|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Standardized Spelling Elitism?
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure how the Chinese would see this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to learn British English, too.
When I taught English there (admittedly, some years ago now), they were very much in favor of learning American English, as it is perceived as the language of international commerce.
[edited to fix coding cock-up]
[ 12. December 2013, 12:59: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
By contrast, when I taught Korean postgraduates at a UK university a few years ago, those who'd brought their families with them were pleased that their children would be speaking British English, which apparently has a higher social cachet in Korea- possibly becaue US English is otherwise the norm there.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
America had a spelling reform. That's precisely why their spelling isn't the same as UK spelling!
And any but the most hardened jingoist will admit that "jail" makes more sense than "gaol."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
America had a spelling reform. That's precisely why their spelling isn't the same as UK spelling!
And any but the most hardened jingoist will admit that "jail" makes more sense than "gaol."
It certainly is a better word. Though oddly, English has apparently always had both forms running side by side. According to the OED they came into Middle English from the two different forms of the French word - northern and central French.
That's enough looking things up today I think!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
America had a spelling reform. That's precisely why their spelling isn't the same as UK spelling!
When I was working on the history of various Ulster dialects, I noticed that many 19th century documents used the spelling honor rather than honour.
I suspect that rather than a conscious spelling reform, honor just came to be more widely accepted in America.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
America had a spelling reform. That's precisely why their spelling isn't the same as UK spelling!
When I was working on the history of various Ulster dialects, I noticed that many 19th century documents used the spelling honor rather than honour.
I suspect that rather than a conscious spelling reform, honor just came to be more widely accepted in America.
Moo
Have you not heard of
Webster?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The linked paragraph states some of his reforms and rejected others. IIRC, Webster wished to greatly simplify spelling to a more phonetic system. You may observe how successful that was.
Thus demonstrates the balance of imposed and accepted change.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
America had a spelling reform. That's precisely why their spelling isn't the same as UK spelling!
When I was working on the history of various Ulster dialects, I noticed that many 19th century documents used the spelling honor rather than honour.
I suspect that rather than a conscious spelling reform, honor just came to be more widely accepted in America.
Moo
Have you not heard of
Webster?
Do you believe the 19th century residents of Ulster took their spelling from Webster?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Are you saying "honor" came to be the accepted spelling in America because of something that happened in 19th century Ulster?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I am saying that many residents of 19th century America came from Ulster, and they brought their spelling with them.
Webster did not invent the spelling honor; he found it side-by-side with honour. He preferred the shorter form.
He did not simplify spelling; he standardized it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am saying that many residents of 19th century America came from Ulster, and they brought their spelling with them.
Webster did not invent the spelling honor; he found it side-by-side with honour. He preferred the shorter form.
He did not simplify spelling; he standardized it.
Moo
You may be underestimating the power that Webster had on the American language. His "Blue Backed Speller" became THE book children in American public (tax-funded) schools learned their vocabulary from for nearly 100 years.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You may be underestimating the power that Webster had on the American language. His "Blue Backed Speller" became THE book children in American public (tax-funded) schools learned their vocabulary from for nearly 100 years.
I am not denying his influence. I am talking about how he arrived at his standardization. He did not simplify the spelling of honour. He endorsed the already-existing form honor
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it may be worth thinking about a mild orthography reform. However, is there a desire among native English speakers for that? In the end, this would have to be pushed through by the government, mostly by using it in its own communications and by dictating it to schools as the new standard for their curriculum. That's only going to happen if the population actually thinks that the spelling needs some fixing, rather than treating it as a kind of achievement to know the more obscure ins and outs.
I can only imagine the Fox News reaction to a proposal that American English be simplified to make it easier for immigrants and foreigners. The U.S. is still working on adapting the metric system. While this would make it simpler for foreigners, it would make it harder for those who claim that there's only one correct spelling and they already know it.
[ 12. December 2013, 23:34: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You may be underestimating the power that Webster had on the American language. His "Blue Backed Speller" became THE book children in American public (tax-funded) schools learned their vocabulary from for nearly 100 years.
I am not denying his influence. I am talking about how he arrived at his standardization. He did not simplify the spelling of honour. He endorsed the already-existing form honor
Moo
I'm not sure anyone is claiming that he invented the simplified spellings he endorsed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
He did not simplify spelling; he standardized it.
I said there was a spelling reform. Why are you excluding the word 'standardized' from a reform?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I said there was a spelling reform. Why are you excluding the word 'standardized' from a reform?
Because if he had been trying to create a genuine spelling reform he would have done something about the spelling of right and rough.
He dealt with the very small area where there were alternate spellings. To me reform means something much more sweeping.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I said there was a spelling reform. Why are you excluding the word 'standardized' from a reform?
Because if he had been trying to create a genuine spelling reform he would have done something about the spelling of right and rough.
He dealt with the very small area where there were alternate spellings. To me reform means something much more sweeping.
Moo
Do you pay words extra when you use them idiosyncratically?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Do you find it easier to respond in the register of Humpty Dumpty* than argue your case on the basis of a dictionary definition?
*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." (with a tip of the hat to Justinian who also quoted this recently)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
My field is linguistics, and I have always heard 'spelling standardization' and 'spelling reform' treated as two separate concepts. I think it is a mistake to conflate them.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My field is linguistics, and I have always heard 'spelling standardization' and 'spelling reform' treated as two separate concepts. I think it is a mistake to conflate them.
Moo
It is. But Webster changed spellings as well as standardised them. One of his goals was to differentiate American English from British English. IIFC, he wanted much greater change than was accepted. Wimmin instead of women, for example.
Standards were certainly a part, but sure changing the language to differentiate would be reform, yes?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I know that when two forms existed side-by-side, such as honor and honour, he chose one and rejected the other.
Can you tell me of words with only one spelling which he changed?
There may be such cases, but I don't know of them.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Wimmin for one. I can look for more. Whilst some of the alternate spellings he proposed existed, they were not common usage. It would be difficult to find an alternate that had not been used somewhere, given that local printers were often their own dictionary. IIRC, Webster was one of those wishing to simplify the lot.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Did the form women not exist side-by-side with wimmin?
I know that Webster was intent on getting rid of alternate spellings.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I know that when two forms existed side-by-side, such as honor and honour, he chose one and rejected the other.
Can you tell me of words with only one spelling which he changed?
There may be such cases, but I don't know of them.
Moo
I'm pretty sure many of these proposed changes involved introducing novel spellings:
quote:
Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend.
[...]
Thus by putting ee instead of ea or ie, the words mean, near, speak grieve, zeal, would become meen, neer, speek, greev, zeel.
These and other examples of Webster's suggestions are found in this article.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm pretty sure many of these proposed changes involved introducing novel spellings:
quote:
Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend.
[...]
Thus by putting ee instead of ea or ie, the words mean, near, speak grieve, zeal, would become meen, neer, speek, greev, zeel.
These and other examples of Webster's suggestions are found in this article.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief
You may be underestimating the power that Webster had on the American language. His "Blue Backed Speller" became THE book children in American public (tax-funded) schools learned their vocabulary from for nearly 100 years.
Webster did not include these innovations in his Blue Backed Speller, and they do not appear to have had any effect on American orthography.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm pretty sure many of these proposed changes involved introducing novel spellings:
quote:
Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend.
[...]
Thus by putting ee instead of ea or ie, the words mean, near, speak grieve, zeal, would become meen, neer, speek, greev, zeel.
These and other examples of Webster's suggestions are found in this article.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief
You may be underestimating the power that Webster had on the American language. His "Blue Backed Speller" became THE book children in American public (tax-funded) schools learned their vocabulary from for nearly 100 years.
Webster did not include these innovations in his Blue Backed Speller, and they do not appear to have had any effect on American orthography.
Moo
And the ones he did include, did. So? This proves what? Perhaps it shows the power of the BBS -- the things in it changed our spelling, and the things not in it didn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The real problem, ISTM -- and GB Shaw ran up against the same issue -- is that English, to a greater extent than German or French of various languages -- has grown as much by adopting other languages' words as it has by creating neologisms. Where those languages use the same or similar writing systems, English tends to preserve the original spelling in its own usage.
Imposing a language-wide spelling system on the language's sounds at this point is probably impossible; there are vowel sounds used in Australia (as one example) I never hear in normal native American speech.
How would we standardize these?
Further, I think it would be a great loss not to be able to tell, from a word's spelling, where it probably originated from (and before anyone screams it's against the rules to end sentences with prepositions, the OED language police retired that rule in something like 1989).
[ 08. February 2014, 15:59: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Porridge quote:
Imposing a language-wide spelling system on the language's sounds at this point is probably impossible; there are vowel sounds used in Australia (as one example) I never hear in normal native American speech.
How would we standardize these?
Surely the point of a spelling reform would be to allow the speaker to work out how the word is to be pronounced in his own accent. If a combination of (say two) vowels produced a different sound in another accent - so what? At least an Aussi would easily learn the reformed spelling.
Again, if an alternative spelling for a word was commonly defined and accepted, then those sitting in judgement could not complain.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The problem is that sound use in different dialects is not isomorphic - it's not that one sound is universally substituted for another - but that sometimes the sounds are the same and sometimes different, and some dialects mix features common to other dialects. Take, for example, the "a" in path and hard. In my native dialect, those sounds are near enough identical. In a Northern English dialect they are not only different from mine but distinct from each other. Should they have different spellings to reflect the Northern pronunciation or the same spelling to reflect mine? The only way to have phonetic spelling is to have multiple standards to a far greater extent and possibly to the point of unintelligibility (remember that it is often difficult for speakers of local dialects to make themselves understood even within the UK; try getting an Essex girl and a Glaswegian docker to have a coherent conversation. Now imagine they couldn't even write a letter that the other could read).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Surely the point of a spelling reform would be to allow the speaker to work out how the word is to be pronounced in his own accent. If a combination of (say two) vowels produced a different sound in another accent - so what? At least an Aussi would easily learn the reformed spelling.
Again, if an alternative spelling for a word was commonly defined and accepted, then those sitting in judgement could not complain.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that people should be able to spell words the way they sound in their own accents, without considering that those who read the words might have an entirely different accent?
I'm thinking of the song from My Fair Lady which is sung by Liza Doolittle: "Wouldn't it be Lovely"
The first lines are:
“All I want is a room somewhere
Far away from the cold night air”
To my New England ear, Liza's rendition could be spelled as follows:
"Oll Oi wont iz a rheum sumwheh
Fah Rawhey frem the coald noit aih"
People from my state might render it this way:
"Ahl I wunt iz a rum sumwheh
Faah 'away fr’m the cold nite aih"
People from the coastal south US might sing it as follows:
"All Ah wo-ant iyiz a ruom some whe-ah
Foh awah-y fr’m the co-ald naaht ai-ah"
In upper-class Brit-Speak, it might sound (from my point of reference) like this:
"Awl I wont iz a rheum somm wheh
Faah r’away from the coled nite eyuh"
And from the Ohio area, it might go this way:
"Orl I woant iz a rhum some wherrr
Farr away fr'm the cold nite errr"
It might be easier for individuals to spell as they (think) they speak, but it would render written communication -- which, after all, is what spelling is for -- far more complicated. Certainly it would slow our reading down.
There's overlap and similarities among these renditions, but I can't see how it helps us out with communicating easily and effectively.
If I've misunderstood, my apologies. Perhaps you're suggesting that opposite: that we each pronounce one spelling in our various ways.
But isn't that precisely what we do now?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Seems as good a reductio against spelling reform as one could wish.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I can see how a spelling reform to a new standard might help in learning English.*
But to remove any standard of spelling would render communication near impossible.
I have witnessed two people speaking English with vastly different accent need to resort to spelling to effectively communicate.
*Not that I think this likely to happen.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Porridge quote:
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that people should be able to spell words the way they sound in their own accents, without considering that those who read the words might have an entirely different accent?
I'm saying that the spelling would always be the same for the english word, but the pronounciation would always vary. It would be a very great loss (besides being an impossibility) if regional speech sounds were denigrated.
However I think that commonly agreed rules that indicate the sound of vowel combinations would easily define a good approximation to the correct rendering. At present spellings often give no clue.
lilBuddha quote:
I have witnessed two people speaking English with vastly different accent need to resort to spelling to effectively communicate.
Very likely. But resorting to an easily read word is a plus.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
At present spellings often give no clue.
In the closed thread on simple spellings, you included several words which took me a while to puzzle out, as the way they were spelled bore no relation to the way I pronounce them. - "vier", "advarnss" "arfter" "ideer." Fortunately I could work out which words you meant from the context.
In my accent, there is no "r" at the end of via, or idea, and no "r" in the middle of advance and after; Under your spelling children would have to learn a "silent r" rule - that some words would be spelled with an "r" but that "r" is silent.
You would simply replace one set of "idiotic" spellings with a different set.
How would you decide whether the spelling reflects a rhotic or a non-rhotic accent?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
North East Quine quote:
In the closed thread on simple spellings, you included several words which took me a while to puzzle out, as the way they were spelled bore no relation to the way I pronounce them. - "vier", "advarnss" "arfter" "ideer." Fortunately I could work out which words you meant from the context.
It seemed I had rushed in not knowing that the angels were somewhere else discussing if there was a door! As an example it was entirely off the cuff and just to make a point. If you had been taught what sound (in your own accent) 'i' and 'ee' made then you could work out the word and spell it.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
If you had been taught what sound (in your own accent) 'i' and 'ee' made then you could work out the word and spell it.
Yes - but the whole point is that reading can be quick and automatic if it's standardised. There is no 'working out' unless we come across a word which is new to us.
I teach dyslexic children, and I am dyslexic myself. It's hard enough to learn to spell as it is, without the spellings changing on a whim.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
If you had been taught what sound (in your own accent) 'i' and 'ee' made then you could work out the word and spell it.
But I have worked out how words are pronounced in my accent - an accent which has morphed over the years, as they do.
What I like about the current spelling regime is that nobody speaks like that. It is not an accurate transcription, AFAIK, of any specific dialect. Were a new scheme to be introduced it would have to take some one spoken version as the model. So is it not just RP all over again?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Let me put it simply, rhymes do not work the same in all forms of English! What is more they change with time. While there are differences in the words that rhyme, there cannot be a consistent way of spelling English that is consistent in all forms of English.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I have a question, not so much about spelling and grammar differences, but about meaning.
In British English 'alternate' = happening in
turns
and 'alternative' = offering a choice of two things
quite often in UK one sees these two words used wrongly
as in ROAD CLOSED USE ALTERNATE ROUTE
I suspect that this usage comes from American English,but wonder if the meaning is the same for the two words on the other side of the Atlantic.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the confusion is that "alternate" is in fact two words and not one - an adjective broadly synonymous with with the adjectival form of alternative, and a verb meaning "to switch back and forth". This is detectable (at least in my dialect) by the adjective being alTERnut and the verb being ALTernayt.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
In highway signs, in addition, the "alternate" saves space, energy (in electric signs), and therefore money.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the confusion is that "alternate" is in fact two words and not one - an adjective broadly synonymous with with the adjectival form of alternative, and a verb meaning "to switch back and forth". This is detectable (at least in my dialect) by the adjective being alTERnut and the verb being ALTernayt.
My two editions of Fowler seem to take issue with this. The latest (3rd Ed., c. 1993) acknowledges that 'alternate' and 'alternative' are synonymous in some senses in American English, but not in British English.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I also have a question unrelated to spelling. I keep hearing or reading about "well-paying jobs" and "good-paying jobs." To my ear, "well-paying" sounds very wrong, and good-paying a step or two better, but still not Quite Right. We are arguing about this at work, since we advertise often to fill vacant positions.
As the Designated Writer of this copy at my workplace, I currently duck this issue by writing "competitive wages" or "jobs that pay well" or some, er, alternative. Since my duckings take more space and cost more money, I'm under pressure to use (winces) "well-paying jobs."
Ammunition welcomed.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that people should be able to spell words the way they sound in their own accents, without considering that those who read the words might have an entirely different accent?
I'm thinking of the song from My Fair Lady which is sung by Liza Doolittle: "Wouldn't it be Lovely"
The first lines are:
“All I want is a room somewhere
Far away from the cold night air”
To my New England ear, Liza's rendition could be spelled as follows:
"Oll Oi wont iz a rheum sumwheh
Fah Rawhey frem the coald noit aih"
People from my state might render it this way:
"Ahl I wunt iz a rum sumwheh
Faah 'away fr’m the cold nite aih"
People from the coastal south US might sing it as follows:
"All Ah wo-ant iyiz a ruom some whe-ah
Foh awah-y fr’m the co-ald naaht ai-ah"
In upper-class Brit-Speak, it might sound (from my point of reference) like this:
"Awl I wont iz a rheum somm wheh
Faah r’away from the coled nite eyuh"
And from the Ohio area, it might go this way:
"Orl I woant iz a rhum some wherrr
Farr away fr'm the cold nite errr"
It might be easier for individuals to spell as they (think) they speak, but it would render written communication -- which, after all, is what spelling is for -- far more complicated. Certainly it would slow our reading down.
There's overlap and similarities among these renditions, but I can't see how it helps us out with communicating easily and effectively.
If I've misunderstood, my apologies. Perhaps you're suggesting that opposite: that we each pronounce one spelling in our various ways.
But isn't that precisely what we do now?
I think this post qualifies as the best example of putting an issue to bed that I have seen on the Ship. AFAIAC, it completely debunks phonetic spelling reform, and the case for the maintenance of the status quo is unanswerable.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
If you had been taught what sound (in your own accent) 'i' and 'ee' made then you could work out the word and spell it.
The problem is, not everything I want to read is written by people with my own accent.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
North East Quine quote:
In the closed thread on simple spellings, you included several words which took me a while to puzzle out, as the way they were spelled bore no relation to the way I pronounce them. - "vier", "advarnss" "arfter" "ideer." Fortunately I could work out which words you meant from the context.
It seemed I had rushed in not knowing that the angels were somewhere else discussing if there was a door! As an example it was entirely off the cuff and just to make a point. If you had been taught what sound (in your own accent) 'i' and 'ee' made then you could work out the word and spell it.
My issue with those words is not the "i" and "ee" sounds, but with the rhotic and non-rhotic "r". I know what sound "r" makes in my accent; I pronounce "r" as in the first letter of "robot" or "red". In your spelling, there are "r"s inserted where they are not pronounced in my accent, hence, to make sense of these spellings, there would need a rule about a "silent "r" in the same way as we currently have a silent "k" at the start of knight or knee.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm under pressure to use (winces) "well-paying jobs."
Ammunition welcomed.
"Pay" is a verb and as such is qualified by adverbs, as opposed to nouns which are qualified by adjectives. "Good" is an adjective and "well" is an adverb, so "well-paying" is grammatically correct.
That may not be the sort of ammunition you wanted (although FWIW I prefer any of your alternatives to having to choose between the two you are faced with).
In any case, I think the topic at hand here is really spelling rather than grammar.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In a similar context would you say ;
I'm paid well or I'm paid good ?
FWIW I would say this is a well paid job
If you wanted to use the present continuous tense,
would you say :
they are paying me well
or
they are paying me good ?
you might of course say :
they are paying me good money.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
"Payed good" to my ear just sounds wrong. I would definitely say "payed well".
One that annoys me is when someone asks "how are you?" and the reply far too often is "I'm good". I'm tempted to reply "oh, you've been a good boy/girl then?". The correct reply, of course,is "I'm well".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would suggest "high-paying" as an equally short alternative.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
