40% of Americans too stupid to learn the English language.

DarkSageRK

DarkSageRK

Banned
Four peaceful protesters, some dressed in full-length black and yellow bee costumes, represented the American Literacy Council and the London-based Spelling Society and stood outside the Grand Hyatt on Thursday, where the Scripps National Spelling Bee is being held. Their message was short: Simplify the way we spell words.

Roberta Mahoney, 81, a former Fairfax County, Va. elementary school principal, said the current language obstructs 40 percent of the population from learning how to read, write and spell.


"Our alphabet has 425-plus ways of putting words together in illogical ways," Mahoney said.

The protesting cohort distributed pins to willing passers-by with their logo, "Enuf is enuf. Enough is too much."


According to literature distributed by the group, it makes more sense for "fruit" to be spelled as "froot," "slow" should be "slo," and "heifer" - a word spelled correctly during the first oral round of the bee Thursday by Texas competitor Ramesh Ghanta - should be "hefer."
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060303425.html



Personally, I applaud them in their efforts. In fact, I think we should get rid of all words with more than one syllable and perhaps even get rid of that punctuation stuff! It makes my brain hurt. :(
 
They tried this at the outset of the country. It didn't really work out (though we did get rid of some of those unnecessary British "u"s).
 
At first I couldn't believe something called the "American Literary Council" would actually be advocating dumbing down our language.. But then I googled them and it turns out that name is a little more official sounding than the organization itself.
 
They have a legitimate point, words are spelled in unintuitive ways, there are rules that are followed in some situations and not others, etc. It's just that nobody is going to relearn anything, so we just go with what's already set up.

It's like switching to the metric system for measurement, the imperial system we generally use is godawful retarded, but we just keep going with it. Hell, the metric system is way easier to switch to than changing how some words are spelt, but we're definitely not going to change to it anytime soon.
 
I'd say, judging by the forums I visit, that 40% is a pretty conservative number. Countless times throughout the day I see there, they're, their, your, and you're all misused. The one that gets me the most though is when I see someone write should "of" or could "of" instead of the correct contractions: should've or could've. Ahh, that one kills me. Perhaps I'm just visiting the wrong forums. ;)
 
1) Having just finished 1984, this is disturbing.

2) Everyone who can't learn the language needs to go live in Arizona. They'll get deported sooner or later.
 
Yeah, the english language is frustrating with it's weird rules that only apply in certain situations, useless words like the etc. that many/most other languages don't have.

I don't doubt at all that it's one of the hardest to learn as a second language--especially given how much most college students in my classes suck at writing it when it's their first language!
 
As SpazX alluded, there have been numerous attempts at this before. The Simplified Spelling Board was founded in 1906 and featured such luminaries as Andrew Carnegie, Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer, Dr. Melvil Dewey (inventor of the Dewey Decimal Classification), Dr. Isaac K. Funk (editor of The Standard Dictionary), and Mark Twain.

Then-President Theodore Roosevelt was a staunch supporter, to the point where he mandated using simplified spelling in his official communications. This was in August 1906. By December 1906, the order was rescinded in the wake of the international and domestic derision and scorn.

But hey, at least we got "donut" and "drive-thru".
 
[quote name='powercreep']Countless times throughout the day I see there, they're, their, your, and you're all misused. [/QUOTE]

No sense in getting your panties in a bunch over those, as most of those are just typos vs. people not knowing proper usage. It's easy to swap out homophones when you type fast and most people aren't going to waste the time to proofread stuff they post on forums.

I'm pretty damn solid with grammar from having a journalism degree and doing a ton of writing work in grad school and now as a prof at a research university. But I make types of their/there, your/you're etc. pretty often online as I type fast and seldom read over my posts. I'll go back and fix them when I notice them, but I don't take the time to edit every post by any means.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, the english language is frustrating with it's weird rules that only apply in certain situations, useless words like the etc. that many/most other languages don't have.

I don't doubt at all that it's one of the hardest to learn as a second language--especially given how much most college students in my classes suck at writing it when it's their first language![/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. :] This is not meant to be taken in a hostile way. And besides, you use it correctly in the middle there.
 
just about every language has ridiculous rules that only come natural with experience.

and just because someone misuses "there" or "it's" doesn't mean they don't actually know how to use them.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. :] This is not meant to be taken in a hostile way. And besides, you use it correctly in the middle there.[/QUOTE]

:D

See proves my point! Just typos from people who type fast and aren't going to waste precious time proofreading pointless, time wasting posts on forums!

Shows nothing about whether people know the proper usage or not, you'd have to get a writing sample of something they took time to proofread carefully to know that.
 
[quote name='Fjordson']This is bizarre. Froot?[/QUOTE]

Well fruit and boot sound the same, it would make sense if they were spelled the same. Of course the reason why some homophones are spelled different is because the genesis of the word is different, and often from different languages prior to being incorporated into English.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']See proves my point! Just typos from people who type fast and aren't going to waste precious time proofreading pointless, time wasting posts on forums!

Shows nothing about whether people know the proper usage or not, you'd have to get a writing sample of something they took time to proofread carefully to know that.[/QUOTE]

im typ fast but sitll smart right?

sily folls with ur trime taking to tipe correcly is stupid wast of tim. th real smart is typ fast take no time to thin cuz thnking is for idiots.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']As SpazX alluded, there have been numerous attempts at this before. The Simplified Spelling Board was founded in 1906 and featured such luminaries as Andrew Carnegie, Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer, Dr. Melvil Dewey (inventor of the Dewey Decimal Classification), Dr. Isaac K. Funk (editor of The Standard Dictionary), and Mark Twain.

Then-President Theodore Roosevelt was a staunch supporter, to the point where he mandated using simplified spelling in his official communications. This was in August 1906. By December 1906, the order was rescinded in the wake of the international and domestic derision and scorn.

But hey, at least we got "donut" and "drive-thru".[/QUOTE]

I'm glad somebody did their work, this isn't the first time I heard of this. I think the last time was a William Safire column lambasting their efforts.

Thing is, though, thanks to the internet and text messages, we're already damn well the bulk of the way there.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the english language at all, in any way, shape, or form as it is right now. People are lazy, has nothing to do with the language being difficult.

The problem is the internet has given birth to fucking morons mispelling shit on purpose and those retards carry it over off the internet into real life and perpetuate the mis use of the language. Whether it be kids thinking spelling like a retard is cool or adults to fucking lazy to bother spelling correctly the actual language itself has no problems. The only problem is people need to use it correctly. Until we had the internet you never, ever heard anyone ever bitch about having to spell stuff out.

Sadly the intrusion of cell phones and texting has only increased that kind of attitude because people shortcut everything for texting, which I can understand to a degree but the people that have a chronic problem with mispelling and texting are the ones who have entire conversations via text that could have been carried out in a 72 second phone call. And since kids are the primary source of things it wont get any better cause they will grow up talking and spelling like idiots.

Then you have the other problem that americans are becoming lazy. And it shows in how we spell let alone everything else we do in our lives. 40% of us arent to stupid to learn, 40% of are to fucking lazy to learn.

Im not a perfect spelling or a master of english grammar but Ill be damned if I ever stop making a attempt at doing it correctly.
 
It's awkward to consider forty percent of people are unable to learn the English language. Language is something we must learn to use and optimize. I'm really not that surprised. It's come to the point that I regard the writing of others as a means of conveyance, with little regard to their accuracy or ability. It reminds me of when I asked for a birthday cake to be personalized with "Donna". I spelled it out loud. The teenage girl returned, with a cake adorned, "Dona". It's a way of life now, contending with the shortcomings of others is commonplace. I really don't understand how a person who has been through any type of rudimentary education could make such blatant errors in writing, spelling, and grammar. We can only try to be right. I'm sure as time goes on, we'll all be doubleplusgood speak.:lol:
 
walle31.jpg


Closer and closer every day.

(Minus Wall-E)
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Having everyone relearn the language because it's too hard for some people seems like the way to go.[/QUOTE]

yeah its really not fair to make kids work so hard to learn anything i say give them A's even if theyre kinda close to spelling something right lol. man i can see why alot of conspiracy theorists are saying that the govt is going out of its way to make the next generations of people dumb.

its not just in the shit they put in food or the medicines theyre using for every little thing but also in how they want kids to just coast through school without learning anything.

whats next having classes in texting language and texting tests or maybe you can get a degree in texting sciences? just spell it how you think it sounds fucking a america is embarassing. how long till people start leaving this country to get better educated ?
 
Guess what, languages have been changed to make it more accessible to people. Vietnamese made the switch to Latin based alphabet. Chinese and Japanese simplify their vocabulary.
 
Most of you guys sound like a bunch of frightened old men. Do you guys also yell at kids to get off your lawn, and talk about the days when a hot dog cost a nickel?
 
You guys still keep talking about it like everybody's getting stupider while apparently ignoring that the same shit has been done before texting, before all Americans were lazy, etc. back when there were far fewer literate people.
 
[quote name='camoor']Most of you guys sound like a bunch of frightened old men. Do you guys also yell at kids to get off your lawn, and talk about the days when a hot dog cost a nickel?[/QUOTE]

No kidding.

In seriousness, I do sometimes worry that all the texting and shortcuts taken there and on forums etc. could hurt language ability.

But the truth is, I expect grammar ability isn't really affected by whether a kid texts, posts online etc. or not. Most just take short cuts there because it's a pain typing full sentences on a stupid phone (especially if it doesn't have a qwerty keyboard), and most don't care enough what other idiots posting on forums think of their posts to take time proofreading them etc.

As long as people know proper grammar and can use it when they need to in professional documents etc., that's all that matters. Not whether they type "u" instead of "you" in text messages, or don't proofread pointless forum posts for whether they swapped homophones like "their" and "there" etc.
 
So if we can speak English while the rest of the world sucks at it, we're better than them. Elitism = America. Hence all the grammar nazis on the web... some sort of superiority complex we're born with.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No kidding.

In seriousness, I do sometimes worry that all the texting and shortcuts taken there and on forums etc. could hurt language ability.

But the truth is, I expect grammar ability isn't really affected by whether a kid texts, posts online etc. or not. Most just take short cuts there because it's a pain typing full sentences on a stupid phone (especially if it doesn't have a qwerty keyboard), and most don't care enough what other idiots posting on forums think of their posts to take time proofreading them etc.

As long as people know proper grammar and can use it when they need to in professional documents etc., that's all that matters. Not whether they type "u" instead of "you" in text messages, or don't proofread pointless forum posts for whether they swapped homophones like "their" and "there" etc.[/QUOTE]

I know there's been at least one study so far showing that text-speech didn't really affect kids' spelling or grammar outside of texting.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I know there's been at least one study so far showing that text-speech didn't really affect kids' spelling or grammar outside of texting.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't surprise me.

Though on one hand the sampling would probably be a bit biased as kids with cellphones will be less likely to be from disadvantage backgrounds where academic performance is worst.

But at least it can show that among kids from stable backgrounds (well off enough that there parents can get them a phone and pay for their texting etc.) aren't suffering in language ability.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Doesn't surprise me.

Though on one hand the sampling would probably be a bit biased as kids with cellphones will be less likely to be from disadvantage backgrounds where academic performance is worst.

But at least it can show that among kids from stable backgrounds (well off enough that there parents can get them a phone and pay for their texting etc.) aren't suffering in language ability.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah, but if they have bad grammar and spelling and don't have a cellphone then it isn't texting's fault either :p. I think it was just showing that whatever level of spelling and grammar they're at doesn't go down because they have shitty spelling and grammar while texting. I dunno exactly what groups they were comparing, I'd have to find the thing and I'm too lazy.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well yeah, but if they have bad grammar and spelling and don't have a cellphone then it isn't texting's fault either :p. I think it was just showing that whatever level of spelling and grammar they're at doesn't go down because they have shitty spelling and grammar while texting. I dunno exactly what groups they were comparing, I'd have to find the thing and I'm too lazy.[/QUOTE]

:D

What I was getting at is it's still hard to say if texting would have impact on the development of language skills among groups of the population that are most at risk for having poor academic achievement.

For instance, perhaps the middle class and up parents that give their kids cellphones are more apt to make them do their homework, help them do their homework, be better educated themselves and more able to help them with grammar etc. And thus the parenting could be counteracting any negative impacts of texting.

Vs. say if say cellphones and texting were also common among the lower class families, broken homes etc. where they could pick up bad habits form texting on top of not having it corrected by parents--thus nothing to counteract any negative impacts of texting.

In short, can't tell if texting would make matters worse among those already bad off and at high risk of academic failure. But that's just me being a social scientist trained to nit pick studies to death, identify gaps to target in future research etc.! :d
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm glad somebody did their work, this isn't the first time I heard of this. I think the last time was a William Safire column lambasting their efforts.

Thing is, though, thanks to the internet and text messages, we're already damn well the bulk of the way there.[/QUOTE]

This. I charge texting with first degree murder in the death of spelling.
 
[quote name='OnyxPrimal']This. I charge texting with first degree murder in the death of spelling.[/QUOTE]

See the posts above--per SpazX, there's at least one study finding on impact of texting on language ability.

I have to read a ton of terribly written papers as a college professor--but it's not texting errors of using "u" or slang etc. It's sentence fragments, run-on sentences, problems with tense agreement, plurality, subject-verb agreement etc.

Now some of that does seem like it could be tied to communication going to short text bursts rather than phone calls, letters etc.--but apparently at least one study suggests that may not be the case.
 
I especially like the "word" "ghoti" for symbolizing the madness of English spelling. Taking from random established pronunciation rules you could pronounce "ghoti" as "fish": Gh(enouGH), o (wOmen), ti (naTIon).

Orthography reform isn't merely a matter of catering to fools though.

It's a simple fact that pronunciation changes, often drastically, and confusion ensues for the uninitiated when spelling doesn't express reality.
When people make some of these errors in orthography, even the much rued "there/their/they're", they're not being particularly dumb, but are correcting what, outside the context of now arbitrary orthographic tradition, is a disconnect between spelling and pronunciation. "Laff" is more accurate than "laugh", "I no" is more accurate than "I know", though they fail to reflect the origins of the words.

Before the age of the printing press codified English orthography, the spelling changed very freely, and it's a good thing it did or we'd still be writing 'english' as 'englisc', 'where' as 'hwær' and 'yesterday' as 'geostrandæg'.

That said, I'm not really in favor of spelling reform myself. Reform would markedly change the aesthetic of the language as we now love it. Variety adds to the spice of life and and it would be a loss of diversity if all languages strictly followed phonetics because efficiency experts demand it. Every quirk of English that one masters provides that much more satisfaction.
I'll also take 400+ possible letter combinations over thousands of Chinese characters, thanks. x)
 
[quote name='SpazX']They tried this at the outset of the country. It didn't really work out (though we did get rid of some of those unnecessary British "u"s).[/QUOTE]
We sent them to Canada, right?;)
 
[quote name='looploop']
It's a simple fact that pronunciation changes, often drastically, and confusion ensues for the uninitiated when spelling doesn't express reality.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my girlfriend who's first language(s) are Mandarin and Taiwanese calls such things in English "foreigner tests" that we have in place so American's can easily tell who is an outsider! :D
 
[quote name='looploop']I especially like the "word" "ghoti" for symbolizing the madness of English spelling. Taking from random established pronunciation rules you could pronounce "ghoti" as "fish": Gh(enouGH), o (wOmen), ti (naTIon).

Orthography reform isn't merely a matter of catering to fools though.

It's a simple fact that pronunciation changes, often drastically, and confusion ensues for the uninitiated when spelling doesn't express reality.
When people make some of these errors in orthography, even the much rued "there/their/they're", they're not being particularly dumb, but are correcting what, outside the context of now arbitrary orthographic tradition, is a disconnect between spelling and pronunciation. "Laff" is more accurate than "laugh", "I no" is more accurate than "I know", though they fail to reflect the origins of the words.

Before the age of the printing press codified English orthography, the spelling changed very freely, and it's a good thing it did or we'd still be writing 'english' as 'englisc', 'where' as 'hwær' and 'yesterday' as 'geostrandæg'.

That said, I'm not really in favor of spelling reform myself. Reform would markedly change the aesthetic of the language as we now love it. Variety adds to the spice of life and and it would be a loss of diversity if all languages strictly followed phonetics because efficiency experts demand it. Every quirk of English that one masters provides that much more satisfaction.
I'll also take 400+ possible letter combinations over thousands of Chinese characters, thanks. x)[/QUOTE]

Man, I agree with every paragraph but the last.

You set up a beautiful arguement for reform, and then dash it all for the cheap thrill you get out of feeling superior for mastering an arbitrary set of rules.

Unncessarily complex grammar is a waste of time. I say if you're part of the small subset of the population that gets their rocks off by studying antiquated grammar then take up Latin.
 
[quote name='SpazX']They tried this at the outset of the country. It didn't really work out (though we did get rid of some of those unnecessary British "u"s).[/QUOTE]

Yeah but we live in a much more homogenized society now. Language is going to change in a viral fashion, I just hope it trends towards simplicity and rationality. Although I'm dissappointed when I see that people are looking for "Fly Errrrr" jackets
 
My partner will be signing up for this tomorrow I'm sure! He is the WORST speller imaginable ;) Although...many times when he complains that things aren't spelled phonetically, he's just not pronouncing the word right :) Thank the gods he's cute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top