Why is English spelling exceptionally irregular?

wtf......we have an English spelling society and they haven't fixed any of this shit yet?.....they need to go radical and kidnap some dictionary publisher's children........
 
The largest reason for it would be English proclivity to use words from any other language. You get some cool differences due to this (German/Norman words: Big, huge, Latin: Humongous). Many of the "ou" differences are because those words are from different languages.

Some of the rules we have are silly (no splitting infinitives, that's a Latin thing that some anal retentive nutjob writing Grammar books decided to stupidly drop on us (did you see it?)... there is no reason for English to limit itself that way.)
 
Damocles said:
some anal retentive nutjob writing Grammar books decided to stupidly drop on us
Click to expand...

That would be an accurate description of basically all grammar rules. Human beings have a rather large portion of their mind devoted to the intuitive parsing and creation of language. You don't need specific rules. It's not like one day people are going to stop understanding each other because they all forgot them.
 
Well, in Latin it is impossible to split an infinitive as it is one word, in English there is no reasonable explanation why one would say you can't put in an adverb after the word "to"... it doesn't stop anybody from understanding and would be one of the more random rules. Previous to this person adding it to a grammar book no such limitation existed and everybody was still able to eloquently speak and be understood (I did it again).
 
KissingCommies said:
That would be an accurate description of basically all grammar rules. Human beings have a rather large portion of their mind devoted to the intuitive parsing and creation of language. You don't need specific rules. It's not like one day people are going to stop understanding each other because they all forgot them.
Click to expand...
No, but you will be able to tell foriegn tribe members easily.
 
If it were up to me, I would simply create a new script of 48 characters that could accurately represent all phonemes in the English language without any possible ambiguities. But what do I know.
 
KissingCommies said:
If it were up to me, I would simply create a new script of 48 characters that could accurately represent all phonemes in the English language without any possible ambiguities. But what do I know.
Click to expand...

I wish there was an option to translate all my typing into the Necronomicon font.
 
KissingCommies said:
That would be an accurate description of basically all grammar rules. Human beings have a rather large portion of their mind devoted to the intuitive parsing and creation of language. You don't need specific rules. It's not like one day people are going to stop understanding each other because they all forgot them.
Click to expand...

Human beings are hard wired to search for patterns. Rules of grammar are attempts at capturing the wonders of age old grunts and pants into something that can be recognised and the governed. However if we were to simplify spelling we would immediately lose a valuable part of our history, culture and identity and we would sink to the level of our colonial friends here portrayed.
I was watching an American news clip of 1946 the other evening and was struck by the 'nearly' British accent of the narrator. Had that method of delivery survived, our two nations would, I am sure, have become closer. You really should not have allowed Mickey Mouse to become the model for American culture.
I sometimes watch Bloomberg but can stand it for, at the longest, five minutes. The sqawking Disneyfication of the female newscasters is a danger to the ears of civilised man.
 
Lowaicue said:
Rules of grammar are attempts at capturing the wonders of age old grunts and pants into something that can be recognised and the governed.
Click to expand...

Languages of less developed peoples are not "pants" and "grunts" or any more animalistic or less able to convey meaning than languages of civilizations that have become stuffy enough to single out a single dialectic in the country, freeze it in time, declare this dialect "the rules", and bully anyone who refuses to obey. That is a stupid, ignorant stereotype given out by those who know nothing about linguistics, adolescent cultural chauvinism disguised as intellectualism. In fact, languages of, for instance, native Americans, or Polynesian tribes, tend to be incredibly advanced, often sophisticated to a level that westerners, with our comparitively primitve languages, find difficult to understand. They are not, in any way at all, any more grunt-like than ours, even though no one is sitting there and making up rules that favor a single dialect they happen to prefer in a single language, and pretending as if this is in any way a constructive process that is conducive to the human ability to convey meaning.

Lowaicue said:
1023676]However if we were to simplify spelling we would immediately lose a valuable part of our history, culture and identity and we would sink to the level of our colonial friends here portrayed.
Click to expand...

A history that includes a script that is not large enough to be an accurate phonetic representation of the language that it is supposed to represent. The Roman script was designed to represent the Latin language, which had fewer phonemes than English. That is why it is largely impossible to create a non-ambigious spelling system. The various disparate methods that printers at the time of the invention of the printing press used in a foolish attempt to create one were all randomly thrown together in what we call "English spelling", without any attempt at consistency, resulting in a nonsensical mash. This is the "history" of errors that has resulted in the shit that is our spelling system. It is foolishness to enshrine past errors and refuse to use your brain and think of better solutions. Humans have the capacity for self-evolution, we don't have to sit back and die like animals waiting for succesful genes to emerge, we have the ability to identify those traits beforehand and modify our behavior to utilize them. In demanding that we use the wait-and-die method, you are throwing away the greatest evolutionary advantage humans have.
 
Last edited:
KissingCommies said:
Languages of less developed peoples are not "pants" and "grunts" or any more animalistic or less able to convey meaning than languages of civilizations that have become stuffy enough to single out a single dialectic in the country, freeze it in time, declare this dialect "the rules", and bully anyone who refuses to obey. That is a stupid, ignorant stereotype given out by those who know nothing about linguistics, adolescent cultural chauvinism disguised as intellectualism. In fact, languages of, for instance, native Americans, or Polynesian tribes, tend to be incredibly advanced, often sophisticated to a level that westerners, with our comparitively primitve languages, find difficult to understand. They are not, in any way at all, any more grunt-like than ours, even though no one is sitting there and making up rules that favor a single dialect they happen to prefer in a single language, and pretending as if this is in any way a constructive process that is conducive to the human ability to convey meaning.



A history that includes a script that is not large enough to be an accurate phonetic representation of the language that it is supposed to represent. The Roman script was designed to represent the Latin language, which had fewer phonemes than English. That is why it is largely impossible to create a non-ambigious spelling system. The various disparate methods that printers at the time of the invention of the printing press used in a foolish attempt to create one were all randomly thrown together in what we call "English spelling", without any attempt at consistency, resulting in a nonsensical mash. This is the "history" of errors that has resulted in the shit that is our spelling system. It is foolishness to enshrine past errors and refuse to use your brain and think of better solutions. Humans have the capacity for self-evolution, we don't have to sit back and die like animals waiting for succesful genes to emerge, we have the ability to identify those traits beforehand and modify our behavior to utilize them. In demanding that we use the wait-and-die method, you are throwing away the greatest evolutionary advantage humans have.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but stand in awe of your arguments.
 
BAN HAMMER said:
I cannot help but stand in awe of your arguments.
Click to expand...

A lot of my arguments on this subject are taken from the professor who did the TTC on Linguistics, John McWhorter. It's around 40 hours, and I've listened to it several times over on the boring drive to and from USM (it's one of my favorites). So I am not rushing into this subject entirely as a novice. But he really does a much better job of taking on grammar bullying.
 
KissingCommies said:
Languages of less developed peoples are not "pants" and "grunts" or any more animalistic or less able to convey meaning than languages of civilizations that have become stuffy enough to single out a single dialectic in the country, freeze it in time, declare this dialect "the rules", and bully anyone who refuses to obey. That is a stupid, ignorant stereotype given out by those who know nothing about linguistics, adolescent cultural chauvinism disguised as intellectualism. In fact, languages of, for instance, native Americans, or Polynesian tribes, tend to be incredibly advanced, often sophisticated to a level that westerners, with our comparitively primitve languages, find difficult to understand. They are not, in any way at all, any more grunt-like than ours, even though no one is sitting there and making up rules that favor a single dialect they happen to prefer in a single language, and pretending as if this is in any way a constructive process that is conducive to the human ability to convey meaning.



A history that includes a script that is not large enough to be an accurate phonetic representation of the language that it is supposed to represent. The Roman script was designed to represent the Latin language, which had fewer phonemes than English. That is why it is largely impossible to create a non-ambigious spelling system. The various disparate methods that printers at the time of the invention of the printing press used in a foolish attempt to create one were all randomly thrown together in what we call "English spelling", without any attempt at consistency, resulting in a nonsensical mash. This is the "history" of errors that has resulted in the shit that is our spelling system. It is foolishness to enshrine past errors and refuse to use your brain and think of better solutions. Humans have the capacity for self-evolution, we don't have to sit back and die like animals waiting for succesful genes to emerge, we have the ability to identify those traits beforehand and modify our behavior to utilize them. In demanding that we use the wait-and-die method, you are throwing away the greatest evolutionary advantage humans have.
Click to expand...

I think the best thing I can say in response to this is a blend of a pant and a grunt, viz: Whoosh.
If you really think that that rather tongue-in-cheek comment represented the sum of my knowledge of language then you clearly haven't being paying attention.
Regarding the second point I will say only this. You are American.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15664_9-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think.html
Click to expand...

I have compiled a short list of English words that Hong Kongers frequently get wrong:

Help = Do it. Will you help me with my homework? = Will you do my homework for me while I watch TV.
Blame = chastise. She was behaving badly but I did not blame her. Why? Does she suffer from incurable behavioural disorder?
Approach = arrive at. Please approach the help desk. How far? Just a couple of paces? You want me to simply head in that direction without actually arriving?
Find = look for. You find your keys? If I had found them I probably would not have my hand down the back of the sofa and be muttering oaths.
The below = that which follows in a letter. Please make special note of the below.
Inability = incapability.

But this is even better and happened last week. Gentleman telephoning regarding a query made by wife: Am I talking to you or your wife? There just is no answer to that.

And another:
Do you want to pay by cash?
Yes please, how much is it?
Three hundred dollars.
Here you are.
Sorry we do not take cash.
 
Having worked with foreign students when my son was in college, I have seen how tough our language is for them to grasp. Nevermind the ridiculous grammar rules, explain the spelling of "enough", "sugar" or any of a number of other words.

But at the same time I dislike the silly grammar rules (like splitting infinitives), I lament the times when using language well was common.

Our language is a bitch at times. But when an artist uses it well, it becomes almost magic. Reading Shakespeare, Lovecraft, Tennessee Williams, Twain, or any of the other masters of the written word reminds me there is hope.
 
WinterBorn said:
Having worked with foreign students when my son was in college, I have seen how tough our language is for them to grasp. Nevermind the ridiculous grammar rules, explain the spelling of "enough", "sugar" or any of a number of other words.

But at the same time I dislike the silly grammar rules (like splitting infinitives), I lament the times when using language well was common.

Our language is a bitch at times. But when an artist uses it well, it becomes almost magic. Reading Shakespeare, Lovecraft, Tennessee Williams, Twain, or any of the other masters of the written word reminds me there is hope.
Click to expand...

There is, thankfully, always hope despite the concerted efforts of most politicians and leaders to destroy the last vestige. They cannot control us while we strive for something better. Never allow our hopes to become our wishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top