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

[Richard W]

2 hours ago, George Graham said:

That's the vowel chart.

Which contains no big ellipse.  You should have scrolled down further.  However, today, just searching for the words "some examples" will find the following rather clear start of a paragraph:

 

"A schwa in English dialects can be represented by different letters: a, e, i, o, u, y, iou, io, oo, ou, oe, ough, and ia! Here are some examples for these spellings: about, children, pencil, renovate, supply, syringe, luscious, mission, blood, does, cousin, thorough, and especially. (Even “one” or o_e could be included as it is pronounced “wun”.) So, even 14!"

 

Now just before the paragraph is an image of part of the chart entitled "English vowels and diphthongs" in the Wikipedia page International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects.  The first row omitted from that image shows that the STRUT vowel is not schwa, which promptly removes the examples for 3 of the 13 (blood, does and cousin) and the candidate 14th spelling (one).  It also eliminates the first vowel of thorough.  I think syrup is a nicer example than supply, which can be taken to be the verb rather than the adverb from supple.  In another 3 examples has has included part of the consonant symbol, which I show in red (luscious, mission, and especially), though that does restore another digraph, as in famous.  That reduces the number of ways to about 8 - the six single letter vowels, 'ou', and the dodgy 'ough'.  Perhaps the latter should be split into a double writing 'ou' and 'gh', with the latter as in Edinburgh! Of course, that ceases to be a vowel before one reaches the Scottish border.

[Richard W]

20 hours ago, George Graham said:

The Greeks did not invent the alphabet. Try again.

Peter Daniels claims that the Greeks invented the alphabet by misunderstanding the Phoenician abjad.  So, if the Greeks didn't invent the alphabet, who did?  Note that 'the Phoenicians' is very much the wrong answer - their invention would be 'the abjad', and the abjad's first attested flowering seems to have been at Ugarit, with an abjad that was fuller, probably satisfying the alphabetic principle for consonants.  It even started down the road to being an alphabet for words starting with glottal stops.  I've being trying to find more about the use of the Ugaritic script for Hurrian - I'm finding contradictory accounts as to the handling of Hurrian vowels.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

12 hours ago, George Graham said:

The spellings, all 13, of the shwa please. I think this is the third time I've asked.

Also you really are starting to ramble.

The humanities are not sciences. Really? And now you are using the term "phonemes." Did you learn something tonight. The 13 shwa spellings - don't forget now.

 

I sent it to you the second time,. It is even copied in the message I am replying to. Are you on something? The first time I did not get a please. Get the story straight!

 

Rambling? Really? Next!

 

No, I am saying that linguisitcs is usually not considered a science subject or as part of the humanities. You keep talking about scientific this and that. 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

3 hours ago, George Graham said:

That's the vowel chart.

 

So, if you scroll down in the text it will list all of the 13, but you have to read EVERYTHING. Don't come back until you have.  And don't forget to say thank you. LOL

[EnlightenedAtheist]

8 hours ago, Richard W said:

Interesting.  I thought it had already been demonstrated that fluent readers decode words rather than letters.  That's why I care about morphemic spelling.  I want microcephaly and microcephalic to be instantly associated; I don't want the reader to have to recall or, worse, have to deduce, that  /ˈsefəl/ and /səˈfæl/ are allomorphs.

 

Ah! I see! The word "interesting" does not mean "interesting"! SO, when something is really interesting, what do you say? Boring? Yes means no? What the hell? I am playing with you! Just pointing one of those idiotic English filler/expression.

 

So, let's start from the top and I will go slowly. First there was Eve and Adam! Playing with you! So, learners DECODE letters first, after they have been taught and have learned the alphabet. The alphabet is incomplete, so it is a bit messy. "Th" is not in the alphabet, but "the" is the most common word in the language. But, I digress! All is best in the best of all worlds! But, eventually, teachers, depending on the miracle method that they use, will start talking about the missing letters and digraphs. Of course, there is NO rime and reason why there "i" goes with "e" or any other combos. No real system, except for the magic-e system, which I have demonstrated gets broken for 1500 words out of less than 7000 (not all words have the Vowel+consonant+e structure. There are probably a much higher count or ratio that the 1500 to 7000 in reality. Words like "air" have a digraph, so they would not be included in the 7000 count. So, we have "am" and "lame. So far, all is great! But, then we have "are", but "ape"! Not nice! Let's try the "i"/"i_e" pairs. Bit/bite! Yeah! But then there are words that do not have the magic-e, but are pronounced like "bite": sign, climb, kind, island,... It is all explained http://improvingenglishspelling.blogspot.com/ Get it! Kids decode letters, then digraphs, then magic-e,... starting with monsyllabic words, then syllables in multisyllabic words,... In a perfect world there would not be any exception. The contrived magic-e system would be reliable, but because there are some people fixated on the morphology and etymology of words, we get words like "eye", "the", there", etc. Don't forget to follow the link. 

 

microcephaly and microcephalic: So first one has to decode the word the first time (once one has learned  letters,... So, there is no magic-e in the first part. So I pronounce the "i" like "it". Right? The "c" is like the alphabet "c". Right? The second one? The "e" is surrounded by consonants, so it is like "bet"? THere is a "p"! That's easy! Like "put"! There is an "h"!  There is an "a" like iin apple or lame?  "y" like you! Easy! So, it is /mIkrokɛpalI/? Right? Let me look: 

[ U ]/ˌmaɪ.krəʊ.ˈsef.ə.li/ /ˌmaɪ.krəʊ.ˈsef.ə.li/ WHAAAAAAAAT?

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

50 minutes ago, Richard W said:

Peter Daniels claims that the Greeks invented the alphabet by misunderstanding the Phoenician abjad.  So, if the Greeks didn't invent the alphabet, who did?  Note that 'the Phoenicians' is very much the wrong answer - their invention would be 'the abjad', and the abjad's first attested flowering seems to have been at Ugarit, with an abjad that was fuller, probably satisfying the alphabetic principle for consonants.  It even started down the road to being an alphabet for words starting with glottal stops.  I've being trying to find more about the use of the Ugaritic script for Hurrian - I'm finding contradictory accounts as to the handling of Hurrian vowels.

 

Yes, you are right! Can we move on? Jeesh!

[George Graham]

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

Which contains no big ellipse.  You should have scrolled down further.  However, today, just searching for the words "some examples" will find the following rather clear start of a paragraph:

 

"A schwa in English dialects can be represented by different letters: a, e, i, o, u, y, iou, io, oo, ou, oe, ough, and ia! Here are some examples for these spellings: about, children, pencil, renovate, supply, syringe, luscious, mission, blood, does, cousin, thorough, and especially. (Even “one” or o_e could be included as it is pronounced “wun”.) So, even 14!"

 

Now just before the paragraph is an image of part of the chart entitled "English vowels and diphthongs" in the Wikipedia page International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects.  The first row omitted from that image shows that the STRUT vowel is not schwa, which promptly removes the examples for 3 of the 13 (blood, does and cousin) and the candidate 14th spelling (one).  It also eliminates the first vowel of thorough.  I think syrup is a nicer example than supply, which can be taken to be the verb rather than the adverb from supple.  In another 3 examples has has included part of the consonant symbol, which I show in red (luscious, mission, and especially), though that does restore another digraph, as in famous.  That reduces the number of ways to about 8 - the six single letter vowels, 'ou', and the dodgy 'ough'.  Perhaps the latter should be split into a double writing 'ou' and 'gh', with the latter as in Edinburgh! Of course, that ceases to be a vowel before one reaches the Scottish border.

Not only are the examples you give not all ahead, they do not match the letters/letter clusters you have given.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

Which contains no big ellipse.  You should have scrolled down further.  However, today, just searching for the words "some examples" will find the following rather clear start of a paragraph:

 

"A schwa in English dialects can be represented by different letters: a, e, i, o, u, y, iou, io, oo, ou, oe, ough, and ia! Here are some examples for these spellings: about, children, pencil, renovate, supply, syringe, luscious, mission, blood, does, cousin, thorough, and especially. (Even “one” or o_e could be included as it is pronounced “wun”.) So, even 14!"

 

Now just before the paragraph is an image of part of the chart entitled "English vowels and diphthongs" in the Wikipedia page International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects.  The first row omitted from that image shows that the STRUT vowel is not schwa, which promptly removes the examples for 3 of the 13 (blood, does and cousin) and the candidate 14th spelling (one).  It also eliminates the first vowel of thorough.  I think syrup is a nicer example than supply, which can be taken to be the verb rather than the adverb from supple.  In another 3 examples has has included part of the consonant symbol, which I show in red (luscious, mission, and especially), though that does restore another digraph, as in famous.  That reduces the number of ways to about 8 - the six single letter vowels, 'ou', and the dodgy 'ough'.  Perhaps the latter should be split into a double writing 'ou' and 'gh', with the latter as in Edinburgh! Of course, that ceases to be a vowel before one reaches the Scottish border.

 

Do you have any positive to say about anything? So far not once! And you wonder why OTHER people are not civil? Mmm! Could it be YOU that is dismissive? Of course, not! LOL

 

The "u" in "strut" sounds very close to the "a" in about! Sorry! I disagree! Of course, you are omniscient, so who knows! However, I don't know your dialect (or even you ideolect and you don't know mine, so it could be neither here or there! It is because in your rotten spelling system/language, no one knows how letters are really pronounced until we check it out, but then it depends on the dialect! We can split hairs lenghtwise, of course!

 

Iou and ia are correct: the "i" is not pronounced, so "iou"  and "ia" are correct. Sorry! I disagree!

 

blood, does, cousin, one ... are correct too. Sorry! I disagree!

 

ough is correct. Sorry! I disagree! 

 

Is English your mother-tongue?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

8 minutes ago, George Graham said:

Not only are the examples you give not all ahead, they do not match the letters/letter clusters you have given.

 

And why would they need to be ahead?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

10 hours ago, Richard W said:

You'll find them at http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page_4.html . - the diagram with the big ellipse.  You may need to scroll down - the page has grown since I first looked at it!  I believe there are also some copies in this thread, but I don't know how to make a stable link to them, so I haven't searched.   I think a couple of the claimed spellings are due to misanalysis - I believe the 'io' in question has been claimed as representing schwa.  On the other hand, he hasn't claimed the 'eou' of the deprecated tetrasyllabic pronunciation of homogeneous.

 

EA's been using the term phoneme for quite some time, though some of his usages verge on abuse.  He can probably find precedent for such stretches of the term.

 

Phoneme: Again, if you cannot write a complete paragraph, I will assume you did not compete Grade 5. Is it too much work to find examples or there are a figment of your imagination. Misanalysis! Who are you to judge? Where is your website?

[Richard W]

3 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Ah! I see! The word "interesting" does not mean "interesting"! SO, when something is really interesting, what do you say? Boring? Yes means no? What the hell? I am playing with you! Just pointing one of those idiotic English filler/expression.

 

microcephaly and microcephalic: So first one has to decode the word the first time (once one has learned  letters,... So, there is no magic-e in the first part. So I pronounce the "i" like "it". Right? The "c" is like the alphabet "c". Right? The second one? The "e" is surrounded by consonants, so it is like "bet"? THere is a "p"! That's easy! Like "put"! There is an "h"!  There is an "a" like iin apple or lame?  "y" like you! Easy! So, it is /mIkrokɛpalI/? Right? Let me look: 

[ U ]/ˌmaɪ.krəʊ.ˈsef.ə.li/ /ˌmaɪ.krəʊ.ˈsef.ə.li/ WHAAAAAAAAT?

 

 

'Interesting' means that things are more complicated than I thought.

 

I'm not addressing the first time one reads a particular word (the lexical item, not an instance of the lexical item).  I'm addressing the normal processing of words.

 

You may remember a recent time when badly scrambled but perfectly readable English texts were being circulated.  The reason most English-speakers could read them (could you?) was that they read a word or so at a time.  The general shape and the beginnings and ends of the words were correct, and the readers didn't pay much attention to the middles of the words beyond the general shape.  I believe microcephaly and microcephalic would normally be processed as micro- (a common prefix) -cephal- (an infrequent but not obscure element) and then -y or -ic.  I do not think it would be beneficial to prevent this process.  Do you disagree?

[George Graham]

14 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

And why would they need to be ahead?

Should read "shwas" - Vietnamese spell check.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

17 minutes ago, George Graham said:

Should read "shwas" - Vietnamese spell check.

 

There are 2 spellings allowed.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

26 minutes ago, Richard W said:

'Interesting' means that things are more complicated than I thought.

 

I'm not addressing the first time one reads a particular word (the lexical item, not an instance of the lexical item).  I'm addressing the normal processing of words.

 

You may remember a recent time when badly scrambled but perfectly readable English texts were being circulated.  The reason most English-speakers could read them (could you?) was that they read a word or so at a time.  The general shape and the beginnings and ends of the words were correct, and the readers didn't pay much attention to the middles of the words beyond the general shape.  I believe microcephaly and microcephalic would normally be processed as micro- (a common prefix) -cephal- (an infrequent but not obscure element) and then -y or -ic.  I do not think it would be beneficial to prevent this process.  Do you disagree?

 

You say "interesting" every time you answer something and it seems every time you do you find flaws in the so-called super interesting idea. Sounds a bit disingenuous to use it that way, I think.  Anyway! In my usage, when one says "interesting", they mean it is and they do not go find flaws in the so-called interesting statement or idea. Let me suggest you use the phrasing I disagree when you do. You could also show more diplomacy and write what you agree with first. But, you are completely opposed to any change and so it would be bad form to give me an inch. We get it. Please do not use interesting when you don't mean it.

 

Completely debunked in your friendly website and others, as referenced and researched:  .  "

 

So, decode this word then: "yeiaiiiltnmcrsdn"? Come on! You don't know? : Why is that? Yet, the following is quite easy! Mmm! A careful analysis of the words chosen reveal that many (half) are words that have 4 letters or less. How difficult is it to switch 2 letters around? Notice that there are many 3 letter words or less that are not misspelled as well! Furthermore, all words start with the letter the word is supposed to start with. [...] More at  http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/about-languages.html 

 

Maybe I am not as stupid as you make me by finding flaws and agreeing with nothing, and I mean NOTHING. It could be argued that "nothing" is something, of course! LOL 

 

SInce you did not address MY argument on DECODING. Are you agreeing with me when you are tacking a comment?

 

[Richard W]

27 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Do you have any positive to say about anything? So far not once! And you wonder why OTHER people are not civil? Mmm! Could it be YOU that is dismissive? Of course, not! LOL

You set a negative tone by your dismissive attack on English spelling.  You do not promote your case when you make clearly false statements.  Incidentally, you implied you now had a proposed new spelling scheme closer to TO than Iezy Ignglish.  Where is it?

The "u" in "strut" sounds very close to the "a" in about! Sorry! I disagree!

 

blood, does, cousin, one ... are correct too. Sorry! I disagree!

Not everyone's STRUT vowel is close to [ə].  It can be very close to the FOOT vowel, apparently while not being identical.  Your conclusion is wrong, and detracts from your arguments.

 

Iou and ia are correct: the "i" is not pronounced, so "iou"  and "ia" are correct. Sorry! I disagree!

There is no 'so' about it.  The 'i' is what makes the preceding consonant /ʃ/ and not /s/.  There are also analyses of English where it would represent /j/.

 

<snip>It is because in your rotten spelling system/language, no one knows how letters are really pronounced until we check it out, but then it depends on the dialect! We can split hairs lenghtwise, of course!<snip>

 

Is English your mother-tongue?

Yes.  Am I to take it that it is not yours?

 

ough is correct. Sorry! I disagree!

An alternative view is that the <gh> is silent.  I don't insist on it, I merely caution that <ough> as a writing for schwa might not be the best analysis.  It's tricky, as historically the <ugh> functions as a writing element.

 

[soalbundy]

What is just as pertinent here is  'how is your command of Thai', after all, many of you have lived here for years. It would seem that from a purely personal point of view it would be more important for you to learn Thai than for a school child to learn English and yet most of you presumably cant read Thai. I say that because all Westerners that i know who have been here longer than my 12 years have never made the effort and yet are ready to denounce the poor English capabilities of Thai's, many of whom wont need it anyway.

[Richard W]

10 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

It would seem that from a purely personal point of view it would be more important for you to learn Thai than for a school child to learn English...

It's a frequent (and surprising) observation that the benefits of learning Thai are much less than expected.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 minutes ago, Richard W said:

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Do you have any positive to say about anything? So far not once! And you wonder why OTHER people are not civil? Mmm! Could it be YOU that is dismissive? Of course, not! LOL

You set a negative tone by your dismissive attack on English spelling.  You do not promote your case when you make clearly false statements.  Incidentally, you implied you now had a proposed new spelling scheme closer to TO than Iezy Ignglish.  Where is it?

 

It sounds like you have psychological issues. You are taking things WAY TOO personally. Is English like your baby, your GF? Is an untouchable?

 

13 minutes ago, Richard W said:

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

The "u" in "strut" sounds very close to the "a" in about! Sorry! I disagree!

 

blood, does, cousin, one ... are correct too. Sorry! I disagree!

Not everyone's STRUT vowel is close to [ə].  It can be very close to the FOOT vowel, apparently while not being identical.  Your conclusion is wrong, and detracts from your arguments.

 

Yes, I know you like exceptions to make rules. Maybe they should pronounce it as an "i" and that would be okay because anything goes in English. Maybe it is time that people start pronouncing words like they are supposed to. How about some order. RULE Britannia. When?

 

13 minutes ago, Richard W said:

 

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Iou and ia are correct: the "i" is not pronounced, so "iou"  and "ia" are correct. Sorry! I disagree!

There is no 'so' about it.  The 'i' is what makes the preceding consonant /ʃ/ and not /s/.  There are also analyses of English where it would represent /j/

 

It might be. ONe of the 80+ rules, hey? Isn't this great! You are not seriously thinking that people can actually EASILY apply those rules (and check all the exceptions) as one is reading. If you are, you are delusional. But, eventually, yes, after 4 years of integrating those rules, one will be able to.  Let me suggest to you that you are in denial and in love with your ph_kng language and spelling system. Go see a shrink.

.

 

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

<snip>It is because in your rotten spelling system/language, no one knows how letters are really pronounced until we check it out, but then it depends on the dialect! We can split hairs lenghtwise, of course!<snip>

 

Is English your mother-tongue?

Yes.  Am I to take it that it is not yours?

 

Yes? It does not appear to be. You cannot tell after 10 pages of conversations. Wow! You know what they say but assuming things. 

 

13 minutes ago, Richard W said:

 

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

ough is correct. Sorry! I disagree!

An alternative view is that the <gh> is silent.  I don't insist on it, I merely caution that <ough> as a writing for schwa might not be the best analysis.  It's tricky, as historically the <ugh> functions as a writing element.

 

 

But, it is not silent in "rough" is it?

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

22 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

What is just as pertinent here is  'how is your command of Thai', after all, many of you have lived here for years. It would seem that from a purely personal point of view it would be more important for you to learn Thai than for a school child to learn English and yet most of you presumably cant read Thai. I say that because all Westerners that i know who have been here longer than my 12 years have never made the effort and yet are ready to denounce the poor English capabilities of Thai's, many of whom wont need it anyway.

 

I agree with that.

[soalbundy]

10 minutes ago, Richard W said:

It's a frequent (and surprising) observation that the benefits of learning Thai are much less than expected.

I have found just the opposite to be true, I taught both my Thai step daughters to read Thai, i speak Thai with them and their mother and with their friends and teachers, in their own language they are quite capable of logic and are not as stupid as some would have you think. My son (9) who speaks fluent English as well as Thai exists in both worlds, so to speak, he would be upset at some things said to him in Thai but not by the English translation, you get a view into the Thai soul.

[Richard W]

45 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Completely debunked in your friendly website and others, as referenced and researched:  .  "

<snip>

More at  http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/about-languages.html 

 

Maybe I am not as stupid as you make me by finding flaws and agreeing with nothing, and I mean NOTHING. It could be argued that "nothing" is something, of course! LOL 

 

SInce you did not address MY argument on DECODING. Are you agreeing with me when you are tacking a comment?

I suggest you read the learned comments at https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/.  Shape matters.  It also seems that we do spot checks - the 11% slowdown due to misspellings is an interesting observation.  The use of word prediction is of course not restricted to reading; it's very important in listening.

 

The spelling of the native (or rather, thoroughly assimilated) English vocabulary is overdue for review.  Words like 'done', 'gone' and 'one' are overdue for reform.  Words like 'palm' are a problem - the restoration of the 'l' is in full swing in the US.

 

The phonetic decoding of the elements 'micro' and 'cephal', though not necessary for comprehension, is a difficulty.  I'm not sure there is a solution consistent with current English pronunciation.  Has any language solved a comparable issue?  Many languages sidetrack it by using loan-translation; others don't have the disruptive morphology of English.  There's a whole section in Chomsky & Halle's SPE that should have been entitled 'How Latinate English Words are Read Out'.  There seem to be quite a few native English speakers who have not deduced those rules.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

....  he would be upset at some things said to him in Thai but not by the English translation, you get a view into the Thai soul.

 

Fascinating. Your hypothesis is?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

17 minutes ago, Richard W said:

I suggest you read the learned comments at https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/.  Shape matters.  It also seems that we do spot checks - the 11% slowdown due to misspellings is an interesting observation.  The use of word prediction is of course not restricted to reading; it's very important in listening.

 

The spelling of the native (or rather, thoroughly assimilated) English vocabulary is overdue for review.  Words like 'done', 'gone' and 'one' are overdue for reform.  Words like 'palm' are a problem - the restoration of the 'l' is in full swing in the US.

 

The phonetic decoding of the elements 'micro' and 'cephal', though not necessary for comprehension, is a difficulty.  I'm not sure there is a solution consistent with current English pronunciation.  Has any language solved a comparable issue?  Many languages sidetrack it by using loan-translation; others don't have the disruptive morphology of English.  There's a whole section in Chomsky & Halle's SPE that should have been entitled 'How Latinate English Words are Read Out'.  There seem to be quite a few native English speakers who have not deduced those rules.

 

NO! I am not reading it! You did not even comment on the debunk. Go proselytize somewhere else and I am being polite. You are not here to learn and debate, you are here to pump your ego. Still using flint stones?

 

Btw, in your world, whoever agrees with you, is learned ... like you! LOL

[soalbundy]

14 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Fascinating. Your hypothesis is?

None really, but it seems that some things said in Thai carry more weight than if said in English and vice versa, if i say to my son, ''You are being stupid'' he doesn't bat an eyelid, if his mother says the same thing in Thai, 'ngoh' for stupid, he gets quite upset and angry. Conversely, somethings in English will upset him more than if said in Thai,something we ought to bear in mind, simply my saying to him in English, ''I didn't understand you because you aren't speaking clearly'' gets him so frustrated that he clams up and yet if his mother or sisters say the same thing in Thai he will repeat what he has just said.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

None really, but it seems that some things said in Thai carry more weight than if said in English and vice versa, if i say to my son, ''You are being stupid'' he doesn't bat an eyelid, if his mother says the same thing in Thai, 'ngoh' for stupid, he gets quite upset and angry. Conversely, somethings in English will upset him more than if said in Thai,something we ought to bear in mind, simply my saying to him in English, ''I didn't understand you because you aren't speaking clearly'' gets him so frustrated that he clams up and yet if his mother or sisters say the same thing in Thai he will repeat what he has just said.

 

That's truly interesting! I have a few wild hypotheses, but not knowing much, I will refrain from doing so.

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

That's truly interesting! I have a few wild hypotheses, but not knowing much, I will refrain from doing so.

I didn't want to open a can of worms. It has to do with sentence structure. If i say 'You are being stupid' it means 'at this moment' In Thai his mother would say 'Noppohn (his name) ngoh' which would mean 'you are stupid'. If i say 'I didn't understand you because you didn't speak clearly' it is a statement, almost a reprimand ( Thai's don't take criticism easily) The Thai way of saying it takes this into account by using the word 'ko' (please or to beg) something like 'please repeat what you said, i didn't understand you because you didn't speak clearly' in fact they may even leave the last part out ie, 'because you didn't speak clearly'. It is strange because he is farang wise but of course he lives here and is Thai. They are sensitive little souls.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

49 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

I didn't want to open a can of worms. It has to do with sentence structure. If i say 'You are being stupid' it means 'at this moment' In Thai his mother would say 'Noppohn (his name) ngoh' which would mean 'you are stupid'. If i say 'I didn't understand you because you didn't speak clearly' it is a statement, almost a reprimand ( Thai's don't take criticism easily) The Thai way of saying it takes this into account by using the word 'ko' (please or to beg) something like 'please repeat what you said, i didn't understand you because you didn't speak clearly' in fact they may even leave the last part out ie, 'because you didn't speak clearly'. It is strange because he is farang wise but of course he lives here and is Thai. They are sensitive little souls.

 

I understand. You are stupid, as in .... you screwed up ... this time, but it is not defined, as in the other way. Is that it?

[George Graham]

5 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

There are 2 spellings allowed.

Oh god pray tell, allowed by whom? You?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

On 12/18/2016 at 7:41 AM, Richard W said:

I think transition would be a nightmare.  Enlightened Atheist claims that most people wouldn't have to deal with both systems.  He's also relying on people using spell-checkers much more than they do at present.  Good luck with acylation and ribonuclease.  The first is, I think, merely obscure, but there may be disputes over the representation of all but the first and last of the vowels of the latter.

 

Those raised on TO may well struggle with writing in II.  I've just noted that I misconverted the verb tarry to II taerry; it should of course have been to II taery (TBC).

 

 

Many languages have had reforms (check it out) and many were successful. However, the better ones did not expect current learners to learn the new system. There have been a few attempts at trying to reform the English spelling system too, but the most serious one came to an abrupt end 100 years ago. Carnegie believed that we should not force people to spell and read differently as his board had decided. He preferred a more informal and timid reform where people could decide to adopt changes or not. (Simplified Spelling Board - Wikipedia) It is hard to know which approach would have worked the best, but 100 years have passed. Times have changed and the paradigm has shifted as a result. No more so that when computers were introduced 30 years ago. One of the ideas (which is closer to Carnegie's thinking) is that we should NOT try to “force” people who know the current system to learn the new one. However, we have pushed that idea to its extreme. No one, unless they want to, should learn to spell using the new system unless they desire it. It is our contention that the key to making a reform work should be to introduce it methodically and slowly in schools first and only in schools. That does not mean that we would introduce bits of the new spelling system to all grades. It will be ALL of the new spelling system starting with the Grade 1 kids, as a wave. Of course, this plan would need to be approved by the government and the people. There will be a congress next year during which a group of linguists and professors at the English Spelling Society will decide which is the system(s) that they recommend. I believe we should use a system that is based on a general dialect that has some, but not all the features of any of the dialects. I am talking about the diaphonemes found on this page. Beyond that, it is our view that a reform should take place in all schools once teachers have been trained. It should be starting with a group that has not learned to read and write: 6 year old kids. The rest of the school children would be taught the old system. It might be wise to start teaching these children bits of the new system. Again, the government will look at the recommendations and decide what they feel is best. The next year, the second cohort of new grade 1 kids would start school learning the new system while the older Grade 1 would move into Grade 2, continuing to learn to read and write using the new system. Tablets will be given/lend to all students (school and home) to access information from the internet or other sources, except that this information would be instantly transcoded when they need it, like it happens with Google translate. I think that by the time this happens, most tablets will be very inexpensive for schools so that all students will have one. They will be like those textbooks that were given to us at the beginning of the year. Btw, transcoding is much faster and more accurate than translating. Eventually, after a few years, some of these cohorts will be taught the basics of English 2.0: how to read street signs, store signs,… They would not learn how to spell using English 1.0, but they will learn to decode a basic set of words and, especially towards the end of their schooling, how to read English 1.0 words of their trade. There might be a need for them to have a slightly different accent depending on how standardized English 2.0 will be, which might depend on which countries decide to participate in the reform. This reform will take 12 years to works its way out, but it will take years to make it occur. Convincing the population will take years and then politicians more years. But, if and when it is approved, the 12 years will give even more time for society to get ready. Free transcoders (programs that can transcode between English 1.0 and English 2.0) will be available for all. This will be very simple to do. In fact, some reformists have made some of them. When these cohorts exit the school system, they will try to find work like all students or they will go to university. Books and manuals should be available in both codes. This should not be so hard for publishing companies and digital copies of these should available for download into tablets. We would hope that by that time students’ books would all be the digital type. We would suggest they teach in school the right way and enforce the change in the media. Again, these are recommendations

 

Will a reform be perfect? Is anything perfect? Is the English spelling system now perfect? Why are those lovers of perfection in love with imperfection? There are thousands of imperfections now and they are fine with those? Be coherent! The system will no doubt be much easier to learn and to teach. That is self-evident, as demonstrated earlier. Something is simpler to learn than something that is complex.

 

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

• Dialectal accents are started to be “learned” or “perceived” by the age of 2, BEFORE children can link phonemes, allophones, with any spelling, phonemic or not. Here is the research.
• We know that children (their brain, really) have the capacity to learn many languages, many accents. In Italy, for instance, it is common to hear people know a dialect (usually oral) and speak/read/write the standard Italian as well. We suggest that the only reasonable way to deal with this issue is to make all Commonwealth children bilingual by starting to learn another standard dialect by Grade 1 and maintain the dialect of the region until the old generation passes away.
• To avoid political issues and help make English a true lingua franca, it would be wise to use the diaphonemes used on the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects - Wikipedia or some other agreed form. This will avoid the dialectal issues altogether. If some populations of certain countries or region not be interested, they would have the option of staying with the status quo or reform their dialect as they please.
• This would not be the Armageddon, the end of English as we know it, an incredible loss of culture,… This is about spelling, not language.
• The internet, public education for all, social media,... are helping standardizing many accents and, if it were to be reformed in this manner, it will be much easier.

 

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

I understand. You are stupid, as in .... you screwed up ... this time, but it is not defined, as in the other way. Is that it?

yes