Guest = me
I'm off to watch Macbeth. We did this play in the school drama group in 1998. I wa Malcolm, one of his sons.
I'm off to watch Macbeth. We did this play in the school drama group in 1998. I wa Malcolm, one of his sons.
Why Americans can't spell!
>>To Damian in Edinburgh,
I believe you know that the best form of defence is attack; but taking the fight back to the beaches of Normandy won't do much good, for this has to be a battle against principalities and powers which very few in the modern world do well against.<<
Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?
I believe you know that the best form of defence is attack; but taking the fight back to the beaches of Normandy won't do much good, for this has to be a battle against principalities and powers which very few in the modern world do well against.<<
Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?
Now it seems to me clear that native speakers of English will not need spelling unification any further. At least, Damian in BrE Scotland wrote like this: "Both have a right to exist in whatever which way things develop.". It's okay to me. I have my own attitude. When I read, I have to accept British spelling. But when I write, I tend to use American spelling. And sometimes I use "simplifyed" variants. That's OUR bizness, not theirs.
----------
>>The majority of users of English do not have the language as their mother tongue, and they suffer additional disadvantages from present spellings (American almost as much as British). Whereas native speakers of English only need to recognize the written forms of words in order to read them, non-native speakers are much more dependent on the spelling to tell them the correct pronunciation. Yet English spelling is notoriously unhelpful in this regard, and countless mispronunciations are caused by misleading spellings. American spellings that are less phonically anomalous than their British equivalents are more helpful in this respect.<<
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j21/usforuk.php
----------
>>The majority of users of English do not have the language as their mother tongue, and they suffer additional disadvantages from present spellings (American almost as much as British). Whereas native speakers of English only need to recognize the written forms of words in order to read them, non-native speakers are much more dependent on the spelling to tell them the correct pronunciation. Yet English spelling is notoriously unhelpful in this regard, and countless mispronunciations are caused by misleading spellings. American spellings that are less phonically anomalous than their British equivalents are more helpful in this respect.<<
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j21/usforuk.php
>>Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?<<
Travis, I have no idea how you were reading it. Could you explain that? To me, phrasal verbs are always difficult. And my vocabulary is very limited. So I have to use my imagination when I read something written in forren languages. Of course I rely on dictionarys.
Travis, I have no idea how you were reading it. Could you explain that? To me, phrasal verbs are always difficult. And my vocabulary is very limited. So I have to use my imagination when I read something written in forren languages. Of course I rely on dictionarys.
>>>>Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?<<
Travis, I have no idea how you were reading it. Could you explain that? To me, phrasal verbs are always difficult. And my vocabulary is very limited. So I have to use my imagination when I read something written in forren languages. Of course I rely on dictionarys.<<
Well, the matter here is that the text I quoted implies that one should, from the British point of view, take a more offensive position with respect to American English literary forms; that is, that British literary forms should be aggressively pushed and deliberately spread outside the UK, rather than treated as simply parallel to American literary forms.
Travis, I have no idea how you were reading it. Could you explain that? To me, phrasal verbs are always difficult. And my vocabulary is very limited. So I have to use my imagination when I read something written in forren languages. Of course I rely on dictionarys.<<
Well, the matter here is that the text I quoted implies that one should, from the British point of view, take a more offensive position with respect to American English literary forms; that is, that British literary forms should be aggressively pushed and deliberately spread outside the UK, rather than treated as simply parallel to American literary forms.
To Travis:
"Don't withdraw. Why don't you fight it out for what you believe in, against a powerful opponent." In my understanding, that is the entire message of the text you quoted. But when I saw your message >>Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?<<, I thought there might be something I couldn't read. Just my imagination! Shame on me! And still a long way to go!
"Don't withdraw. Why don't you fight it out for what you believe in, against a powerful opponent." In my understanding, that is the entire message of the text you quoted. But when I saw your message >>Is anyone else reading this how I am reading it?<<, I thought there might be something I couldn't read. Just my imagination! Shame on me! And still a long way to go!
I know that British English is very rare in Japan, I've been there last year for quite a long time... Eito, sou deshou? Hotondo no gakusei wa amerika eigo o naratte iru n desu yo ne? eigo no kyoukasho wa zenbu amerika eigo da to omoimasu...
I think it's because Japan has such a close relationship to the United States. I've talked to many Japanese teenagers who wanted to learn AMERICAN English, AMERICAN pronunciation and find AMERICAN friends... Some have even told me they don't like British English, they think it's strange and old-fashioned... While in Japan, I've never ever seen British spelling anywhere (on signs, brochures...)
As for me, I favour the British way of spelling. I think it looks much better and is linguistically more interesting.
I think it's because Japan has such a close relationship to the United States. I've talked to many Japanese teenagers who wanted to learn AMERICAN English, AMERICAN pronunciation and find AMERICAN friends... Some have even told me they don't like British English, they think it's strange and old-fashioned... While in Japan, I've never ever seen British spelling anywhere (on signs, brochures...)
As for me, I favour the British way of spelling. I think it looks much better and is linguistically more interesting.
>>I know that British English is very rare in Japan, I've been there last year for quite a long time... Eito, sou deshou? Hotondo no gakusei wa amerika eigo o naratte iru n desu yo ne? eigo no kyoukasho wa zenbu amerika eigo da to omoimasu...<<
Yes, Peter. In Japan, "English" usually means "(North) American English". Personally, I do not hate British English. But when it comes to spelling, I would prefer American English.
Yes, Peter. In Japan, "English" usually means "(North) American English". Personally, I do not hate British English. But when it comes to spelling, I would prefer American English.
sepulcher (AmE)
This is one of some misleading spellings. Why not "sepulker"?
This is one of some misleading spellings. Why not "sepulker"?
I'm British and I just typed in "How do Americans spell "glamour" because I thought knowing them (or you, as most of you are Americans) would spell it your traditional way of "glamor" taking the "u" out like you do in most "our" words. But as I can see hopefully, I'm hoping some of you feel bad for changing the spellings and pronounciations for words (but this forum is about spelling so I'll scrap how you "pronounce" some of our words for now..mm..is there another forum on here that deals with that? I don't know) But anyway(no s there) I was reading through this first page and I actually feel sorry for the Canadians, because they seem like nice people but they are considered to be just like the Americans, but they're not. To me, they're different. But I see what you mean about opting for the safe solution of "colourization" from "colourisation" and "colorization" but obviously I would prefer you to use "colourisation" but you're closer to the US so that's understandable. I'm finding this forum very interesting, but can I clear up one thing, though? I don't like it when Americans make up new words as they go along, like "burglarize", that isn't a word in the English language, it's called "being burgled" and "dove" it's not "dove" it's "dived" and I saw the other week someone wrote the word "mold" it's not "mold" it's "mould". If you could get your people to see this then I'll be moving over possibly in the near future. I also agree with Peter, it does actually look more interesting, when I'm reading something on the internet, I'll always opt for the British spelt one, and how can you say it's old-fashioned? It's a language. It's been around for ages, since when Christopher Columbus discovered America (which I wish he didn't do, because then you could have had your own language and spelt it how you wanted, and I wouldn't mind because it would be your choice, but to change our spellings? Why? Did they hurt you? I know even now people shorten "you" to "u" and "are" to "r" and "why" to "y" but that's different, it's not set in stone like these other words you've changed. I know you did it because you probably that the "u" wasn't necessary in "colour" but why? It wasn't a problem for us, we managed to cope with it, why change it? I don't understand how you felt the need to change it. And who cares about Japan anyway? (Not trying to be disrespectful) They should stick to their own language, which is Japanese. They should be focussing on that and if anything, why can't they do what Canada does? Because although I wish they'd spell the same as the UK, they're being reasonable which is all I ask from you guys. Thanks for your time.
Clearly Alex you haven't read what this post was originally about, that Americans didn't change spelling, the spellings were already present.
<<"burglarize", that isn't a word in the English language, it's called "being burgled">>
Both words were originally coined in the US it's just that Americans don't tend to use burgle so often these days!
"I hate old threads"
<<"burglarize", that isn't a word in the English language, it's called "being burgled">>
Both words were originally coined in the US it's just that Americans don't tend to use burgle so often these days!
"I hate old threads"
i really think our differences are what make us unique. if we were all the same then this world would be quite boring. my best friend is from turkey (im from the us), and i learn something new every time i speak with her. what's wrong with being different? why should we all conform? and who cares how a word is spelled?
"It would seem that to some extent rather than being revolutionary, as some people think, Noah Webster was just following established spellings." Rick Johnson (first post of this tread, in case you've forgetted).
Yes, to some extent ...
"Noah Webster ... once published a very significant study of the English language, his Dissertations, in which he recommended a complete overhaul of English spelling." [3]
"ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable inconveniencies in the acquisition and use of the language," askes Webster "or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?" [1]
Webster gives "principal alterations, necessary to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy". He supported the "omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as a in bread." and the "substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is more vague and indeterminate." [1]
According to Webster "The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous, great and permanent." He lists four such advantages which I summarise: [1]
"1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of the language. ...
"2. A correct orthography would render the pronunciation of the language, as uniform as the spelling in books. ...
"3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one sixteenth or eighteenth. ...
"4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these states would be, that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the American.
"But America is in a situation the most favorable for great reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious. The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; ... Here men are prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations, whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.
"Now is the time, and this the country, ... in attempting changes favorable to language, science and government. Delay, in the plan here proposed, may be fatal; ...
"Let us then seize the present moment, and establish a national language, as well as a national government. ... In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad, is treason against the character and dignity of a brave independent people." writes Webster. [1]
"an American Court will perpetuate, must gradually destroy the differences of dialect which our ancestors brought from their native countries. This approximation of dialects will be certain; but without the operation of other causes than an intercourse at Court, it will be slow and partial." writes Webster. [2]
"As an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain, whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline. But if it were not so, she is at too great a distance to be our model, and to instruct us in the principles of our own tongue." writes Webster. [2]
So, at least early on, Noah Webster was revolutionary. However, it seems that most of his more radical (re)spellings were dropped by the time his published his dictionary.
"1789 Dissertations on the English Language; his first proposals were radical:
"· bred hed giv brest bilt ment relm frend
"· meen neer speek greev zeel;
"· greef kee beleev laf dawter plow tuf proof blud draft
"· karacter korus kolic arkitecture
"· masheen shaze shevaleer
"dictionary of 1806 preserved only some of these and by his 1828 Dictionary they had been reduced to a small number, now well known" [4]
"Webster's Dissertations were publisht in 1789, and this scholarly volume contained the sum of his views on the English language, especially in the Appendix in which he proposes a reform of English spelling. But thirty-nine years elapsed between the printing of the Dissertations and the publications of his famed American Dictionary of the English Language.
"During these years Webster's mentor and admired friend Ben Franklin passed on, and Noah, 51 years younger than Franklin, became involved in writing and publishing to earn a living. A change of heart may have developed over this time, and perhaps his involvment with the famed Blue Backed Speller, publisht in 1783, and widely used thruout the American colonies and the new United States, may have resulted in a modification of his original plans for spelling reform. Perhaps it was the outstanding success of the Blue Backed Speller, which became the universally used primer in American schools and homes for at least 100 years, convinced Noah that regardless of its peculiarities English spelling could be mastered if the pupil was determined and the hickory stick was applied frequently and with sufficient force." [3]
[1] NOAH WEBSTER URGES REFORM OF SPELLING (1789) From Noah Webster, "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages, and Practicality of Reforming the Mode of Spelling and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to Pronunciation," Dissertations on the English Language: With Notes, Historical and Critical, to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, with Dr. Franklin’s Arguments on That Subject (Boston. 1789). pp. 391. 393-98. 405-6.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm
[2] NOAH WEBSTER ON THE NECESSITY FOR AN AMERICAN LANGUAGE (1789) From Noah Webster., "An Essay on the Necessity. Advantages,
and Practicality of Reforming the Mode of Spelling . . ."
Dissertations on the English Language. . . (Boston. 1789), pp. 17-19, 288-90,393-98.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm
[3] Harvie Barnard. When Noah Missed the Boat. http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j2/barnard.php
[4] http://www.google.com/notebook/public/05756201435480548307/BDRdQSwoQ2frX8rQh
Yes, to some extent ...
"Noah Webster ... once published a very significant study of the English language, his Dissertations, in which he recommended a complete overhaul of English spelling." [3]
"ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable inconveniencies in the acquisition and use of the language," askes Webster "or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?" [1]
Webster gives "principal alterations, necessary to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy". He supported the "omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as a in bread." and the "substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is more vague and indeterminate." [1]
According to Webster "The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous, great and permanent." He lists four such advantages which I summarise: [1]
"1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of the language. ...
"2. A correct orthography would render the pronunciation of the language, as uniform as the spelling in books. ...
"3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one sixteenth or eighteenth. ...
"4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these states would be, that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the American.
"But America is in a situation the most favorable for great reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious. The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; ... Here men are prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations, whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.
"Now is the time, and this the country, ... in attempting changes favorable to language, science and government. Delay, in the plan here proposed, may be fatal; ...
"Let us then seize the present moment, and establish a national language, as well as a national government. ... In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad, is treason against the character and dignity of a brave independent people." writes Webster. [1]
"an American Court will perpetuate, must gradually destroy the differences of dialect which our ancestors brought from their native countries. This approximation of dialects will be certain; but without the operation of other causes than an intercourse at Court, it will be slow and partial." writes Webster. [2]
"As an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain, whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline. But if it were not so, she is at too great a distance to be our model, and to instruct us in the principles of our own tongue." writes Webster. [2]
So, at least early on, Noah Webster was revolutionary. However, it seems that most of his more radical (re)spellings were dropped by the time his published his dictionary.
"1789 Dissertations on the English Language; his first proposals were radical:
"· bred hed giv brest bilt ment relm frend
"· meen neer speek greev zeel;
"· greef kee beleev laf dawter plow tuf proof blud draft
"· karacter korus kolic arkitecture
"· masheen shaze shevaleer
"dictionary of 1806 preserved only some of these and by his 1828 Dictionary they had been reduced to a small number, now well known" [4]
"Webster's Dissertations were publisht in 1789, and this scholarly volume contained the sum of his views on the English language, especially in the Appendix in which he proposes a reform of English spelling. But thirty-nine years elapsed between the printing of the Dissertations and the publications of his famed American Dictionary of the English Language.
"During these years Webster's mentor and admired friend Ben Franklin passed on, and Noah, 51 years younger than Franklin, became involved in writing and publishing to earn a living. A change of heart may have developed over this time, and perhaps his involvment with the famed Blue Backed Speller, publisht in 1783, and widely used thruout the American colonies and the new United States, may have resulted in a modification of his original plans for spelling reform. Perhaps it was the outstanding success of the Blue Backed Speller, which became the universally used primer in American schools and homes for at least 100 years, convinced Noah that regardless of its peculiarities English spelling could be mastered if the pupil was determined and the hickory stick was applied frequently and with sufficient force." [3]
[1] NOAH WEBSTER URGES REFORM OF SPELLING (1789) From Noah Webster, "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages, and Practicality of Reforming the Mode of Spelling and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to Pronunciation," Dissertations on the English Language: With Notes, Historical and Critical, to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, with Dr. Franklin’s Arguments on That Subject (Boston. 1789). pp. 391. 393-98. 405-6.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm
[2] NOAH WEBSTER ON THE NECESSITY FOR AN AMERICAN LANGUAGE (1789) From Noah Webster., "An Essay on the Necessity. Advantages,
and Practicality of Reforming the Mode of Spelling . . ."
Dissertations on the English Language. . . (Boston. 1789), pp. 17-19, 288-90,393-98.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm
[3] Harvie Barnard. When Noah Missed the Boat. http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j2/barnard.php
[4] http://www.google.com/notebook/public/05756201435480548307/BDRdQSwoQ2frX8rQh
According to "Online Etymology Dictionary" there is "No reason for the -ch- spelling." in "sepulcher".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sepulcher&searchmode=none
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sepulcher&searchmode=none