University teaching shows why Thais' command of English is so abysmal!

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I agree that it is a mess, but it (the language) has grown organically ( i had to look up the word organically, it was red underlined because i spelled it with one 'L' ) but everything is just theory without boots if the will to change the spelling system isn't there in the general population and of course it isn't, the football results are far more interesting, the housing shortage far more pressing. Anyone who has an interest in a particular subject can fall prey to the idea that their's is the most pressing and important problem. NASA is testing an 'impossible, no fuel quantum space engine' that really works, put this against changing the spelling system. Fact is one can learn to spell if teachers placed greater importance on spelling. Children in the 19th Century could spell and express themselves better in writing than children of today ( not based on empirical facts but on examples of school work of that era that i have read ) today correct content is important, not spelling, when i was at school your work was rubbished if it contained too many spelling mistakes no matter the content. I am not saying that the system of spelling shouldn't be changed ( as long as the language itself isn't damaged ) but i think that you overestimate it's importance, correct speech is important, someone who say's 'woh er' instead of water will still spell the word wrongly anyway if you rely on phonetics alone. When teaching my son to read English i found it easy to say 'Thought' it's one of those funny words with a 'G' in it, after a while he knew exactly what i meant. ''I try Mr. Faulty, I try''.

 

Languages grow organically. Once you put on paper and the spell checker is working, it is going to be extremely hard to self-adjust, I am afraid. Let me state again: we are not saying that kids cannot learn it, they can. They have, by hook and by crooks. The issue is efficiency. On average, it takes 3 more years to learn to decode/spell/pronounce than if it were a language like Spanish. I understand 3 more years is quite abstract, but is 2 billions or 24 billions more concrete? It is all explained in the link. You did not follow it? Is this tiring to do? I guess one must copy and paste to get people interested nowadays. Who needs spoon-feeding? Sorry, but you bemoan the youth and their work ethics, so it follows that I would point ... In at, say, $6,000/year/student and 5 million students (Total number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in this English-sp. country), the savings would amounts to a cool 2.4 BILLIONS (6 000 x 5 000 000 / 12 or so)! (The US population is about 10 x the ones of Canada, so we can extrapolate savings of 24 billions a year in the USA). Keep in mind that the calculations factor in that most jurisdictions have kids going to 1/2 a year of kindergarten). (It is true that the Finnish students do go from age 6 on, to a "school", but it seems to be more of a daycare enhanced with some early literacy teaching. I would imagine that the spelling system is so easy to learn, that most of the time it is tantamount to offering kids socialization and time to learn to practice reading, using the spelling rules, which are not that hard to learn. If there was a daycare, like in Finland, the savings would not be as high, of course, but paying for daycare personnel is not as high as paying bona fide teachers. No matter what the number is, it would in the billions! It is not a pocket change! :)) Furthermore, in order to mitigate the learning problems that arise when learning to read and spell English words, many Commonwealth countries must spend a lot more time (away from other subjects, if those are tackled at all) and must spend a lot more money (in the form of extra teachers and resources). Let's not forget about the additional tutoring costs borne by some parents as well. I am sure that English countries that compete well with Finland in literacy PISA tests must employ a lot more specialist literacy teachers and must spend more time on literacy (guided reading programs as well).

 

Again, we are not advocating for a phonetic IPA spelling or even an incredibly phonemic system that works for all dialects 100% of the time. Not sure how much better it will be, but it will be. It is so bad. But, again, we are more interested to iron out the irregularities such as "I am, but you arE" nonsensical aberrations. It is all very well explained here (http://improvingenglishspelling.blogspot.com/) but who knows if anyone will care to go and say that they did inform ... It is easier to say that I am a mad so and so. LOL Anyway, "water" ... the way around the issue is to do as it has been done for 250 years and, by Georges, it worked (most of the time). The "r" dropping is a regular feature in many dialect. So, people have emulated their parents and integrated the phonological rules. It is second nature. SO, the idea is to keep the "r" in a reformed spelling to indicated for the stupid Americans who actually pronounce letters! What a concept!

 

Sure, funny "g" trick! How funny is it really? Saying it does not make it so! Sure, it does work! The key is HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE IT WORK? I guess you and others love paying for more teachers or seeing students struggle. Higher taxes or lower rates of literacy? It is all about effishunsy, stress on the "i" just before the schwa. It is easy I learned it in 5 seconds. Of course, tutors will complain. LOL

[lungmi]

I followed the discussion. I wanted to  put my position, but I let  you do.

Many good points I read.

Before I go sleep here my position.

To understand here my background: MA German languages, MA Roman languages, MA Education Psychology,

all includes Semiotics (Semiology).

Logic is part of the language. The logic in the Thai language is dichotomous.

Binary logic is yes or no. Thai language has not the

word for no.

Polyvalent logic is the other part.

"Up to you" is an example.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My students in a Hilltribe  school

speak a very good English, why?

Karen, Hmong, Lisu the first language

Thai the second.

BBC English with me the third.

I'm no native speaker, but 9 years in a German grammar school)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese people in Thailand are outside the discussion. Generalizations hide the problem.

[soalbundy]

There is certainly no doubt about your passion, a rarity these days. Yes it may, or does cost money but it is so abstract, defence costs far more money for weapons that we hope will never be used because if they are it doesn't matter how you spell and yet the cost goes under, nobody blinks an eye.

I put it to you that if a change in the spelling system was so important it would have been changed by now, it hasn't been. In Germany,where they have very little to complain about as far as spelling is concerned, they have tried a change, it didn't go down well. A language is as it is, if a German wants to learn English he has to abide by the rules, it shouldn't have to be changed because millions of foreigners may have difficulty with the spelling. Why is a table male in German, why is earth female, why is a girl neuter, that is the way it is, it makes the German language extremely difficult to learn apart from the complicated grammar and yet i was able to teach myself the language.

You are passionate about it so in looking at the forest you not only see the trees you see the twigs as well, we mortals don't, often we don't even see the trees. I speak now not from a knowledge of linguistics such as your own but from intuition, language (with its spelling) with all it's mistakes and inconsistencies has grown like my tomato plants, organically, I cant order them to grow in a pattern that i want, they choose their own way, often for them the best way.

The modern Frisian dialect in Germany closely resembles old English, why has Frisian remained as a dialect in Germany and yet in England has morphed into the English of today, language is a tomato plant, one shouldn't be to enthusiastic with pruning. My humble opinion. 

[Richard W]

16 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Yes, it is the stress  that determines where the schwa is. I never said that this was not the case. I am not too sure why you are saying that I said this.This is not exactly news to anyone who has studied linguistics. Please apologize. What I am saying though is that, if you know where the schwa is, you have a much better chance of knowing where the stress is or stresses are, which will help (1) with your pronunciation of the schwa and (2) having a better chance of placing the stress on the right syllable. Of course, most English-speakers (and teachers) aren't aware that is a problem because they learned the language naturally. Foreigners (and a fortiori Thais) cannot know where the stress is since it is not indicated anywhere and the rules to infer where it might be are extremely convoluted and unhelpful for a foreign learner. Ergo, the idea of marking it with ONE symbol VS 13 different possible symbols. Also, if there is one symbol for the schwa, it will help everyone spell the word properly and help everyone who has not seen a new word decode it.

 

Now, let me suggest that you follow the link provided in the threat (that explains in detail the arguments and the rebuttals to the arguments) because that is the right thing to do when you are having a conversation with someone. It is called acknowledging what they have to say. If you are not ready to listen to me, why would I want to listen to you. Thank you.

You wrote, "almost all words have a word stress that is irregular that hinges on knowing where the schwa is."  You are advocating a reading strategy where the location of the stresses is determined from the location of the schwas.  This is backwards.

 

Your argument for a consistent marking for schwa is that it will benefit foreigners.   That is quite different to the argument that spelling reform would have an economic benefit for Anglophone countries.

 

Consistent marking of schwa is actually going to cause spelling problems.  Back in junior school, I was not convinced by the claim that the vowels of the noun and the verb record were fundamentally different.  If we consider the vowel alternations in derivatives of the verb to condense, we will end up with something like:

 

*cundens - the verb

*condensashun - the act of condening

*condunsashun - the liquid formed by condensing.

 

I believe decoding is much easier with a morphemic spelling.  The word analogous is decoded to relate to analogy by the spelling, as is shown be the pronunciation as though it were *<analogeous>.    *unallugus would not be so easy to relate to *unalluji, and *anulog would be even more difficult to relate to the pair.  (I can see a problem with the prefix un-, but we already have that with unionised - 'organised into a union', or 'not ionised'.)

 

Do we really want to go down that path?  That's on top of the objections of people who rhyme trouble with bobble and not with bubble or rhyme one with gone rather than with done.  Their objections will probably be stilled within a century, but the vowel alternation in derivatives of condense and analogue may be more persistent.

 

Now, let me suggest that you follow the link provided in the threat (that explains in detail the arguments and the rebuttals to the arguments) because that is the right thing to do when you are having a conversation with someone. It is called acknowledging what they have to say. If you are not ready to listen to me, why would I want to listen to you. Thank you.

 

I did read your link.  It was dismissive of preserving etymological links shown in spelling.  However, it is the links associated with active derivation (and rederivation) that matter most.  Possibly spelling reform will simply change pronunciation.  For many words - perhaps the numerical majority - writing, and not speech, is primary.

Now, there are a lot of words that could safely be corrected to follow the regularities of English spelling - many of whose rules are widely unknown!   GBS completely failed to realise that fish should have been spelt *ughoti, not *ghoti - assuming we allow the rhetorical licence of  ignoring the lack of vowels before and after.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TEFLKrabi]

As an update to this, some of my old students are doing work experience at King Power now. Their first training book is  Basic English for Sale and Service. You'd think King Power would know better!! 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

3 hours ago, Richard W said:

You wrote, "almost all words have a word stress that is irregular that hinges on knowing where the schwa is."  You are advocating a reading strategy where the location of the stresses is determined from the location of the schwas.  This is backwards.

 

Your argument for a consistent marking for schwa is that it will benefit foreigners.   That is quite different to the argument that spelling reform would have an economic benefit for Anglophone countries.

 

Consistent marking of schwa is actually going to cause spelling problems.  Back in junior school, I was not convinced by the claim that the vowels of the noun and the verb record were fundamentally different.  If we consider the vowel alternations in derivatives of the verb to condense, we will end up with something like:

 

*cundens - the verb

*condensashun - the act of condening

*condunsashun - the liquid formed by condensing.

 

I believe decoding is much easier with a morphemic spelling.  The word analogous is decoded to relate to analogy by the spelling, as is shown be the pronunciation as though it were *<analogeous>.    *unallugus would not be so easy to relate to *unalluji, and *anulog would be even more difficult to relate to the pair.  (I can see a problem with the prefix un-, but we already have that with unionised - 'organised into a union', or 'not ionised'.)

 

Do we really want to go down that path?  That's on top of the objections of people who rhyme trouble with bobble and not with bubble or rhyme one with gone rather than with done.  Their objections will probably be stilled within a century, but the vowel alternation in derivatives of condense and analogue may be more persistent.

 

 

I did read your link.  It was dismissive of preserving etymological links shown in spelling.  However, it is the links associated with active derivation (and rederivation) that matter most.  Possibly spelling reform will simply change pronunciation.  For many words - perhaps the numerical majority - writing, and not speech, is primary.

Now, there are a lot of words that could safely be corrected to follow the regularities of English spelling - many of whose rules are widely unknown!   GBS completely failed to realise that fish should have been spelt *ughoti, not *ghoti - assuming we allow the rhetorical licence of  ignoring the lack of vowels before and after.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay! I get it! You want to keep the system as is. You are always right. It is beautiful. It is working. There is no literacy issues. Everyone can spell. Thais and foreigners are idiots and have no issues pronouncing words.  Teachers are idiots if you are a parent. You are okay with paying for more teachers and having kids start learning to read at 5.5. 

 

Ego is big in debating in forum, when when people cannot admit they are nt as right as they first presented themselves to be. Reputation on forum might be the other issue. Who know? Who cares? 

 

Here is more counter-arguments to your condense/condensation,... argument.

 

“ The orthographic complexity of a language directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is. English has a comparatively "deep" phonemic orthography within the Latin alphabet writing system, with complex structures employing spelling patterns on several levels: letter-sound correspondence, syllables, and morphemes. Languages such as Spanish, Italian and Finnish have mostly alphabetic orthographies, which primarily employ letter-sound correspondence – so-called shallow orthographies – which for dyslexics makes them easier to learn. "

 

 

So, morphology is the magic bullet? NOT.

 

The system is so easy with those morphological links that:

 

" 1/2 of Britons can't spell common words (telegraph). But not in the UK, everywhere in the Commonwealth! And, there is literacy where: “"A government-commissioned survey by Sir Claus Moser into adult basic skills in England in 1999 concluded that around 7 million adults (22 %) had a literacy level which was inadequate for everyday reading needs. An earlier US survey had also found that roughly 1 in 5 adults were functionally illiterate."

 

NOT.

 

Let me address the most common objections that are often used to prevent any change.

1. There are too many accents (AKA dialectal variations in pronunciation).

• Dialectal accents are started to be “learned” by the age of 2, BEFORE children can link phonemes, allophones, with any spelling, phonemic or not. Here is the research. It is rubbish to say that accents will prevent a reform of the spelling system. That “a” in one dialect refers to /a/ and to /ae/ in another is not a problem. What really matters is the regularity/reliability of the relationships. “bare” will not be pronounced like “beer” (Bear/dear) (and in the unlikely event there are a few words that are pronounced in extreme weird ways, maybe it is time for those to re-align themselves with the rest of the Commonwealth and pronounce these words like most English-speakers do). Bear in mind most reformers are NOT looking for pure phonemic systems that account for all allophonic differences between all dialects like some zealot linguists argue for. There are accents in Spanish too. There will be a few “unphonemic” matches, but it will be a lot better than now. There won’t be 3,000 ways to spell /e/. (I had one linguistics with a master’s degree taking this literally, btw. Go figure!) Let’s be very precise, most consonants are NOT pronounced in different ways across dialects. Right? That’s 24 phonemes out of 43 pronounced in very, very similar ways (their minor allophonic representations are very predictable as in rhotic [or not] systems). Second, the differences in vowels are usually minor and even less so for polysyllabic words. (Most speakers around the Commonwealth can understand each other.) There is, for instance, a general /a/ phoneme that varies a little from one dialect (its allophones) and within the dialect for a few words (usually monosyllabic, common words) here and there, but most people would classify an “a” letter as being an /a/ phoneme and not an /o/ phoneme (or any other allophones of that phoneme), etc. In fact, most dialects have 2 allophones for every generic phoneme, but each of these vary, which is not a problem, as long as they are distinct (enough for the speakers of the dialect to differentiate). Detractors make this is a big issue because they want to derail a reform, not understanding that a reform does not need to make every speaker learn a new system. (See the addendum for more arguments given by Gregory Bontrager (Masters’ in Linguistics) to Dr. Steve Bett, retired prof. of linguistics)
• At the same time, I think it would be wise to use the diaphonemes used on the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects - Wikipedia to avoid political issues and help make English a true lingua franca (a language that can be learned and be easy to understand by most people on Earth) because the more phonemic we can make it, the better it would be, of course. (English has spread and acts like a lingua franca now, but let’s be clear, it is not because it is the epitome of linguistic perfection.)
• This is not the armageddon, the end of English as we know it, an incredible loss of culture,… This is about spelling, not language. Children will not know the difference, as you did not when you and I grew up. If English wants to claim to be a lingua franca, then I am afraid it is going to fess up and behave as one. But, there is plan a compromise.
• Accents will vanish? For the last 250 years (and more) they have NOT vanished even with an extremely POOR system representing them. Do those claiming the end of the world need MORE time to get the idea? Any chance they will (accents not them) vanish with a better phonemic system? Even if we were to use the “diaphonemes” AND make things very phonemic, the letter “a”, for instance, will continue to be given a slightly different hue in many dialects. Ditto for most of the phonemes. Accents will NOT vanish. It is BS. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I have 250 years of data!
• Better phonemic languages that ease learning of reading, speaking, and spelling (Italian, Finnish, Spanish) have many accents as well.
• A reform would not mean spelling using a phonetic system like IPA.
• A reform will not try to represent ALL variations and will not fix ALL the issues, but it will be a VAST improvement over what there is now.
• The internet, public education for all,... are helping standardizing many accents.
• Unusual dialectal variations in multisyllabic words (the majority of words) are very minimal. These irregular, “un”systemic pronunciations of words like bath, car, and palm (that break patterns) are usually reserved for common words, not multisyllabic words. Check it out. Beside, most people can understand most other dialectal speakers. Will it be a deal breaker if kids are taught to say some of these words to follow the pattern?
• Some dialects will suit the new system better than others. Accents will continue to be preserved, but should a country wish to make it easier to learn to read and improve the links, no one will stop them. The system will have some flexibility. It will not be so precise. It will have a few flaws. It will not have hundreds of thousands of errors like the system has now. Maybe hundred or a thousand of words will need a little bit of teaching. A period of 5 years will be used to evaluate different systems and their implications for the various dialects. Again, accents will NOT be affected. They are taught by relatives and society at large before a kid ever learns to read.

2. I do not want to learn a new system.

• You won't have to. I repeat … you will not have to. That is our pledge. I do not want to either. This reform is not for me, you, but for the next generation.
• The change will occur in schools, starting with as many Grade 1 classes as it is possible. Opting out will be possible. In year 2, another group of Grade 1 will start to learn the new system. The first group will go in Grade 2 and will keep learning the new system (or rather learn using the new system since they will have it mastered decoding and spelling already).

3. There will be a need for some people to learn the new system.

• The 20 to 40 will need to be familiar with the new system, but free programs will be able to transcode from the current system to the other and vice versa, seamlessly and fast. Transcoding is much faster than translating. It is also much more accurate.
• The cohort that will go into the labour force after 12 to 16 years will speak the same language. Speech recognition software and transcoding programs will do the rest.

4. Street signs and vendor signs will need to be respelled/respelt.

• No. The new spellers will be able to decipher the old system.

5. ALL documents will need to be reprinted.

• No. Digital documents will be transcodable. It is much easier to do so.
• Should a citizen be interested or be in need to read printed documents that are not in a digital format, I am sure we can figure out ways to efficiently recode these (text-to-speech recognition software to deal with that issue) or have someone read the text to him or her or transcode it.

6. Will translators lose their job?

• No. A good segment of the population will still function in the current system.
• No. The new spellers will need translation as much as the older generation.
• There will be a need for some transcoding too.

7. Will teachers lose their job?

• If a Grade 1 teacher were incapable or unwilling to teach the new system, they could be given the task to teach those children who are opting out or be asked to teach the old system (as a second language) or teach older grades. Substantial accommodations should be given to older teachers wanting to plan (prepare material) and/or learn the new code.
• There will be a 4 or 5 year preparatory period to start the transition (Year 1/Grade 1) which should give people plenty of time to shift, should they want to.
• Unions will be consulted and a system will be put in place to facilitate the transition for all
• Retirement by attrition would be one of the ways used to replace teachers.
• Grade 1 teachers are often able to teach other grades.
• New students will need a few teachers to teach the old system as a second-language mode.

8. The language will lose the morphological links between words that will be lost or reduced with a new more phonemic system.

• Everyone knows the link between language and linguistics or photography and photographer, for instance. These pairs of words resemble each other, but the link is not automatic in the first pair. Apparently, one would not know that the other is related with the other. Really? Anyway, a more phonemic system will sometimes improve the semantic relation and sometimes obscure it. At the end of the day, some of the words that are linked by how they look, require the learner to remember the pronunciation of the words since they might not be pronounced as they are written and, obviously, their spelling: photographic, but photography: (/fəˈtɒɡ.rə.fi/ VS /ˌfəʊ.təˈɡræf.ɪk/. Which is better? In a reform spelling, these words would be spelled something like this in Iezy Inglgish: fetogrefy VS fetegrafic. Notice that in both, the stressed syllable is the one that does not have the “e” or schwa. Huge advantage for foreign learners where now no one knows where the word stress is put. Is there anyone who canNOT link the two words semantically? A newer system will improve the link between words that are spoken and words that are written/decoded/read. Learning should be faster as a result. The current system obscures the link between words that are spoken (and heard) and words that are written/decoded.
• Furthermore, yes, there are words that look like they are related and the links will be obscured, but if spelling and misspellings are so important, aren’t they a lot of false-positives that a respelling would clarify? Is ready about reading? Plea and pleasure (sure?) and pleasant (ant?) are linked? Arch and archive? Country is about counting? Lead (the metal) is about leading? Bus and business? Cancel is about cans and cells? Have and haven are related? Ache and achieved? Reinvent and rein (vent)? All and allow? Inventories and invent are linked? Reached and ache? Resent is about sent/sending? How many more do I need to prove the point that there are a lot of false positives currently?
• There are words in the current system that appear to be linked, but aren’t. No one seems to be confused. Invest is about a vest that’s in a coat? Numb and numbers are related? Legal is about leg? Assertive about ass? Acting and actual are related? Deli and deliver? Heaven and heavy? Man and many? Add and address? Earl and early? Pet and petty? There are lots of false positives in that sense in the lexicon too.

I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 hours ago, soalbundy said:

There is certainly no doubt about your passion, a rarity these days. Yes it may, or does cost money but it is so abstract, defence costs far more money for weapons that we hope will never be used because if they are it doesn't matter how you spell and yet the cost goes under, nobody blinks an eye.

I put it to you that if a change in the spelling system was so important it would have been changed by now, it hasn't been. In Germany,where they have very little to complain about as far as spelling is concerned, they have tried a change, it didn't go down well. A language is as it is, if a German wants to learn English he has to abide by the rules, it shouldn't have to be changed because millions of foreigners may have difficulty with the spelling. Why is a table male in German, why is earth female, why is a girl neuter, that is the way it is, it makes the German language extremely difficult to learn apart from the complicated grammar and yet i was able to teach myself the language.

You are passionate about it so in looking at the forest you not only see the trees you see the twigs as well, we mortals don't, often we don't even see the trees. I speak now not from a knowledge of linguistics such as your own but from intuition, language (with its spelling) with all it's mistakes and inconsistencies has grown like my tomato plants, organically, I cant order them to grow in a pattern that i want, they choose their own way, often for them the best way.

The modern Frisian dialect in Germany closely resembles old English, why has Frisian remained as a dialect in Germany and yet in England has morphed into the English of today, language is a tomato plant, one shouldn't be to enthusiastic with pruning. My humble opinion. 

 

Thank you for acknowledging the passion. 

 

Just a clarification, there have been many reforms in many countries (I counted about 30!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_reform#Other_languages

Can billions of people be stupid? So, the question then is why the Commonwealth and its citizens the outlier?

 

Just another clarification about the organic nature of languages. Certainly BEFORE the printing press, spelling did grow organically. Texts abound where there are different spellings of the same word in the same text and there were many spellings of the same word in different texts as well. In fact, S. Johnson knew this and chose the more Latin/Greek spellings of words because it would make him look more educated than he was given credit. As dictionaries came to be the references that they became, the spellings of words have remained incredibly resilient to change. Spell-checkers is the final nail in that coffin along the shame/judgments that people put on the people who misspell. The two paths that Frisian took is normal and is in fact the reasons why many different dialects become so different. It is my contention that the earth being flat again, with the internet, these dialectal differences will become less and less pronounced and the production of dialectal anomalies will diminish. Languages are more organic than orthographies. The latter is stuck in thick cement for a long time. 

 

Sure, many languages have their quirks and difficulties. English has a relatively easier grammar than English for instance. The nonsensical genders of nouns and overly complex conjugation systems of some other languages do not, however, impact decoding, reading, pronunciation, spelling of words, the latter being less of a concern now with spell-checkers. English helps maintain social immobility and classes more than other languages. Unless you do not have to read and write for a living, you would need incredible odds (special public programs) to enable to buck the trend. Does the majority that is not poor, that can manage the language, who has the resources to mitigate educational difficulties that their children might have,... care about changing a system that sort of works in keeping them there and enables some mobility care? Probably not. It will take a miracle, an incredible benevolent, rich, powerful person or organization to change the system as I don;t believe that society will evolve to be less selfish. Kids and the illiterates have very little power. Parents might defend the interest of their kids though. We are seeing some signs of discontent out there, however. 

 

 

[William C F Pierce]

On 13/12/2016 at 2:03 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 

I'm pretty sure that's just what we teach primary school kids as a way of getting their heads around certain aspects of sentence structure.

 

Here's something I just found on the net:

 

Here’s what some of the big usage guides say on the matter. The one that seems to get quoted the most is the Chicago Manual of Style, which says:

There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice.

Both Garner’s Modern American Usage, and Fowler’s Modern English Usage call this belief a superstition. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (or MWDEU) says, “Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and,” and notes that you can find examples of it all the way back to Old English. 

 

If you use a word without paying attention to the words correct meaning, it is not alright regardless of how many people say it is. All it shows is a lack of proper English comprehension. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "and" as meaning in addition to one or more items before it, followed by a final item after it in the same sentence. The correct use of the word "and" will always be at a  point after the use of one or more words and never, ever written with a capital letter. If you start a sentence with "and", maybe you would like to explain what the word means used like this in this way. Just because criminals say it is alright to steal, does not make it correct. The use of bad English by anyone does not make it acceptable, regardless of says so or how famous they are. It is up to you to define it's correct meaning and use it correctly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[William C F Pierce]

On 08/12/2016 at 11:27 PM, Loeilad said:

Some people need to forget what they were erroneously taught at prep school and re-assess their  perception of their own knowledge of English before criticising the language.

 

And you could look at this....

" perfectly respectable writers employ this disputed usage, and have done since Anglo-Saxon times."

 

"You could also refer to the fact that you’re in very good company (examples can be found in the work of writers such as Susan Sontag, Vladimir Nabokov, Kingsley Amis, P.G. Wodehouse, and Albert Einstein) and that highly respected grammar and usage guides (such as Fowler and Garner) all agree that it’s a perfectly acceptable practice."

 

So…can we start a sentence with and?

It is clear you do not understand the meaning of the word "and". Try looking it up in the Oxford Dictionary. Just because a number of famous writers misuse a word does not make it correct. Albert Einstein was a known dyslexic at school, so what makes him a prominant example to refer to. So many people like referring to the name "Einstein" to give the impression that they themselves are clever.

[George Graham]

13 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Okay! I get it! You want to keep the system as is. You are always right. It is beautiful. It is working. There is no literacy issues. Everyone can spell. Thais and foreigners are idiots and have no issues pronouncing words.  Teachers are idiots if you are a parent. You are okay with paying for more teachers and having kids start learning to read at 5.5. 

 

Ego is big in debating in forum, when when people cannot admit they are nt as right as they first presented themselves to be. Reputation on forum might be the other issue. Who know? Who cares? 

 

Here is more counter-arguments to your condense/condensation,... argument.

 

“ The orthographic complexity of a language directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is. English has a comparatively "deep" phonemic orthography within the Latin alphabet writing system, with complex structures employing spelling patterns on several levels: letter-sound correspondence, syllables, and morphemes. Languages such as Spanish, Italian and Finnish have mostly alphabetic orthographies, which primarily employ letter-sound correspondence – so-called shallow orthographies – which for dyslexics makes them easier to learn. "

 

 

So, morphology is the magic bullet? NOT.

 

The system is so easy with those morphological links that:

 

" 1/2 of Britons can't spell common words (telegraph). But not in the UK, everywhere in the Commonwealth! And, there is literacy where: “"A government-commissioned survey by Sir Claus Moser into adult basic skills in England in 1999 concluded that around 7 million adults (22 %) had a literacy level which was inadequate for everyday reading needs. An earlier US survey had also found that roughly 1 in 5 adults were functionally illiterate."

 

NOT.

 

Let me address the most common objections that are often used to prevent any change.

1. There are too many accents (AKA dialectal variations in pronunciation).

• Dialectal accents are started to be “learned” by the age of 2, BEFORE children can link phonemes, allophones, with any spelling, phonemic or not. Here is the research. It is rubbish to say that accents will prevent a reform of the spelling system. That “a” in one dialect refers to /a/ and to /ae/ in another is not a problem. What really matters is the regularity/reliability of the relationships. “bare” will not be pronounced like “beer” (Bear/dear) (and in the unlikely event there are a few words that are pronounced in extreme weird ways, maybe it is time for those to re-align themselves with the rest of the Commonwealth and pronounce these words like most English-speakers do). Bear in mind most reformers are NOT looking for pure phonemic systems that account for all allophonic differences between all dialects like some zealot linguists argue for. There are accents in Spanish too. There will be a few “unphonemic” matches, but it will be a lot better than now. There won’t be 3,000 ways to spell /e/. (I had one linguistics with a master’s degree taking this literally, btw. Go figure!) Let’s be very precise, most consonants are NOT pronounced in different ways across dialects. Right? That’s 24 phonemes out of 43 pronounced in very, very similar ways (their minor allophonic representations are very predictable as in rhotic [or not] systems). Second, the differences in vowels are usually minor and even less so for polysyllabic words. (Most speakers around the Commonwealth can understand each other.) There is, for instance, a general /a/ phoneme that varies a little from one dialect (its allophones) and within the dialect for a few words (usually monosyllabic, common words) here and there, but most people would classify an “a” letter as being an /a/ phoneme and not an /o/ phoneme (or any other allophones of that phoneme), etc. In fact, most dialects have 2 allophones for every generic phoneme, but each of these vary, which is not a problem, as long as they are distinct (enough for the speakers of the dialect to differentiate). Detractors make this is a big issue because they want to derail a reform, not understanding that a reform does not need to make every speaker learn a new system. (See the addendum for more arguments given by Gregory Bontrager (Masters’ in Linguistics) to Dr. Steve Bett, retired prof. of linguistics)
• At the same time, I think it would be wise to use the diaphonemes used on the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects - Wikipedia to avoid political issues and help make English a true lingua franca (a language that can be learned and be easy to understand by most people on Earth) because the more phonemic we can make it, the better it would be, of course. (English has spread and acts like a lingua franca now, but let’s be clear, it is not because it is the epitome of linguistic perfection.)
• This is not the armageddon, the end of English as we know it, an incredible loss of culture,… This is about spelling, not language. Children will not know the difference, as you did not when you and I grew up. If English wants to claim to be a lingua franca, then I am afraid it is going to fess up and behave as one. But, there is plan a compromise.
• Accents will vanish? For the last 250 years (and more) they have NOT vanished even with an extremely POOR system representing them. Do those claiming the end of the world need MORE time to get the idea? Any chance they will (accents not them) vanish with a better phonemic system? Even if we were to use the “diaphonemes” AND make things very phonemic, the letter “a”, for instance, will continue to be given a slightly different hue in many dialects. Ditto for most of the phonemes. Accents will NOT vanish. It is BS. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I have 250 years of data!
• Better phonemic languages that ease learning of reading, speaking, and spelling (Italian, Finnish, Spanish) have many accents as well.
• A reform would not mean spelling using a phonetic system like IPA.
• A reform will not try to represent ALL variations and will not fix ALL the issues, but it will be a VAST improvement over what there is now.
• The internet, public education for all,... are helping standardizing many accents.
• Unusual dialectal variations in multisyllabic words (the majority of words) are very minimal. These irregular, “un”systemic pronunciations of words like bath, car, and palm (that break patterns) are usually reserved for common words, not multisyllabic words. Check it out. Beside, most people can understand most other dialectal speakers. Will it be a deal breaker if kids are taught to say some of these words to follow the pattern?
• Some dialects will suit the new system better than others. Accents will continue to be preserved, but should a country wish to make it easier to learn to read and improve the links, no one will stop them. The system will have some flexibility. It will not be so precise. It will have a few flaws. It will not have hundreds of thousands of errors like the system has now. Maybe hundred or a thousand of words will need a little bit of teaching. A period of 5 years will be used to evaluate different systems and their implications for the various dialects. Again, accents will NOT be affected. They are taught by relatives and society at large before a kid ever learns to read.

2. I do not want to learn a new system.

• You won't have to. I repeat … you will not have to. That is our pledge. I do not want to either. This reform is not for me, you, but for the next generation.
• The change will occur in schools, starting with as many Grade 1 classes as it is possible. Opting out will be possible. In year 2, another group of Grade 1 will start to learn the new system. The first group will go in Grade 2 and will keep learning the new system (or rather learn using the new system since they will have it mastered decoding and spelling already).

3. There will be a need for some people to learn the new system.

• The 20 to 40 will need to be familiar with the new system, but free programs will be able to transcode from the current system to the other and vice versa, seamlessly and fast. Transcoding is much faster than translating. It is also much more accurate.
• The cohort that will go into the labour force after 12 to 16 years will speak the same language. Speech recognition software and transcoding programs will do the rest.

4. Street signs and vendor signs will need to be respelled/respelt.

• No. The new spellers will be able to decipher the old system.

5. ALL documents will need to be reprinted.

• No. Digital documents will be transcodable. It is much easier to do so.
• Should a citizen be interested or be in need to read printed documents that are not in a digital format, I am sure we can figure out ways to efficiently recode these (text-to-speech recognition software to deal with that issue) or have someone read the text to him or her or transcode it.

6. Will translators lose their job?

• No. A good segment of the population will still function in the current system.
• No. The new spellers will need translation as much as the older generation.
• There will be a need for some transcoding too.

7. Will teachers lose their job?

• If a Grade 1 teacher were incapable or unwilling to teach the new system, they could be given the task to teach those children who are opting out or be asked to teach the old system (as a second language) or teach older grades. Substantial accommodations should be given to older teachers wanting to plan (prepare material) and/or learn the new code.
• There will be a 4 or 5 year preparatory period to start the transition (Year 1/Grade 1) which should give people plenty of time to shift, should they want to.
• Unions will be consulted and a system will be put in place to facilitate the transition for all
• Retirement by attrition would be one of the ways used to replace teachers.
• Grade 1 teachers are often able to teach other grades.
• New students will need a few teachers to teach the old system as a second-language mode.

8. The language will lose the morphological links between words that will be lost or reduced with a new more phonemic system.

• Everyone knows the link between language and linguistics or photography and photographer, for instance. These pairs of words resemble each other, but the link is not automatic in the first pair. Apparently, one would not know that the other is related with the other. Really? Anyway, a more phonemic system will sometimes improve the semantic relation and sometimes obscure it. At the end of the day, some of the words that are linked by how they look, require the learner to remember the pronunciation of the words since they might not be pronounced as they are written and, obviously, their spelling: photographic, but photography: (/fəˈtɒɡ.rə.fi/ VS /ˌfəʊ.təˈɡræf.ɪk/. Which is better? In a reform spelling, these words would be spelled something like this in Iezy Inglgish: fetogrefy VS fetegrafic. Notice that in both, the stressed syllable is the one that does not have the “e” or schwa. Huge advantage for foreign learners where now no one knows where the word stress is put. Is there anyone who canNOT link the two words semantically? A newer system will improve the link between words that are spoken and words that are written/decoded/read. Learning should be faster as a result. The current system obscures the link between words that are spoken (and heard) and words that are written/decoded.
• Furthermore, yes, there are words that look like they are related and the links will be obscured, but if spelling and misspellings are so important, aren’t they a lot of false-positives that a respelling would clarify? Is ready about reading? Plea and pleasure (sure?) and pleasant (ant?) are linked? Arch and archive? Country is about counting? Lead (the metal) is about leading? Bus and business? Cancel is about cans and cells? Have and haven are related? Ache and achieved? Reinvent and rein (vent)? All and allow? Inventories and invent are linked? Reached and ache? Resent is about sent/sending? How many more do I need to prove the point that there are a lot of false positives currently?
• There are words in the current system that appear to be linked, but aren’t. No one seems to be confused. Invest is about a vest that’s in a coat? Numb and numbers are related? Legal is about leg? Assertive about ass? Acting and actual are related? Deli and deliver? Heaven and heavy? Man and many? Add and address? Earl and early? Pet and petty? There are lots of false positives in that sense in the lexicon too.

I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a record for longest post on TVF?

I think this deserves a TL;DR. 

[Slip]

On 12/13/2016 at 5:17 PM, EnlightenedAtheist said:

And for those who think that my rant is rubbish, I challenge you to recite out loud ...

 

The Chaos (1922)
By Gerard Noist Trenité

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,

I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse

I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.

Tear in eye your dress you’ll tear,
So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer,

Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!

Just compare heart, beard and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,

Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written).

Made has not the sound of bade,
Say said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.

Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,

But be careful how you speak,
Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.

Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,

Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,

Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles.
Exiles, similes, reviles.

Wholly, holly, signal, signing.
Thames, examining, combining

Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war, and far.

From “desire”: desirable–admirable from “admire.”
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier.

Chatham, brougham, renown, but known.
Knowledge, done, but gone and tone,

One, anemone. Balmoral.
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel,

Gertrude, German, wind, and mind.
Scene, Melpomene, mankind,

Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, reading, heathen, heather.

This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.

Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;

Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.

Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which is said to rime with “darky.”

Viscous, Viscount, load, and broad.
Toward, to forward, to reward.

And your pronunciation’s O.K.,
When you say correctly: croquet.

Rounded, wounded, grieve, and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive, and live,

Liberty, library, heave, and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,

We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.

Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover,

Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police, and lice.

Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label,

Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal.

Suit, suite, ruin, circuit, conduit,
Rime with “shirk it” and “beyond it.”

But it is not hard to tell,
Why it’s pall, mall, but Pall Mall.

Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,

Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, and chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor,

Ivy, privy, famous, clamour
And enamour rime with hammer.

Pussy, hussy, and possess,
Desert, but dessert, address.

Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants.
Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.

River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.

Stranger does not rime with anger.
Neither does devour with clangour.

Soul, but foul and gaunt but aunt.
Font, front, won’t, want, grand, and grant.

Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger.
And then: singer, ginger, linger,

Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.

Query does not rime with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.

Dost, lost, post; and doth, cloth, loth;
Job, Job; blossom, bosom, oath.

Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual.

Seat, sweat; chaste, caste.; Leigh, eight, height;
Put, nut; granite, and unite.

Reefer does not rime with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.

Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, Senate, but sedate.

Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific,

Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.

Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria,

Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion.

Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay.

Say aver, but ever, fever.
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.

Never guess–it is not safe:
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.

Heron, granary, canary,
Crevice and device, and eyrie,

Face but preface, but efface,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.

Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust, and scour, but scourging,

Ear but earn, and wear and bear
Do not rime with here, but ere.

Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,

Monkey, donkey, clerk, and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation–think of psyche–!
Is a paling, stout and spikey,

Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing “groats” and saying “grits”?

It’s a dark abyss or tunnel,
Strewn with stones, like rowlock, gunwale,

Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict, and indict!

Don’t you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?

Finally: which rimes with “enough”
Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?

Hiccough has the sound of “cup.”
My advice is–give it up!*

Or hear it at: https://pop.inquirer.net/2016/12/tongue-twister-lengthy-age-old-poem-about-the-english-language/#sthash.CJpnbGYf.dpuf

This is exactly why I despise (if you recall) efforts to homogonise the language.  I just read this poem out loud to myself.  It is a wonderful celebration of the language.  Now please forgive me as I go back and read all the posts from the interim. :D

[Johnniey]

23 minutes ago, George Graham said:

Is this a record for longest post on TVF?

I think this deserves a TL;DR. 

Longest plagiarized post for sure.

 

Why on earth is this on the news forum?

[Richard W]

18 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

“ The orthographic complexity of a language directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is. English has a comparatively "deep" phonemic orthography within the Latin alphabet writing system, with complex structures employing spelling patterns on several levels: letter-sound correspondence, syllables, and morphemes. Languages such as Spanish, Italian and Finnish have mostly alphabetic orthographies, which primarily employ letter-sound correspondence – so-called shallow orthographies – which for dyslexics makes them easier to learn. "

 

 

So, morphology is the magic bullet? NOT.

Have you read Mark Rosenfelder's Hou tu pranownse Inglish ? Spanish is not so wonderful for spelling, despite being quite regular for reading.  Spanish, of course, has the advantage of having only 5 vowel sounds.  The condense/condensation argument is about spelling.

 

Morphemic spelling is probably not so important at the start of reading - pupils vocabularies are relatively limited.  It would be interesting to find out (though I am not sure how) whether English would be easier to read with the choice of /s/~/z/ and /t/ ~ /d/ allomorphs made explicit.  There is evidence that the English plural /z/ is actually not a full /z/, but betrays its allophony with /s/.

 

 

" 1/2 of Britons can't spell common words (telegraph).

The words given in the  article  (your link had got mangled) were most significantly accommodate, questionnaire and rhythm. Other troublesome words were conscience, occurrence, restaurant and guarantee.

 

It's questionable whether accommodate and commodious truly (as opposed to etymologically) share a common morpheme.   It's not certain to me that one can claim that the first word contains the ///æd/// morpheme synchronically.  Whether  to double the 'm' is a memory problem with both words - would a reformed spelling be inconsistent?

 

For questionnaire, the problem is whether one should have 'n' or 'nn'.  I think this word is a case for degallicisation - replace 'nn' by 'n'.

 

If you're going to mangle rhythm, at least be consistent in what happens to rhythmic.  The spelling rhyme should, of course, be junked in favour of rime.  There is no etymological connection, nor do I think a common morpheme has arisen.  I think that's already happening.

 

Again, it is not clear that conscience and science still share a common morpheme.

 

Assuming that the problem in occurrence is  the 'r' and not the 'c', I think the problem is that the stem morpheme is not spelt the same in occur.

 

The word restaurant simply uses a foreign spelling, and the connection between warranty and guarantee is too distant to help.

 

That “a” in one dialect refers to /a/ and to /ae/ in another is not a problem.

 

That is a straw man.

 

 

 

• Better phonemic languages that ease learning of reading, speaking, and spelling (Italian, Finnish, Spanish) have many accents as well.
• <snip>
• Unusual dialectal variations in multisyllabic words (the majority of words) are very minimal. These irregular, “un”systemic pronunciations of words like bath, car, and palm (that break patterns) are usually reserved for common words, not multisyllabic words. Check it out. Beside, most people can understand most other dialectal speakers. Will it be a deal breaker if kids are taught to say some of these words to follow the pattern?
• <snip>

 

I note the plan to compel the end of selectional differences between accents.  That's fighting talk!

 

 

[Richard W]

 

 

2. I do not want to learn a new system.

• You won't have to. I repeat … you will not have to. That is our pledge. I do not want to either. This reform is not for me, you, but for the next generation.
• <snip>

4. Street signs and vendor signs will need to be respelled/respelt.

• No. The new spellers will be able to decipher the old system.

5. ALL documents will need to be reprinted.

• No. Digital documents will be transcodable. It is much easier to do so.
• Should a citizen be interested or be in need to read printed documents that are not in a digital format, I am sure we can figure out ways to efficiently recode these (text-to-speech recognition software to deal with that issue) or have someone read the text to him or her or transcode it.

7. Will teachers lose their job?

 

• Retirement by attrition would be one of the ways used to replace teachers.

<Other points in no. 7 snipped>

 

Interesting.  Many people reportedly can't read the Traditional Orthography (T.O.), but will magically be able to once they learn a reformed spelling!  I remember that children's advances in reading stalled when they switched from the initial teaching alphabet( i.t.a.) to T.O., and that was with a strong incentive to learn T.O.

It seems to be goodbye to books and magazines.  I find it hard to imagine that they will routinely be printed in both formats.  Old people will have to learn to read the new system.  I also strongly suspect they will also have to learn to write the new system, simply to interact with the youngsters.

Teachers may be seriously at risk.  What happened to, 'Every teacher is a teacher of English'?

 

 

 

8. The language will lose the morphological links between words that will be lost or reduced with a new more phonemic system.

• In a reform spelling, these words would be spelled something like this in Iezy Inglgish: fetogrefy VS fetegrafic. Notice that in both, the stressed syllable is the one that does not have the “e” or schwa. Huge advantage for foreign learners where now no one knows where the word stress is put. Is there anyone who canNOT link the two words semantically? A newer system will improve the link between words that are spoken and words that are written/decoded/read. Learning should be faster as a result. The current system obscures the link between words that are spoken (and heard) and words that are written/decoded.

When writing was young, people apparently had to sound out words.  Silent reading in the Latin script is reported to be a relatively recent phenomenon.  The way fluent reading works is by recognition of the shapes of words - one mostly reads a word at a time.  It also seems to be the stems that are read - proof-readers frequently missed typos in the inflections.  For word families like photograph, I think readers will have to learn two word forms, depending on the placement of the stress.  Now, this can certainly be done auditorily (cf. Old Irish verb stems), but I'm not sure how much more difficult it makes reading.  I wonder if we have any evidence from Finnish, where consonant gradation reduces the commonality of word shapes.

 

Incidentally, the difference would fetogrefy v. fotegrafic (or perhaps a more complicated spelling).

 

 

[Loeilad]

8 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

It is clear you do not understand the meaning of the word "and". Try looking it up in the Oxford Dictionary. Just because a number of famous writers misuse a word does not make it correct. Albert Einstein was a known dyslexic at school, so what makes him a prominant example to refer to. So many people like referring to the name "Einstein" to give the impression that they themselves are clever.

And I think you need to read up on your English.....

[Loeilad]

8 hours ago, Johnniey said:

Longest plagiarized post for sure.

 

Why on earth is this on the news forum?

Plagiarised? Why?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

11 hours ago, Slip said:

This is exactly why I despise (if you recall) efforts to homogonise the language.  I just read this poem out loud to myself.  It is a wonderful celebration of the language.  Now please forgive me as I go back and read all the posts from the interim. :D

 

Strange! It reminded me of this, something that is not exactly the epitome of engineering or art. To each its own.

 

Do you find her attractive too?

 

 

Beauty is relative I suppose or is it that one can construe anything as being beautiful if there are other considerations. If one can make money out of the system or her, then it could be construed as fantastic. 

 

Wow! you can decode all of those words? The first-go around? Oh! Well! It is hard to verify! LOL Of course, one has to detect the errors, if not it is just a mirage, make-belief. I bet you feel smarter than most and expressing this on TV adds to your reputation I am sure --you feel. But, are you smarter? A computer linked to a huge database could do it. A simple algorithm with an easier, more phonemic system could do with less power and faster, but that is not important to you, I am sure. And what about the billions of people who can't decode the mess What are their prospect of sounding smart or of getting a job from the smart-sounding English-speaker? Do you care about THEM?

 

This is beauty to me:

 

 

And this is ugliness:

 

 

But, I am sure the husband of the woman above is convinced she is the most beautiful woman on Earth (made all the more possible that she does not provide him with glasses  --pink-tainted-- or not). LOL

 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

4 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Plagiarised? Why?

 

Thanks for the questions. I actually had missed this post. It is so short, it is easy to miss.

 

We are hitting all time lows. Johnnie is hating my arguments, no doubt. In any case, even  if it were plagiarised, no doubt that it is on-topic, unlike other posts from Johnnie-be-bad!

[EnlightenedAtheist]

12 hours ago, George Graham said:

Is this a record for longest post on TVF?

I think this deserves a TL;DR. 

 

CTE?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

12 hours ago, Johnniey said:

Longest plagiarized post for sure.

 

Why on earth is this on the news forum?

 

Hey, Johnnie,

 

Here is the newsflash! It is because it pertains to learning or reading English (which is the topic discussed here) --which you seems to have some struggle with. Go back to the OP and disambiguate. Or perhaps you find my argumentation particularly annoying and you would like it to be censured?

 

Even  if it were plagiarised, it is still relevant. What do you mean by "plagiarized"? What? I am not citing my sources? Is this a term paper? Are you kidding me? 

 

Btw, all of the innuendos (all one-sentence long, which seems to be the maximum length of posts that you can handle and which prevents any possibility of plagiarizing as a result) about me being an ESL learner and such are completely baseless, as based on evidence and an analysis of the length and substance of posts. LOL  Here is an easier version for you: BS. When are you going to fix English 1.0? It has been 250 years. Is there a worst writing system in the Western world?

 

If it is bad, so is the learning. Nothing to do with Thais being dumb. Get it?

 

 

Now, are you a teacher? Come on! Fess up! Spill the beans?

 

English pays the bills.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

It is clear you do not understand the meaning of the word "and". Try looking it up in the Oxford Dictionary. Just because a number of famous writers misuse a word does not make it correct. Albert Einstein was a known dyslexic at school, so what makes him a prominant example to refer to. So many people like referring to the name "Einstein" to give the impression that they themselves are clever.

 

1) It is clear that in speaking, "and" often starts a sentence. No one blinks.

2) While it is true that it is of bad form or was (and in many languages), since language evolves and must be allowed to evolve, can we not construe that "and" is being used as "moreover". "and" is shorter. It gets to the point faster too. Why are we being picky?

3) Since there are no "organization" in the Commonwealth regulating the language, it is hard to know which is "standard" or acceptable. Why would users need to listen to people who purport to know?

4) Standards, laws are to be broken (or changed/annulled) f they do not make sense. See #1 and #2.

 

Is this on-topic? 

 

Is this important?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

21 minutes ago, JAG said:

That bee buzzing around in his bonnet must be driving him round the bend!

 

This post is being reported as an ad hominem attack.

 

Not only are you trying to use idioms to make it hard --you think-- for the person you intend to mock to miss the attack (thinking that I would not get it), you are also mocking/attacking without substantiating your assertion, something that is learned in Grade 4. The last part being a fact. Ergo,  you are ... and ... and ... 

 

So, come on! Fess up, big guy! Are you in love with your beautiful English and no one can touch it? It is easier to just peg all Thais, all foreigners (or teachers) as lazy idiots. How about working a little, tackling difficult challenges? How about making English 2.0 and implementing a reform? I know! I know! It is hard and a lot of work. LOL

 

[Richard W]

On 09/12/2016 at 3:29 PM, maewang99 said:

Central Thai is written phonetically.  that's why the English/Thai Thai/English biling dictionaries have no need for the IPA or a Webster Guide.

I must congratulate you on being able to identify a silent, unmarked ro ruea in the middle of a Thai word, as in Samart, and to identify a silent final vowel as in Savarnabhumi.  Most of us need dictionaries to be confident of such pronunciations.  As for the mastery of the transferred tone rule, congratulations!  Most of us manage only a rule of thumb.  (This 'rule' identifies when a word should be pronounced as though it has a ho nam in the middle of it, as in the Thai word for 'police'.)  Also, congratulations on discerning the unmarked tone of English loans in Thai - most of us can only guess.  Congratulations on discerning the /n/ in Sawankhalok despite the percentage guess for the RTGS being *Sawakkhalok.

 

I'm afraid I realised long ago that for all but the simplest of words, I needed a syllabification guide.  Later, I realised that there were issues with the tones, and that I had only got the tones of Phitsanulok right by luck.  (The sophisticated view is that the high tone on 'nu' is irregular!)

[Richard W]

5 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Plagiarised? Why?

The post quotes a web page previously cited; the presumption of the charge is that Enlightened Atheist is not the author of the text in the web page.  Actually, the post starts up explicitly quoting, but that punctuation breaks down eventually.  I must say that I don't find the new system for editing posts conducive to long, reasoned posts.  It was best a few years ago.  Point-by-point replies are a nightmare.

[Johnniey]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Hey, Johnnie,

 

Here is the newsflash! It is because it pertains to learning or reading English (which is the topic discussed here) --which you seems to have some struggle with. Go back to the OP and disambiguate. Or perhaps you find my argumentation particularly annoying and you would like it to be censured?

 

Even  if it were plagiarised, it is still relevant. What do you mean by "plagiarized"? What? I am not citing my sources? Is this a term paper? Are you kidding me? 

 

Btw, all of the innuendos (all one-sentence long, which seems to be the maximum length of posts that you can handle and which prevents any possibility of plagiarizing as a result) about me being an ESL learner and such are completely baseless, as based on evidence and an analysis of the length and substance of posts. LOL  Here is an easier version for you: BS. When are you going to fix English 1.0? It has been 250 years. Is there a worst writing system in the Western world?

 

If it is bad, so is the learning. Nothing to do with Thais being dumb. Get it?

 

 

Now, are you a teacher? Come on! Fess up! Spill the beans?

 

English pays the bills.

I guess the kids are having their afternoon nap.

 

 

 

[JAG]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

This post is being reported as an ad hominem attack.

 

Not only are you trying to use idioms to make it hard --you think-- for the person you intend to mock to miss the attack (thinking that I would not get it), you are also mocking/attacking without substantiating your assertion, something that is learned in Grade 4. The last part being a fact. Ergo,  you are ... and ... and ... 

 

So, come on! Fess up, big guy! Are you in love with your beautiful English and no one can touch it? It is easier to just peg all Thais, all foreigners (or teachers) as lazy idiots. How about working a little, tackling difficult challenges? How about making English 2.0 and implementing a reform? I know! I know! It is hard and a lot of work. LOL

 

Goodness me , if you're going to take umbrage at that and report it as an attack.....

 

Without doubt you are very clever - probably cleverer than most of the rest of us put together. You have demonstrated that most comprehensively.

 

 I'm not so sure about enlightened....

[EnlightenedAtheist]

56 minutes ago, Johnniey said:

I guess the kids are having their afternoon nap.

 

 

 

 

You are struggling with the topic, are you?

 

You are making many guesses, John. Maybe at some point of time you might consider connecting the dots and invalidate the hypotheses because I have been writing many times. Maybe I am just feeding them photocopies all day long and everyday? LOL

 

So, what's the next hypothesis? One calls me mad. The other surmises I am a teacher. The other demotes me as unethical, as a plagiarizer. How about sticking to the topics, guys?

 

How about doing something substantive in your life like fixing English 1.0  instead of making guesses for a living, framing people to be whatever fits your paradigm to minimize --apparently-- their actions? Take that to the morgue!

[EnlightenedAtheist]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

The post quotes a web page previously cited; the presumption of the charge is that Enlightened Atheist is not the author of the text in the web page.  Actually, the post starts up explicitly quoting, but that punctuation breaks down eventually.  I must say that I don't find the new system for editing posts conducive to long, reasoned posts.  It was best a few years ago.  Point-by-point replies are a nightmare.

 

You are referring to http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

49 minutes ago, JAG said:

Goodness me , if you're going to take umbrage at that and report it as an attack.....

 

Without doubt you are very clever - probably cleverer than most of the rest of us put together. You have demonstrated that most comprehensively.

 

 I'm not so sure about enlightened....

 

Ah! Poetic and literate words to somehow justify the light bullying. I do take umbrage. If you do not like it, tough.

 

I think you are also quite clever. "Come on! It is only a small dagger in just one small eye. Surely, this is nothing. Come on! Be a man! Take more of the abuse and shut up!" And, btw, let's go with the one-two punch, give a compliment and the insult right after. How about the idea that I am both clever and enlightened. Let's debate the topic and stay on-topic. That's being enlightened.

 

Thanks for the compliment though.

[Negita43]

The problem of the standard of English in Thailand goes far deeper than just the level of competence of the English teachers (Native and Thai).

 

Its roots are in the norms of Thai society that have developed over centuries and that are perpetuated through an unwillingness to change (which is itself a cultural norm).

 

Trying to teach English when students arrive at university is a soul destroying task. Most of them have not been given the basic cognitive skills. Learning “How are you - I’m fine thank you and you” is not learning English.

 

I believe insufficient resource and commitment is given to teaching English in Primary schools. But that in itself is not enough. Young Thai students need to be acquainted with the world outside Thailand in a positive way. Thailand is part of the world, all too often Thailand is their only world, so why bother to learn another language?

 

But let’s be honest teaching people to think for themselves is a dangerous option in some peoples eyes.

 

And even if all this were possible, we come up against another,what I see as a Thai norm.

 

It’s what I call “The Triumph of Superficiality over Substance”.

 

They can talk the talk but few can walk the walk.