Should some spellings be removed?

[omega 616]

EDIT: There is a lot of misunderstandings going on, so to clear it up. This thread is just talking about would it be better if it happened, rather than it should happen, okay?

So I always get grief about my weres, which and theres and not using the right one.

The way I see it is as you are reading text, you read it as you speak it ... like you are reading out loud. Now it may be down to peoples accents but I pronounce all of the theres. whichs and weres the same.

So why go through the torment of remembering which which is which? (hehehe)

Language is always evolving, so why haven't all of these spellings just become one unified there, were and which? I will make an exception for witch though 'cos that's not a grammatical thing.

And to say it a lot more eloquently and articulate than I ever could ...


So how about it, should there, where and which all be combined into just these (or which ever, I am not fussy)? I know this wont change anything in the real world, I am just asking for your opinions.

 

[Lukeje]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

That would be a bad idea. I think you should just work on using correct spelling. No sense dumbing down the language because you can't keep up.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

 

[pffh]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

Are you telling me these confuse you? That you can't tell what each where supposed to mean?

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

Are you telling me these confuse you? That you can't tell what each where supposed to mean?

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

Yes, because it's an ambiguous mess. Sure I can understand it, but it takes me twice as long to understand what's trying to be communicated. Precision is key.

 

[Richardplex]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

Are you telling me these confuse you? That you can't tell what each where supposed to mean?

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

Yes, because it's an ambiguous mess. Sure I can understand it, bit it takes me twice as long to understand what's trying to be communicated. Precision is key.

As you understood it... what on Earth does he mean by "there ball was there"?

 

[Nimcha]

So I always get grief about my weres, which and theres and not using the right one.

The way I see it is as you are reading text, you read it as you speak it ... like you are reading out loud. Now it may be down to peoples accents but I pronounce all of the theres. whichs and weres the same.

So why go through the torment of remembering which which is which? (hehehe)

Language is always evolving, so why haven't all of these spellings just become one unified there, were and which? I will make an exception for witch though 'cos that's not a grammatical thing.

And to say it a lot more eloquently and articulate than I ever could ...


So how about it, should there, where and which all be combined into just these (or which ever, I am not fussy)? I know this wont change anything in the real world, I am just asking for your opinions.

I'm seriously getting tired of people quoting that video when advocating against proper spelling and grammar.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

This.

If we just had 'were' as a cover all word for where, were, we're etc, it would be confusing as hell.

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

Are you telling me these confuse you? That you can't tell what each where supposed to mean?

What about "There ball was there" is that also confusing even though the either there can only have one meaning based on it's context?

Yes, because it's an ambiguous mess. Sure I can understand it, bit it takes me twice as long to understand what's trying to be communicated. Precision is key.

As you understood it... what on Earth does he mean by "there ball was there"?

Well, I can only make a rational guess, which kind of proves my point.

If I have to guess what you're trying to get across in your writing, you're doing it wrong.

 

[JesterRaiin]

As a side note : tools we use change the way we're acting, sorry, we act, we think, we approach our reality. And language is, wel, it's just another tool. So, following all language rules to the letter we're becoming slaves of yet another ofour own inventions. Sadly. :|






(That doesn't have anything to do with my skill in English. I am aware that my usage of this language is closer to abattoir than to speech

 

[Daystar Clarion]

As a side note : tools we use change the way we're acting, sorry, we act, we think, we approach our reality. And language is, wel, it's just another tool. So, following all language rules to the letter we're becoming slaves of yet another ofour own inventions. Sadly. :|






(That doesn't have anything to do with my skill in English. I am aware that my usage of this language is closer to abattoir than to speech

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Spoken language has always evolved over time, but for the most part, it's a streamlined process. Suddenly dropping the various spelling for different words is only going to confuse people.

 

[Lizardon]

Well I do pronounce and hear where and were differently. According to my dictionary;
where = wair
were = wer

But I don't think we should simplify it to one spelling anyway. They are different words with different meanings and I think that should be reflected in the spelling.

And this thread reminded me of these examples of words with different meanings and pronunciations but same spelling. I know that these can confuse some people, especially when English is not there first language.

The bandage was wound around the wound.
He could lead if he could get the lead out.
When shot at, the dove dove under the bushes.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting, I shed a tear.

 

[Versuvius]

Remove spellings because people are too lazy to learn their native tongue? Evolution of language is not the same as simplifying it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because that's just lazy.

"There, they're there!" vs. "There, there there!"

"There, they're their own show now." vs. "Their, their their own show now."

Which one is easier to read?

 

[VulakAerr]

No. Learn to speak/write. It's the easiest thing in the world to take a little bit of time to understand which of these meanings goes where. In fact, I bet if you'd put the same amount of thought into correcting your confusion as you did into writing your post, you'd have this figured out by now.

 

[OriginalLadders]

If you pronounce "where", "were" and "we're" the same way then you are pronouncing at least two of them completely wrong, except for the first letter of course.

I think people should use the correct spellings of words because it's just accurate communication, whenever people spell something wrong it takes me a split-second longer than it otherwise would to understand.

Also, "they're" should be pronounced differently to "there" and "their".

EDIT: "where", "wear", "ware" and "were" as in werewolf are pronounced the same, I was assuming the OP meant the more common use of "were".

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Would it? I doubt it. You can quite easily distinguish between them in spoken language from the context of which they are used so why not in text?

John and Jill where clothes. John and Jill where at home. Where are John and Jill. Where john and Jill.

they're easily distinguishable in spoken language because 3 of those 4 are pronounced completely differently.

and not all contexts are so clear cut as your example.

edit: damn, ninja'ed

 

[JesterRaiin]

As a side note : tools we use change the way we're acting, sorry, we act, we think, we approach our reality. And language is, wel, it's just another tool. So, following all language rules to the letter we're becoming slaves of yet another ofour own inventions. Sadly. :|

(That doesn't have anything to do with my skill in English. I am aware that my usage of this language is closer to abattoir than to speech

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Spoken language has always evolved over time, but for the most part, it's a streamlined process. Suddenly dropping the various spelling for different words is only going to confuse people.

True. I simply point out on the fact (i hope) that grammarNazism isn't exactly the best solution when exchange of informations is of utmost importance.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

No.

In speech it's fine, (which is mainly what Mr Fry is talking about) as long as you are understood, but if we start removing spellinsg from the lnaguage then we run into problems where we would need then.

The difference between affect and effect may not actually have much bearing on a conversation, or when writing a letter to your friend, but when you're writing a formal report about whether inflation has hurt or profited the company you're going to need to make damn sure you use the right meaning.

Most of the completely useless spellings have been eliminated from the language already, and while you may not see the point about the difference between wheres, whichs, whyfores and theres, someone somewhere (like myself earlier this afternoon) is writing a report about international education systems and how they impact upon the role of marketing overseas, and I have to make sure that my grammar is perfet or else not only might my work be misinterpreted in the office, but when it gets translated into Chinese it could suddenly have an entirely different meaning.

A better way to put it would be like this:

I have to go to bed

I have two beds

These are words which sound the same and are spelled very similarly, but they don't mean even remotely the same thing, they are homonyms to use the correct term. But you wouldn't suggest eliminating one of those spellings because suddenly no one would know what you were talking about. While you msay not have to use correct grammar to describe their, there or they're, there are people who absolutely have to have a differentiated method of spelling them.

 

[Soviet Steve]

ire thikn wer gt rly gud frm spel simplr y ppl no sprt no clu lol.

But seriously, written communication functions differently to language. If you present yourself as shortly as possible with no regard as to what the reader expects then you insinuate that you have no respect for the reader or the subject matter.