate 'English mangling' than the cognate triplets under discussion so far, really.

Two out of five letters of cough are the same as in its German/Dutch cognates. That is not exactly what I would call a striking similarity.

 

[Brighteye]

Two out of five letters of cough are the same as in its German/Dutch cognates. That is not exactly what I would call a striking similarity.

And if you were to see it in context, and imagine a 'gh' sound, you'd find yourself imagining a distinct relationship. English uses 'ch' mostly as a softer sound than in German, so although -ch might look similar, it would not be more helpful, and nor would the '-ff' of 'coff' if we were to simplify it to modern pronunciation. 'Coff' would definitely remove any link.

 

[uppi]

And if you were to see it in context, and imagine a 'gh' sound, you'd find yourself imagining a distinct relationship. English uses 'ch' mostly as a softer sound than in German, so although -ch might look similar, it would not be more helpful, and nor would the '-ff' of 'coff' if we were to simplify it to modern pronunciation. 'Coff' would definitely remove any link.

But the 'gh' sound would be the wrong sound: Depending on the sound before 'ch' can stand for two sounds in German: One that is similar to the died out 'gh' sound and another very soft sound, which is softer than the English 'ch' sound. (the first sound in huge is the closest English sound). Keuchen is the second usage, so 'ch' would be too hard instead of too soft.

Anyway, in order to make the connection, you already need quite some knowledge about the evolution of sounds in English. So its practical usefulness is quite low and giving up that weak link would be a small price to pay for spelling system that makes some sense.

 

[Brighteye]

B
Anyway, in order to make the connection, you already need quite some knowledge about the evolution of sounds in English. So its practical usefulness is quite low and giving up that weak link would be a small price to pay for spelling system that makes some sense.

So we've established the principle, and now we're simply haggling over the price?

I found English spelling interesting and thought-provoking, and I and foreign friends have found the connections with other words both useful and interesting. It has never been a problem for memory or reading. A spelling system that is better integrated with pronunciation, but that makes less sense (interpreting that sentence very literally) would be a great loss.
When you simplify Tolkein's phrase 'things that are, things that have been , and things that have not yet come to pass' to ' teh present, teh past and teh future' I'm sure that you align the writing better with people's thoughts. But you lose both meaning and timing, and therefore a lot of information, in the simplification.

I see no reason to simplify Tolkein to make his writing make more sense to those unable to comprehend it.
I see no reason to change English spelling for those who refuse to use its information.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

When you see a passage of words that denote an idea and expression, can still in fact hold the same meaning in a different form as long as the meaning remain intact with different type of people carrying its own different set of way of understanding them.

But is changing the form of the word with a different spelling really doesn't change the meaning?

 

[uppi]

So we've established the principle, and now we're simply haggling over the price?

I found English spelling interesting and thought-provoking, and I and foreign friends have found the connections with other words both useful and interesting. It has never been a problem for memory or reading. A spelling system that is better integrated with pronunciation, but that makes less sense (interpreting that sentence very literally) would be a great loss.
When you simplify Tolkein's phrase 'things that are, things that have been , and things that have not yet come to pass' to ' teh present, teh past and teh future' I'm sure that you align the writing better with people's thoughts. But you lose both meaning and timing, and therefore a lot of information, in the simplification.

I see no reason to simplify Tolkein to make his writing make more sense to those unable to comprehend it.
I see no reason to change English spelling for those who refuse to use its information.

A spelling reform would not necessarily result in a net loss of information, because it would readd information about the spoken language into the spelling. And I consider this far more important than some secondary information about the root that might help in some cases and severely mislead in other cases. For a globally distributed language like English, a guideline how to convert written words to speech is important to prevent further fracture of the spoken language and to preserve mutual intelligibility.

But even if one highly values the retaining of Middle English roots (because its really those roots that English spelling is preserving), this is no excuse to not fix the cases where the spelling makes no sense at all, because it matches neither the pronunciation nor the root. Or those cases where the spelling actually adds ambiguity that is not present in speech. I agree that a full conversion to an alphabetic spelling might not be desirable. But there is fixing to be done that can be made without loss of information and your arguments are no excuse for not doing those.

 

[Brighteye]

There are some spellings which are due to false etymologies. I don't really care to defend those. I would be happy to have those words changed, and I'd be a little narked but not too upset if they changed to simple spellings that reflected no root at all, rather than were corrected to reflect nuances more accurately.