Spelling Bee Sting: Enuf is Enuf!

[3113]

Heer! Heer! Now this is something worth protesting!

...Four peaceful protesters, some dressed in full-length black and yellow bee costumes, represented the American Literacy Council and the London-based Spelling Society and stood outside the Grand Hyatt on Thursday, where the Scripps National Spelling Bee is being held. Their message was short: Simplify the way we spell words.

Roberta Mahoney, 81, a former Fairfax County, Va. elementary school principal, said the current language obstructs 40 percent of the population from learning how to read, write and spell. "Our alphabet has 425-plus ways of putting words together in illogical ways," Mahoney said. The protesting cohort distributed pins to willing passers-by with their logo, "Enuf is enuf. Enough is too much."

According to literature distributed by the group, it makes more sense for "fruit" to be spelled as "froot," "slow" should be "slo," and "heifer" — a word spelled correctly during the first oral round of the bee Thursday by Texas competitor Ramesh Ghanta — should be "hefer." Meanwhile, inside the hotel's Independence Ballroom, 273 spellers celebrated the complexity of the language in all its glory, correctly spelling words like zaibatsu, vibrissae and biauriculate.

Full story Here (or should that be "Hear"? Or "Heer"?)

 

[glynndah]

One of my kids was there this weekend. He didn't win or I'd've heard, but I wonder how he did.

 

[SeaCat]

This idea has been around for a ling time. It's called Phonetics.

I disagree with it just as I disagree with accepting things such as Spanglish and Ebonics as acceptable alternatives to English in our Schools.

Cat

 

[Handley_Page]

I confess to feeling occasionally that a little simplification of our glorious language might get somewhere. Then I think - NO. The Chines and Japanese ain't going to make it any easier for us to learn their language, so why should we change ours ?.

And then, are our teachers so bereft that they cannot teach English ?
(that said, I've seen some who are appalling).

Frute ?
Heffer? (hefer would be pronounced HEEFER)
Sloh ?

 

[cloudy]

I disagree with the dumbing down of anything. All languages have their own idiosyncrasies, and honestly...it's not that damn hard to learn.

 

[3113]

.it's not that damn hard to learn.

Ha! Speak for yourself. For some of us, it is that damn hard to learn. Nearly impossible. From grade school on I sweated and worked my ass off trying to learn to spell right. Nothing I tried ever worked and I was miserable and embarrassed through high school and college because of it. Even now I still fuck up on spelling--and I promise you, it's not because i don't want to spell right, or haven't worked at it.

If not for spell-checkers, I'd be lost. So, no, it ain't so easy, not for everyone.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

A noble cause but a lost one. The problem is that we have a Germanic language with 44/45 sounds in it but only 26 letters, two of which ('x' and 'q') are totally useless. Memorizing lists of spelling words has been proven over and over to be an exercise in futility. Only writing and reading will make someone a competent speller and even that doesn't always work. As a teacher and as one who without spellcheck would be only marginally literate, I know!

What the proponents of simplified spelling forget is that pronunciation changes over time and space. That fact is the reason why English spelling is so blamed idiosyncratic. When the first printing presses went into business in the Oxford region of the UK, that time between sunset and dawn was actually spoken 'nicht' in some areas, just as that chap in the shiny suit on a horse was spoken 'k-nicht'. Add to that the fact that Oxford sits in the middle of three different dialectical areas and that writers from all three were submitting manuscripts to be published and it becomes obvious why our language is so odd looking.

We will ignore the endless weird idioms . . .

Just what does "Now, then" really mean?

 

[TE999]

There was a similar movement in the 1930's to simplify spelling as these folks are advocating. Noah Webster was for it in the early 19th Century...although he did simplify our spelling from the Brits...favor instead of favour, f'r instance.

We already have Textspeak, LOLspeak and Geekspeak making inroads...can gradual modification of Amerispeak in toto be far off?

(Should that be altho instead of although?)

 

[Boxlicker101]

A noble cause but a lost one. The problem is that we have a Germanic language with 44/45 sounds in it but only 26 letters, two of which ('x' and 'q') are totally useless. Memorizing lists of spelling words has been proven over and over to be an exercise in futility. Only writing and reading will make someone a competent speller and even that doesn't always work. As a teacher and as one who without spellcheck would be only marginally literate, I know!

What the proponents of simplified spelling forget is that pronunciation changes over time and space. That fact is the reason why English spelling is so blamed idiosyncratic. When the first printing presses went into business in the Oxford region of the UK, that time between sunset and dawn was actually spoken 'nicht' in some areas, just as that chap in the shiny suit on a horse was spoken 'k-nicht'. Add to that the fact that Oxford sits in the middle of three different dialectical areas and that writers from all three were submitting manuscripts to be published and it becomes obvious why our language is so odd looking.

We will ignore the endless weird idioms . . .

Just what does "Now, then" really mean?

Not to mention all the strange French words that have been incorporated into the language and the strange roots, such as pneu and rhin, which defy logic.

 

[Xelebes]

I like ðe idea of bringing back letters ðæt we have larjly forgotten ðæt have proven useful in our languaj for digrafs and, even worſ, tri-grafs. It removes much of ðe ambiguity on how to pronounſ the words we read. Ðoh, I must say that I prefer the marking of streſses and shapes on vowels much the same way we do today as vowels vary a lot between rejions and dialects; ðæt some of ðem are, in fact, difþongs.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I would prefer unified spelling to simplified at this point in time. Take out some of the exceptions to rules and make them adhere to the damn rules.

 

[Handley_Page]

I like ðe idea of bringing back letters ðæt we have larjly forgotten ðæt have proven useful in our languaj for digrafs and, even worſ, tri-grafs. It removes much of ðe ambiguity on how to pronounſ the words we read. Ðoh, I must say that I prefer the marking of streſses and shapes on vowels much the same way we do today as vowels vary a lot between rejions and dialects; ðæt some of ðem are, in fact, difþongs.

Personally, I do mifs the long S

 

[3113]

Personally, I do mifs the long S

That look like "f's"? Like all those in the constitution so we have the "purfuit of happineff"?

Why did all those "s's" look like "f's"?

 

[TE999]

That look like "f's"? Like all those in the constitution so we have the "purfuit of happineff"?

Why did all those "s's" look like "f's"?

That waf the ftile of writing in thofe dayf...'Englifh Flamboyant'.

 

[Xelebes]

That waf the ftile of writing in thofe dayf...'Englifh Flamboyant'.

You are doing it rong. Ðe 'sh' is a digraf and it is to be ritten as wiþ a short s. Ðe long s, or ſ, is to represent the long eſses you hear in such words as æſs, bleſs and pronounſ. It is especially useful for nouns and verbs ðæt end in 's' ðat need to be made plural or present tenſ. Like pronounſs and tenſs. It is also useful for distinguishing adjectivs and verbs like present (adjectiv & noun) and preſent (verb.) However, if you look in ðe kharacter map, you will notice ðæt ðere is an actual long s ðere and its major differenſ from the letter f is ðe missing hæsh mark.

 

[Loring2]

Wow Cloudy

I disagree with the dumbing down of anything. All languages have their own idiosyncrasies, and honestly...it's not that damn hard to learn.

Finally, something on which we agree totally ... go Cloudy!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow Cloudy

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudy
I disagree with the dumbing down of anything. All languages have their own idiosyncrasies, and honestly...it's not that damn hard to learn.

Finally, something on which we agree totally ... go Cloudy!

I agree with both of you. It isn't easy, but it has been done by hundreds of millions of persons, including my wife, for whom English is a second language.

 

[Katyusha]

Ha! Speak for yourself. For some of us, it is that damn hard to learn. Nearly impossible. From grade school on I sweated and worked my ass off trying to learn to spell right. Nothing I tried ever worked and I was miserable and embarrassed through high school and college because of it. Even now I still fuck up on spelling--and I promise you, it's not because i don't want to spell right, or haven't worked at it.

If not for spell-checkers, I'd be lost. So, no, it ain't so easy, not for everyone.

Students, however, have the same problems with math and reading...every subject there is has its people who can't grasp it for one reason or another (I struggled with math all through school myself). Is that reason enough to simplify it the way they're suggesting?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Beyond the rudiments such as knowing the difference between your and you're and The Three There's, spelling is a dilettante's pursuit, more an obsession than a skill. It doesn't improve your mind, it doesn't lead to more knowledge, it doesn't manifest any special intelligence or aptitude, and as far as a writer's skills go, I put it way down there well below the ability to punctuate or knowing when to start a new paragraph.

That doesn't mean that spelling's not important. It's just something that can more profitably left to machines, which is pretty much what being an obsessive speller turns you into, it seems to me.

I mean, when's the last time anyone complimented your story for its outstanding orthography? Did it make you proud?

"Yes. I became a writer because I wanted to put my gift for spelling to good use."

???

As for the National Bee... I have to mention a book by a Neil Greenberg called Failure, which is mostly about what happens at the National Spelling Bee: the enormous pressure the kids are under, the "vomit rooms" and special receiving rooms for the losers staffed by trained psychologists and equipped with punching dummies and oxygen. The whole spectacle is like some sadistic ritual

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Just what does "Now, then" really mean?

Pretty much the same as, "Well..."

 

[egelante]

This always strikes me as a tricky topic. My view might have already made an appearance in the thread, and if so I apologise.



I have two principle points.

Historical study of language seems to me to demonstrate one important thing: language changes at its own pace with technology and communication without requiring significant and radical shifts based on top-down authority or radical deliberate change.

When studying the transcription of early French music manuscripts, I had to learn numerous (and confusing) abbreviations of latin and french words and syllables, unusual ways of writing things, and perhaps most hideously of all, how to read a script that was frequently error-ridden and verging on illegible. (I'm no slow reader - I read a largish novel per day by the time I was 8 or 9 - but deciphering these texts frequently took me an hour to reveal a simple binary verse. My French was, at the time, pretty fluent, and I have spent a fair bit of time with calligraphy, and so am no stranger to hand-writing... I simply accepted that it was necessary for me to learn these things and deal with them. I acknowledge that this is sometimes an impossibility. Sadly, the world is filled with impossibilities, or at least, improbabilities.)

If we compare this to modern typography, it is clear that language and its transmission has advanced considerably, as has the standardisation of spelling. At that point, a word might appear in a dozen different spellings, all potentially rendering variations in sounds, and all equally valid. Ever more rapid communications and methods of reproduction have altered this for themselves with what seems surprisingly little top-down interference.

Further, we would do well not to forget that language has history. To dispense with "enough" in favour of "enuf" is to forget that the word has a historical root, and that our own language is simply another part of that history's growth. To sever our language from that root is to sever ourselves from our culture. Is it really wise to change our language to the point that we can no longer trace the progression from Shakespeare, or the King James Bible, or Chaucer to our own language without having to have it quite literally spelled out and transliterated for us. In essence, it would create a new language. And from my perspective, that would probably mean it would be a lesser one.



Perhaps my point in this long ramble is that we need to be patient about language - it predates and outlives us, and as such we should be wary of adopting the current and ubiquitous trend of over-simplifying things for "the common good". That is not to say that I believe language should be unnecessarily complicated when that is unwanted, but that good is not necessarily found in simplicity.

 

[3113]

Students, however, have the same problems with math and reading...every subject there is has its people who can't grasp it for one reason or another (I struggled with math all through school myself). Is that reason enough to simplify it the way they're suggesting?

But math and spelling are not the same, are they? 2X4 = 8 and however hard that is for a kid to understand, I can't change it to make it any easier. Ditto with just about every equation on up the ladder. There are ways I can teach math, tricks and such, that might make it easier for students having a hard time, but I can't change mathematics. I can't make numbers mean different than they mean, and I can alter the outcome of equations to make them easier to figure out.

What's more, that math has stayed pretty much the same (excepting how high the numbers went or how they were symbolized) for as long as people have done mathematics. 5000 years ago Egyptians were using this same math to build the pyramids, and any mathematician now can understand the equations that Newton used for his laws. But you have to learn old English spelling to read Chaucer.

Spelling can and has changed. It always can and has changed. It's completely idiosyncratic, as texting shows. This doesn't mean it *should* be changed, only that the comparison of having a hard time learning to spell to having a hard time learning math is apples and oranges. And if changing the spelling were to make reading easier, well, then that would just ice the cake in favor of such change, wouldn't it?