|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Standardized Spelling Elitism?
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Thanks for responses.
"Well-paid" bothers me not at all, as it sounds (and AFAIK, is) correct; it's the "well-paying" version that sticks in my craw. When we call something a “paying” job (as opposed, I assume, to volunteer work), “paying” is an adjective; it modifies “job,” a noun. As noted by Eutychus, we use adverbs to modify verbs, though we also use them to modify adjectives. AFAIK, “He’s well thought of,” or “She’s well-spoken” are both correct usage. So, alas, “”well-paying” must be correct. I don’t know why I hate it so.
I’ll go with “well-paid.” How can the other managers complain? It’s even shorter than “well-paying.”
Back to spelling.
[ 09. February 2014, 17:49: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
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.
The horrible grammar in "good-paying" has been described above.
"High-paying" to my ear doesn't mean the same - it is eminently reasonable to search for a well-paid job for a semi-skilled labourer, but you are unlikely to find a highly-paid one.
I prefer "well-paid job" in your context.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure how "this job pays well" can be acceptable but "this is a well-paying job" not. Do you feel that way about other adverb-gerundive combinations? Rapidly-rising prices? Or other adverb-adjective combinations? Closely-held secret?
ETA: Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
[ 09. February 2014, 19:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure how "this job pays well" can be acceptable but "this is a well-paying job" not.
Neither am I, but there it is. I'm not claiming the stance is reasonable or right; it's just my stance.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you feel that way about other adverb-gerundive combinations? Rapidly-rising prices?
Rapidly-rising prices sounds fine to me. Actually, I think the adverb-gerundive combo isn't all that common. Perhaps what gets up my nose is that "well" is one of those adverbs that doesn't take an "-ly" ending. I'd have, on reflection, the same reaction to a "well-cooking stove" or a "well-singing choir" but no issue at all with a "well-cooked meal" or a "well-sung song."
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or other adverb-adjective combinations? Closely-held secret??
Again, sounds fine.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
Quibble. While the individual filling the job gets the cash, it's the job that employers pay for. When Worker A slopes off in search of greener pastures, Worker B comes along and collects the same cash -- provided s/he does the job. Nothing wrong with your logic, of course -- but if languages operated on logic, we wouldn't be having this thread on English's crazy-quilt patchwork of spelling systems.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I'm saying that the spelling would always be the same for the english word, but the pronounciation would always vary. ...
But isn't that the present situation, in which case why change it to a different version of the same thing? Or have I completely missed the point?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
That seems equally illogical to me. It is the employer who is doing the paying, not the job. Still, as mentioned above, when has logic been the final arbiter of anything to do with the English language.
Does that bring us back to the subject to standardised (-ized) spelling?
ETA: "to" is pretty standardized in any spelling system.
[ 09. February 2014, 22:49: Message edited by: Jonah the Whale ]
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
That seems equally illogical to me. It is the employer who is doing the paying, not the job.
"What does it pay?" asked of a job is pretty standard.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
To reiterate:- "I'm saying that the spelling would always be the same for the english word, but the pronounciation would always vary. ... "
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch :
But isn't that the present situation, in which case why change it to a different version of the same thing? Or have I completely missed the point?
On reflection I meant 'often vary'. But I think you were not referring to this.
What I am getting at is that the spelling of many words gives no clue to their pronunciation e.g. 'thought' 'taut', whereas a simple combination of two vowels (a standardised version) would allow the reader (and speller) to at least have a good idea of how to say them even if it has a local accent.
The odd thing is that we change the meaning of words (viz 'issue' - an avoidance of saying 'problem', or even 'gay' for homosexual) without much hew and cry, but if a jot or tittle of spelling is changed we can fail a job interview!
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Pronunciation goes beyond vowel sounds, though. The "t" at the start of "tractor" or "train" sounds different to the "t" at the start of "tuba" or "Tuesday." How would you spell "loch"? How would you distinguish between rhotic and non-rhotic "r"?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The odd thing is that we change the meaning of words (viz 'issue' - an avoidance of saying 'problem', or even 'gay' for homosexual) without much hew and cry, but if a jot or tittle of spelling is changed we can fail a job interview!
In Germany they have spelling 'upgrades', which could be a good idea. But, for the sake of us very poor spellers if nothing else - keep the standardisation imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
What I am getting at is that the spelling of many words gives no clue to their pronunciation e.g. 'thought' 'taut', whereas a simple combination of two vowels (a standardised version) would allow the reader (and speller) to at least have a good idea of how to say them even if it has a local accent.
I don't get it. Whose local accent will be used to choose the vowels? How will that help someone whose local accent does not pronounce them that way? Are you presupposing that if accent "A" distinguishes certain vowels and pronounces them the same, that accent "B" will split up the vowel sounds the same way? What you write as æ in accent "A" will, even if not pronounced the same as in accent "A", will always be pronounced the same way as each other in accent "B"? That's most assuredly not the case, and can be seen quite easily in a simple, well-known example: In Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall Part II," Roger Waters sings, "No dark sarcasms in the classroom." The second "a" in "sarcasms" is pronounced æ, while the "a" in "classroom" is pronounced long. But in American English, they are both pronounced as æ. Thus if you give them separate symbols to reflect Roger's pronunciation, those two symbols will be pronounced the same in American, in those two words. If you give them the same symbol based on the American pronunciation, then that symbol will have two different pronunciations in wherever it is Roger is from. And there are of course vowels that go the other way. Just within the US, there are regional dialects in which "awed" and "odd" rhyme, and those in which they do not. Which dialect will drive the standard spelling?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Pronunciation changes over time too, even within one dialect. Note the post above which claims that "blood" and "food" once rhymed.
It may be that, to simplify spelling, we have to develop a writing system which is not tied to sound, but to meaning. Some version of pictograms? I have no Japanese, but am given to understand that Japanese children have no trouble with what we call "spelling."
Alas, we are currently stuck with an alphabetic system which attempts to signify speech sounds.
It might also help if English stopped incorporating words from other languages and "grew our own," as the Germans tend to do. Presumably, most Germans can already spell their words for hair, wash, and method, So when a new substance arrives from India in the 1600s (or whenever) meant for washing hair, they dub it Haarwaschmittel. Not us English-speakers: we transliterate phonically from the Hindi and call it shampoo.
I'm afraid tinkering with the current system won't work either over the long haul, or over the umpteen varieties of English spoken both by native speakers and by second-language-users around the globe.
If I were you, shadeson, I'd work this problem from the other end: try to get people a little more accepting of understandable spelling errors.
[ 10. February 2014, 13:38: 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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Porridge: quote:
It might also help if English stopped incorporating words from other languages and "grew our own," as the Germans tend to do.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You do realise we do both in English? Word-formation is alive and well - especially in management-speak.
And only dead languages are pickled in aspic. If we do change the spelling to reflect the way (some) 21st century people pronounce English, in a few hundred years' time I can guarantee the spelling system will be just as impenetrable.
Here's a famous example of a sound change that's taking place in North American English right now: the Northern Cities Vowel Shift
[ 10. February 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I like the English language as it is, that is, with all its oddities.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
It may be that, to simplify spelling, we have to develop a writing system which is not tied to sound, but to meaning. Some version of pictograms? I have no Japanese, but am given to understand that Japanese children have no trouble with what we call "spelling."
This is probably because the pronunciation of Japanese is very standard, and their spelling standardized after the pronunciation standardized. They tend to nipponify loan words to an great extent, to fit into their existing writing schemes.
They do have pictograms (called kanji) but much of their everyday writing is in the syllabaries katakana and hirigana. (In a syllabary, each symbol denotes a syllable rather than a phoneme or phoneme pair; thus there is one syllable for "la," one for "lo," one for "li," and so on.)
One of the very good things about having a rather abbreviated alphabet is that it makes keyboards wieldy. In a computer age, that is a very good thing. If you had a keyboard with every Chinese pictogram on it, it would be the size of a good-sized wall, even if the keys were much smaller than the ones on the laptop I am writing this on.
quote:
It might also help if English stopped incorporating words from other languages and "grew our own," as the Germans tend to do.
The glory of English is its gigantic vocabulary, made up in large part of loan words. When German grows its own words, they often grow far too large!
quote:
Presumably, most Germans can already spell their words for hair, wash, and method, So when a new substance arrives from India in the 1600s (or whenever) meant for washing hair, they dub it Haarwaschmittel.
Or Haarseife.
quote:
Not us English-speakers: we transliterate phonically from the Hindi and call it shampoo.
You will have to work long and hard to convince me that's a bad thing.
English spelling is largely based not on contemporary pronunciation, but on etymology. The spelling of "read" as the past tense of "read" marks it as part of the verb meaning to decipher squiggles into words; "red" the color is pronounced the same, but its spelling distinguishes it from the verb. Think of sight, site, and cite. A reasonably-well educated person can tell on sight which meaning or meaning family (sight can of course mean the faculty of vision, something to look at, or the part of a projectile weapon you look through to aim it) is meant. If we only had one spelling, it would be easier to know how to pronounce, but harder to decode. Trade-offs.
Is English hard to learn as a second language? Sure. So is Mandarin. Deal.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They tend to nipponify loan words to an great extent, to fit into their existing writing schemes.
I should say their existing pronunciation schemes, since foreign words are often written in romaji, that is, the Roman alphabet.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think we should stop this right away and make more effort to get our mouths around the words that people use to call themselves.
Seriously?!
Are you perturbed when you hear a Frenchman say 'Londres'?
[ 10. February 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I see no reason why we shouldn't pronounce place names in our own language in ways that we find easy or are used to. I find the use of native place names in English a rather odd affectation, usually used by people to 'show off' that they know the native pronunciation.
I was at a dinner party last year where the man next to me kept pronouncing 'Strasbourg' with a French accent. I found it extremely irritating.
[ 10. February 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
Jobs don't pay anybody. Employers pay people to do jobs ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Innit. Quite why we had to start calling Bombay Mumbai and Peking Beijing, I'll never know.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Well-paid job only makes sense if someone is paying the job. But you don't pay jobs; jobs pay you. So that makes no sense.
Jobs don't pay anybody. Employers pay people to do jobs
This is true and I was tempted to point it out myself, but let's make sure this thread doesn't veer any more off the topic of standardised spelling, or it runs the risk of getting sent to Heaven faster than you can say "alarmed door".
[ 10. February 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
What I am getting at is that the spelling of many words gives no clue to their pronunciation e.g. 'thought' 'taut', whereas a simple combination of two vowels (a standardised version) would allow the reader (and speller) to at least have a good idea of how to say them even if it has a local accent.
On the other hand, without the spelling differences, it is harder work for the reader to determine whether you meant "taught", "taut", "tort", or "torte".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Mousethief, I don't disagree with you. As I noted above, our current collection of spelling systems (the plurality necessitated by the fact that "champagne" is spelled as the French spell it, and "shampoo" is spelled as the Brits heard the Hindi word, etc.) can actually be helpful as a guide to spelling, once we know that words ending in the sound "sh'n" often come to us from Latin and usually get spelled "-tion", etc.
I personally wouldn't like to see us lose the historical info that our current words contain within them as a result of how they entered this language and how they're spelled. Or spelt.
However, I also take shadeson's point: there are jobs in which spelling ability plays no part at all, yet applications containing spelling errors often bar those applicants from the candidate pool. It seems a great waste.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I suspect the words we call other people have a long history of racial slurs and mis-hearing by colonial masters.
Well, that's part of it (compare, for example, the Native American tribes known to French colonists as "big stomachs" and "pierced noses"). But really, colonialism is only one small piece of the puzzle. Countries and cities in Europe have different names in different languages, but it's mostly because names of foreign places and people are corrupted by trade and traders, rather than by occupying armies or colonists. It's the same process that takes any ordinary word from a foreign language and adjusts it to fit the local tongue. And partly, of course, that Europe has more than a millennium of mutual war (with the occasional break to change ends and eat a wedge of orange) to ensure that everyone's tongue gets a chance to mangle everyone else's words.
Giving your own names to bits of someone else's country isn't some colonial aberration - it's the entirely normal process of language evolution.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I'm probably a snob, but I'm going to say that in many cases it's not terrible to narrow such people out. Now there are clearly exceptions, for instance many people do not have English as a first language. Everything I am about to say does not apply to them. There are almost certainly other exceptions too, for instance people with certain learning disabilities.
However, most people who can't spell just didn't bother to learn. They saw it as useless. If I were an employer, I don't think the ideal employee is one who decides not to do things that they can't be bothered to do. Also, misspellings on a job applications show not just that the applicant couldn't be bothered to learn spelling, but often that they didn't spell-check, and didn't ask anyone to look over their application letter. Any prospective employee who can't use spell-check, doesn't work with other people, and can't be bothered to spell? Yeah, probably not the top of my list. (Also, in many jobs communication is an important skill, and there are always people who are not easy to communicate with. If someone considers spelling a waste of time, do they rate other written-communication skills as important?)
[ 10. February 2014, 14:59: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
However, most people who can't spell just didn't bother to learn. They saw it as useless. If I were an employer, I don't think the ideal employee is one who decides not to do things that they can't be bothered to do. Also, misspellings on a job applications show not just that the applicant couldn't be bothered to learn spelling, but often that they didn't spell-check, and didn't ask anyone to look over their application letter. Any prospective employee who can't use spell-check, doesn't work with other people, and can't be bothered to spell? Yeah, probably not the top of my list. (Also, in many jobs communication is an important skill, and there are always people who are not easy to communicate with. If someone considers spelling a waste of time, do they rate other written-communication skills as important?)
That seems to me to be an odd thing to argue. Presumably one might think that someone who regularly breaks the speeding laws is unfit for any job which requires personal integrity. It seems to me that the only difference here is that you happen to know that this person has a characteristic you can infer from their poor spelling, whereas speeding is not something you can tell from an application form.
I was reflecting yesterday that someone I think is particularly articulate is not using Standard English. One could say the same about many great poets.
I think Rabbie Burns would have been a great person to have speaking in many different contexts. To reject his application for a public speaking job because his spelling was not standard seems... perverse.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Again, if an alternative spelling for a word was commonly defined and accepted, then those sitting in judgement could not complain.
But of course they would. There would be two "accepted" spellings - the one that marks you out as having been educated at the right school, and the one designed for stupid people. Your suggestion would seem to open up more avenues for elitism.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
That seems to me to be an odd thing to argue. Presumably one might think that someone who regularly breaks the speeding laws is unfit for any job which requires personal integrity.
One might think all sorts of things. Some are more rational than others.
quote:
It seems to me that the only difference here is that you happen to know that this person has a characteristic you can infer from their poor spelling, whereas speeding is not something you can tell from an application form.
Well, yes. That's rather the point. Are you arguing that I should ignore the evidence of the poorly-presented application because I can't know the applicant's attitude towards the posted speed limits?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, yes. That's rather the point. Are you arguing that I should ignore the evidence of the poorly-presented application because I can't know the applicant's attitude towards the posted speed limits?
I think it depends on the job. It appears that often spelling is being used as a substitute to infer various things about a person. Some jobs may require good spelling and presentation, but maybe also people are being rejected for entirely spurious reasons.
I doubt speeding has much link to personal integrity and I doubt the way that people write on an application form has much relation to the way they would do a job. One can infer certain things, I think they're almost always going to be inaccurate.
[ 10. February 2014, 15:18: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Agreed with everything LC said. To add:
I would say that if I wanted an absolute adherence to laws then I would pick someone without speeding tickets, as such a person is more likely to be absolutely lawful. However, if I wanted a person who knows when to break the laws, I would go against a person with many tickets but would not select against a person with say one. That person might have just made an error.
Is everyone who makes a spelling error on a job app a bad speller? Certainly not, but if one has to choose between qualified applicants, I have heard of far worse criteria being used at places I worked. "X won't get promoted under Y. Y has said she prefers people who dress in a more modern way." Note that X dressed completely professionally, and this was not a customer-facing job or anything like it.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Is everyone who makes a spelling error on a job app a bad speller? Certainly not, but if one has to choose between qualified applicants, I have heard of far worse criteria being used at places I worked. "X won't get promoted under Y. Y has said she prefers people who dress in a more modern way." Note that X dressed completely professionally, and this was not a customer-facing job or anything like it.)
So... one poor reason to refuse to promote someone means that another way to make judgements is justified? That's a daft argument.
Loads of people do not need to use standard English. In almost every situation I can think with, it is a positive bonus to be able to communicate effectively in non-standard English.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In almost every situation I can think with, it is a positive bonus to be able to communicate effectively in non-standard English.
I'd be interested to know what these situations are, because I can't think of how speaking in non-standard English could be considered a 'positive bonus'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In almost every situation I can think with, it is a positive bonus to be able to communicate effectively in non-standard English.
I'd be interested to know what these situations are, because I can't think of how speaking in non-standard English could be considered a 'positive bonus'.
Being able to communicate in non-standard English as well as standard English can certainly be an advantage. If one works in an environment in which people of varied background interact, speaking in a manner in which they are comfortable eases communication.
This goes well beyond words, of course, but that is beyond this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
One thing I've never really understood about English is why we insist on using Anglicised names for other places and countries. Sometimes the word in English appears to have very little to do with the way that natives use the word.
For example, the Japanese word for Japan doesn't to me sound anything like the English word Japan.
I think we should stop this right away and make more effort to get our mouths around the words that people use to call themselves.
This is not a peculiarity of English. It's probably universal. Which do you regard as the right name to use when speaking English, Bratislava, Pressburg or Pozsony? Swansea or Abertawe? Rome or Roma? And if you look at some train timetables, you'll see that London and Manchester are both different in Welsh.
When speaking English, do you talk about Madreeth? Or, like most normal people, do you regard those that do as pretentious prats?
Unless you say Madreeth, Abertawe, Parree (complete with rolling 'rs'), Roma, and Wien, you should also stick to Peking, Bombay and Madras.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Innit. Quite why we had to start calling Bombay Mumbai and Peking Beijing, I'll never know.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless you say Madreeth, Abertawe, Parree (complete with rolling 'rs'), Roma, and Wien, you should also stick to Peking, Bombay and Madras.
Madrid and Paris are different to Bombay and Madras in that the former are pronunciation differences and the latter are completely different words.
Pydseybare,
RE Burns. He switched between full Scots, standard English and a light Scots. He illustrates the point I was attempting in my previous post.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
To return to spelling, here's an issue for Gwai:
Earlier, you exempted second -language users and dyslexics from your "rule." In a job app scenario, how does one do this? Perhaps it happens differently where you work; where I work, we get initial applications both by snail-mail and e-mail. Aside from knowing the person's name, address, and often (though not always) their gender, I know nothing about these people.
Given your exemption, when you see a spelling error on an application, how can you know why / how / by whom the error was made, when all you've got to go on is the app?
The applicant could be a second-language user.
The applicant could be dyslexic.
The applicant could, having just stumbled on the "help wanted" notice for The Perfect Job, be in a tearing rush to get the app in by deadline.
The applicant could be collecting unemployment compensation and doesn't give a toss about this particular job, but must submit proof that s/he's applying for jobs to continue collecting unemployment.
The applicant could be filling the app out while a parent / spouse / friend is chewing him/her out because s/he hasn't got a job, and is only half-attending to the app.
The applicant could be filling out his/her two-hundredth app that day in a desperate effort to secure employment and is dead-tired . . .
. . . and so on.
Even normally good spellers might make errors in such situations.
I'll grant (having seen what seems like thousands of apps), that I screen out those which are riddled with spelling, punctuation, and usage errors (one or more per line of text is my rule of thumb), because the job I'm trying to fill requires reading and writing abilities that are at least fair. I also screen out handwritten ones, because the job requires basic familiarity with keyboarding.
But if I have an app from someone (especially with relevant experience / background) who writes positively and respectfully about the work we want our staff to do, I will often overlook a spelling error or two.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To return to spelling, here's an issue for Gwai:
Earlier, you exempted second -language users and dyslexics from your "rule." In a job app scenario, how does one do this? Perhaps it happens differently where you work; where I work, we get initial applications both by snail-mail and e-mail. Aside from knowing the person's name, address, and often (though not always) their gender, I know nothing about these people.
Answered below, but note that I have never been the main person on a job search, so maybe my answers are idealistic or stupid. I am assuming here that these people are writing cover letters with their apps, as that is what is done in my field. If not, it gets much more complicated, and not just re spelling! Please also understand that I say this as someone who's written hundreds and hundreds of job apps already, as a freelancer and for full time positions. I know it's not easy, and that one totally does end up realizing too late one messed up something in an application. At least I've realized that more than once. I just immediately write those ones off as "Welp, there's one I won't get."
Given your exemption, when you see a spelling error on an application, how can you know why / how / by whom the error was made, when all you've got to go on is the app?
The applicant could be a second-language user. And if that is clear from their application, I would probably overlook minor spelling/grammar issues that might otherwise have troubled me. After all, if my biggest concern about them is whether they can communicate with the rest of my staff, I could presumably find this out in the interview. If they don't say so in their letter, I can only presume they aren't asking me to take that into account, as I can't
The applicant could be dyslexic.And if they say so in their application, I could at least delay until the interview a question about how are you going to handle X and Y. As above if they don't say so.
The applicant could, having just stumbled on the "help wanted" notice for The Perfect Job, be in a tearing rush to get the app in by deadline.Well, frankly they probably should have waited and taken their time to get it right, as they should with any work they do for me. Which isn't to say I couldn't ever forgive a spelling error, but if comparing two similar candidates and trying to decide which to interview, it would definitely be relevant to me.
The applicant could be collecting unemployment compensation and doesn't give a toss about this particular job, but must submit proof that s/he's applying for jobs to continue collecting unemployment. Just as well that I'd probably cut that person then. I'd rather have an employee who does particularly want the job.
The applicant could be filling the app out while a parent / spouse / friend is chewing him/her out because s/he hasn't got a job, and is only half-attending to the app. Would be frustrating, but honestly that's time to tell the parent/spouse/friend to shut up and let you concentrate. Learning to manage distractions is part of life too.
The applicant could be filling out his/her two-hundredth app that day in a desperate effort to secure employment and is dead-tired . . . And that's what tended to make me make most of my errors. That or the one about rushing for the perfect job. Sigh.
But if I have an app from someone (especially with relevant experience / background) who writes positively and respectfully about the work we want our staff to do, I will often overlook a spelling error or two. And that does seem extremely reasonable. My line of work (writer and/or editor) is particularly nit-picky, so I don't think people do tend to overlook job app errors, but I agree that in general a single error often does not signify anything.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Peking, Bombay and Madras.
I don't agree with the last. Calling Chennai "Madras" or Mumbai "Bombay" is using a colonial-era name rather than an English name. It's like calling modern Istanbul "Constantinople".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless you say Madreeth, Abertawe, Parree (complete with rolling 'rs'), Roma, and Wien, you should also stick to Peking, Bombay and Madras.
Given English is one of the national languages of India, I think they might be entitled to rename their own cities.
Herein illustrates the problem.
But who are 'they'? Bombay was renamed after a Hindu nationalist party (the sort that a lot of western liberals would frown on) took power in the city. As I understand it, many of Bombay's middle classes don't use the new term.
By the way, what do you call the country that lies north of Vietnam but south of Mongolia?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Peking, Bombay and Madras.
I don't agree with the last. Calling Chennai "Madras" or Mumbai "Bombay" is using a colonial-era name rather than an English name. It's like calling modern Istanbul "Constantinople".
I do.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Peking, Bombay and Madras.
I don't agree with the last. Calling Chennai "Madras" or Mumbai "Bombay" is using a colonial-era name rather than an English name. It's like calling modern Istanbul "Constantinople".
Can these really be considered 'colonial-era' names? India was granted independence in 1947. Bombay didn't change its name until, I think, 1996. Madras was around the same time, if not later.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
As I tried to say before my ipad ate my post...
Beijing always was Beijing. At least since the 15th century.
The older transliteration of the name into English was something like Peiching. That got simplified into Pekin in the Roman alphabet version of the name used by Chinese postal services. The k got misread by English speakers as if it meant what we'd mean if we wrote a K, but it never meant that. It was the sound we'd write by J.
Our use of "j" and "ng" are rare amongst users of Roman-derived alphabets. The spelling "Pekin" was meant for French and Italian and so on (and maybe invented by French or Italian missionaries)
Something similar happened to Nanjing, which became spelled Nankin, and then was partially fixed (for English speakers) by moving to Nanking. The two ends are OK, the middle is not.
Mumbai/Bombay and Kolkata/Calcutta are different transliterations of the same word. Chennai/Madras is a bit of Hindu nationalism, an attempt to remove a Muslim name.
Myanmar is the same word as Burma as well. And it doesn't have an "R" in it - non-rhotic Englanders put it there to indicate long vowels. So both spellings might be misleading for, say, Canadians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht quote:
On the other hand, without the spelling differences, it is harder work for the reader to determine whether you meant "taught", "taut", "tort", or "torte".
The context of both speech and writing usually makes this problem minimal.
quote:
There would be two "accepted" spellings - the one that marks you out as having been educated at the right school, and the one designed for stupid people. Your suggestion would seem to open up more avenues for elitism.
I don't get this idea of elitism. The whole world of communication is changing. If by general concensus a word is spelt in a shortened understood version - who can object. The dictionaries incorporate new words every couple of years or so.
No one seems to have a problem with 'lite' as opposed to 'heavy' .
And I notice that it is not spelt lyte. Why? Because the correct pronounciation is pretty obvious from the common spelling.
Without giving it much thought, surely most modern words are easy to read from the spelling.
Even DNA can be pronounced fairly well from the full word.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The applicant could, having just stumbled on the "help wanted" notice for The Perfect Job, be in a tearing rush to get the app in by deadline.
Possible, but unlikely. It is far more likely that the applicant has poor time management skills, and left completing the application until the last minute.
quote:
The applicant could be collecting unemployment compensation and doesn't give a toss about this particular job, but must submit proof that s/he's applying for jobs to continue collecting unemployment.
And if the applicant doesn't give a toss about my job, I am pretty certain I don't want to employ him.
quote:
The applicant could be filling the app out while a parent / spouse / friend is chewing him/her out because s/he hasn't got a job, and is only half-attending to the app.
Again, we'll file that under "not giving (enough of) a toss.
quote:
The applicant could be filling out his/her two-hundredth app that day in a desperate effort to secure employment and is dead-tired . . .
Sure - it's possible, but the odds are against it.
In practice, it seems unreasonable to assume that somebody who submits a careless job application will turn into a careful, detail-oriented employee.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
