Should some spellings be removed?

[Jodah]

I would love to hear you pronounce them, I don't mean record yourself for this exact purpose but just in general life. Record yourself saying these words in normal conversations and listen to them back, I can pretty much guarantee that unless you are rubbing elbows with the queen of England that you will pronounce every were, there and which all the same way.

Where rhymes with air, were rhymes with slur, and we're rhymes with peer. If you are saying them all in the same way, then there are a lot of people who are going to be trying not to piss themselves laughing every time you open your mouth.

OT: They're written differently so we can understand what you're saying.

Nope, I have moved around and no matter where I hear it, it always sounds the same. Unless I hear some American actor trying to do a British accent then I always hear "were" said the same, as you put it the one that rhymes with peer.

Although to me air and slur rhyme...

Well then I recommend a speech coach.

It's the scouse accent, it's not great.

Sure lets make it easier rather than educating people. That's the problem with everything these days, rather than trying to fucking educate themselves people demand things are made easier. If people want to look like a moron on the internet let them, I just can't wait for them to try that shit on a job application or university report.

Then lets let language stagnate and not change it out of fear that it may be "dumbing" it down. Well, it already has changed a lot so lets go back to it's original form?

I would love to hear you pronounce them, I don't mean record yourself for this exact purpose but just in general life. Record yourself saying these words in normal conversations and listen to them back, I can pretty much guarantee that unless you are rubbing elbows with the queen of England that you will pronounce every were, there and which all the same way.

Where rhymes with air, were rhymes with slur, and we're rhymes with peer. If you are saying them all in the same way, then there are a lot of people who are going to be trying not to piss themselves laughing every time you open your mouth.

OT: They're written differently so we can understand what you're saying.

Nope, I have moved around and no matter where I hear it, it always sounds the same. Unless I hear some American actor trying to do a British accent then I always hear "were" said the same, as you put it the one that rhymes with peer.

Although to me air and slur rhyme...

Then perhaps your own accent is interfering with speech but the rules for speech and written language are different. It is not the languages fault in this case, it is yours. Do something about it or deal with it, not make us all stoop down to the same level of grunting onto paper with ink.

Go and read the other 5 or 6 posts that I have written that say that it is just a topic to discuss, something to think about. nothing more.

Running out of ways to make this more clear ...

Changing it for good reason is fine. Like finding a new object or element that no word can describe. Hell, even adding slang words to the accepted dictionary is okay if they are commonly used. Removing words because "it's too hard" isn't a good reason. It's lazy is what it is.

edit:

As someone who loves the English language, they type of evolution you are talking about is just silly, and perhaps boils down to simply being lazy. It's easier to understand spoken language due to the inflections and subtleties of the voice, but written language, where this come into play, needs the differences in order to be understood. Language, of course, will evolve over time, but the negating of words based on some people being to lazy to understand the differences shouldn't be part of that evolution. It would end up just confusing readers in the end.

^ This.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I don't mind different words that sound the same having different spellings.

I mind words that have multiple spellings, and words with letters that don't make sense.

There is no good goddamed reason that "through" needs to end with "-ough", and there is no good goddamned reason for someone to put a "u" in "color". Extra letters are pointless if there is no solid, or even partially solid, grammatical reason or precedence.

 

[peruvianskys]

Yeah I'm not terrible offended by it but where/were/we're without the different spellings would definitely be annoying. Grammar really does help make things clearer most of the time.

 

[aashell13]

What? four pages into a thread on eliminating "superfluous" spellings and nobody's mentioned Mark Twain's excellent treatise on the subject? This must be rectified immediately!

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" --bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez-- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivili.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

 

[meryatathagres]

Does it really have to be mentioned that surely linquists of far more skill have determined the need for those letters?

 

[Skoosh]

Snip

All I can say is go to 1:44 of that vid if Oscar Wilde can not give a shit about it, then "I will let that which does not matter truly slide" as was said in Fight Club.

There's a big difference between someone writing hundreds of pages by hand while letting an editor fix minor technicalities, and writing a paragraph on a machine that fixes glaring mistakes for you. See, that sentence I just wrote wasn't correct, but my meaning was translated across. We aren't talking about that. We are talking very, very basic mistakes. Things that should have been learned in 3rd grade, not sophomore year in college.

What's a sophomore?

No, really? Oscar never had a computer? I know the difference, I am saying if a great writer like that can not care all that much that he made the odd mistake in his profession, then I am okay with making a good number of mistakes about the same thing 'cos I am in no way a writer.

Are you trying to correct my spelling or really not know? A sophomore is someone in their second year of high school or college. It's a very common word, I can't imagine you haven't heard it unless you didn't attend high school.

You aren't making that many mistakes though, that's the thing. I don't think most people here care about small mistakes, even if they are frequent. It's the glaringly large mistakes we--or at least I--are talking about. It's not understanding very simple, core words in the language. And hell, it would be different if the change to these core words happened over 200 years or even 50 since language evolves faster with our instant-communications. But trying to force it over the last decade is pointless. And again, you have to go out of your way to mess a lot of these things up, our computers fix it for us.

 

[omega 616]

snip

I am from the uk we don't have sophomores, we have year 1-6 in the first/primary school, 7-11 in high school, then college for about 1-5 years, then uni. The only name like sophomore we have is "fresher" and that is first year of uni.

I am not saying it should change or it has to, I am saying "hypothetically, what would it be like to do this?", absolutely nothing more! I am getting quotes with things like "lets not cater to the lazy", "you have to be retarded not to know the difference", "why are you trying to ruin the English language" ... WOAH! I am making a mole hill, not a mountain ... it's like "what would win in a swimming race a horse or a rabbit?" that's the level I am on! Not breaking down how the first caveman made the first word!

 

[red the fister]

sounds like someone's homophobic, the meaning homonyms aka words that sound alike yet have different meanings like ***** (weakness) and fag (cigarette), not the other homophobic. you know. the one that's discriminatory.

before you bust out the ban-hammer, take a moment to understand why i used "homophobic" in the way that i did and then take into consideration that i the meaning behind the usage. the OP states a dislike of Homonyms. and after checking dictionary(dot)com for that very word i understand that i have just added a new meaning to the word.

my intent here is to draw the OPs attention to the confusion that would result if his(?) proposal was to take effect.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh]
noun
antipathy toward homonyms.
Origin:
2011; homo(nym) + -phobia

Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective

i have contacted dictionary(dot)com in an attempt to have this new meaning added to the official entry.

TL;DR? quit being a lazy git and enunciate the damn words and you'll find that "they" "there" "they're" "their", "where" "where're" and the others all have distinct sounds

 

[floppylobster]

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?

Some language variation has come about through general boredom. It's why we have different verb conjugations for common words like 'go' etc...

And teenagers are always coming up with a new way to say 'go',
'let's blast off'
'jet'
'bounce'
'gap the scene'
'boost'
'split'
'make like a tree and leave'
And so forth from the last 60 years.

People get bored with the repetition and so modify the language. Trying to consolidate it will not work, nor last.

 

[AD-Stu]

This idea sounds doubleplusungood, IMO. Meaning is what is important, and we'd lose it if we removed those words from the written language.

 

[Skoosh]

snip

I am from the uk we don't have sophomores, we have year 1-6 in the first/primary school, 7-11 in high school, then college for about 1-5 years, then uni. The only name like sophomore we have is "fresher" and that is first year of uni.

I am not saying it should change or it has to, I am saying "hypothetically, what would it be like to do this?", absolutely nothing more! I am getting quotes with things like "lets not cater to the lazy", "you have to be retarded not to know the difference", "why are you trying to ruin the English language" ... WOAH! I am making a mole hill, not a mountain ... it's like "what would win in a swimming race a horse or a rabbit?" that's the level I am on! Not breaking down how the first caveman made the first word!

Ah, I didn't realize it was an American term. Well, now you know.

No, people are not making a mountain out of a molehill. You are changing your position. The title says "should some spellings be removed" and then you made a case for why they should. You didn't ask what if they were, you asked should they then said yes. So yeah, people are arguing against you saying why you're wrong. If you've changed your mind, say so, but don't say everyone else misinterpreted your meaning when it was quite clear what you meant.

But hey, if we are just doing a "what if" scenario then here it is: the language would be a lot less elegant and a bit more confusing. The simplifications would only help the writer slightly, if at all, while hurting the reader.

 

[red the fister]

I asked should all the "theres" should be spelled the same, you think that is the same as making two opposites mean the same? Now who is the dense one?

there indicates a specific location, "I left my keys right there!"

there's is the contraction of "there is", "There's a arrogant prick typing this!"

their indicates possession by a group that doesn't include the speaker, "Console fanboys think their machine is the greatest."

they're is the contraction of "they are", "People who ware officially licensed sports jerseys? They're cosplaying and don't even know it!"


there you go, i can't think of more homonyms for "there".

 

[Lukeje]

Because removing such creates ambiguities in the language?

I shot an elephant wearing my pajamas.
I don't know how it got into my pajamas, but I shot it anyway.

There's already plenty of ambiguity in language.

You realise that that's not an argument for adding more ambiguity, right?

 

[red the fister]

See, this is a forum. In forums we put our idea's across and since I didn't want to put a post about grammar in with "how do you choose your badges", I thought I would start my own thread and get some thoughts on my own thoughts ... is that okay with you? I think it would be a nice subject to talk about and as far as I know hasn't been done before ... which in these times of the internet is somewhat of a rarity, I think you would agree.

I think I put in my OP that I don't want to change anything and I know 1 silly little thread wont so, where is the problem?

Now kindly pull the stick from your arse and be polite. I don't consider myself to be on Mr. Fry or Mr Wilde's level ... shit, they are smarter than most people on this planet and anybody who consider themselves smarter than them is either very stupid or very smart!

When you post stupid crap, don't be surprised if people call you stupid for doing so.

You say stupid crap, I say it's something to have a little think about ... called an opinion.

I don't see how that comment was helpful in putting your thoughts about the subject across, so why post it?

let me start this one by asking for permission to start by telling you that i'm from America!
it has bearing, hear (read) me(the) out(rest).

we have hour precious 1st Amendment witch guarantees us the Right to say wii believe. that miens our federal government, fuck up as it is(i plead the first!), Kant tell us what we can and Kant say. four short, my thoughts are as valid as anyone others. butt that doesn't mean that my more bat-shit crazy thoughts are right no matter how "well-reasoned" i think they are.

you posted this for us to think about. we have. and through independent thought, we have, four the most part, come to the agreement that you're "idea" is stoopid and has know merit.

you may have noticed that i've used homonyms, deliberately, in a further attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the OP.

 

[spartan231490]

Written language lacks things that speech has. We need the different spellings to be certain which word is intended because we don't have body language or tone or inflection to hear the difference ourselves. It also makes reading much quicker and less confusing, hell, there is more than enough ambiguity in written English already, because of pronouns, there is absolutely no good reason to introduce any more.

 

[Batou667]

Nobody's mentioned the phoentic spelling of "fish" as "ghoti" yet?

"gh" as in "enough"
"o" as in "women"
"ti" as in "nation"

ghoti = fish

 

[omega 616]

See, this is a forum. In forums we put our idea's across and since I didn't want to put a post about grammar in with "how do you choose your badges", I thought I would start my own thread and get some thoughts on my own thoughts ... is that okay with you? I think it would be a nice subject to talk about and as far as I know hasn't been done before ... which in these times of the internet is somewhat of a rarity, I think you would agree.

I think I put in my OP that I don't want to change anything and I know 1 silly little thread wont so, where is the problem?

Now kindly pull the stick from your arse and be polite. I don't consider myself to be on Mr. Fry or Mr Wilde's level ... shit, they are smarter than most people on this planet and anybody who consider themselves smarter than them is either very stupid or very smart!

When you post stupid crap, don't be surprised if people call you stupid for doing so.

You say stupid crap, I say it's something to have a little think about ... called an opinion.

I don't see how that comment was helpful in putting your thoughts about the subject across, so why post it?

let me start this one by asking for permission to start by telling you that i'm from America!
it has bearing, hear (read) me(the) out(rest).

we have hour precious 1st Amendment witch guarantees us the Right to say wii believe. that miens our federal government, fuck up as it is(i plead the first!), Kant tell us what we can and Kant say. four short, my thoughts are as valid as anyone others. butt that doesn't mean that my more bat-shit crazy thoughts are right no matter how "well-reasoned" i think they are.

you posted this for us to think about. we have. and through independent thought, we have, four the most part, come to the agreement that you're "idea" is stoopid and has know merit.

you may have noticed that i've used homonyms, deliberately, in a further attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the OP.

Well, I would have put that as my OP but to be honest I thought I would get enough abuse without it. I have posted enough threads to know that I always come across the wrong way, it's a curse really, so I always end up getting flak for it.

I think our language is beyond stupid, how can you argue that it's clever with the K at the start of knife? Or the B at the end of bomb? Or how Phone starts with PH? Just read the post above this one!

I never went down that route though.

 

[Galite]

No. Imagine yourself as someone who is trying to learn English for the first time, it's confusing enough that "they're, their and there" are pronounced in the same way but now there is no way to tell in writing which word is being used either. English is bad enough for random silent letters and exceptions to rules and exceptions to exceptions no need to confuse people more.

 

[omega 616]

No. Imagine yourself as someone who is trying to learn English for the first time, it's confusing enough that "they're, their and there" are pronounced in the same way but now there is no way to tell in writing which word is being used either. English is bad enough for random silent letters and exceptions to rules and exceptions to exceptions no need to confuse people more.

I think it is the other way round, while I am typing or writing I am just saying what I want in my head and it translates on to what ever I am doing, so when I get to "there" or "where" I just type it ... no need to think about context just bam! It's down.

Such as any other word, I can't think of a word that looks like .... "letters", so when I get to "letters" I don't have to think "what context am I using it in?".

 

[emeraldrafael]

You know... just cause stephen fry says something doesnt automatically make it right. if he suddenly came out and said Stalin was the greatest man alive and we should all follow his example in the state work programs I honestly think fryites would believe him and start petitioning for those type of beliefs.

ALso you shouldnt have someone make your argument for you.

more OT, now, i dont think you should. There is alot different than They're and cant be described by these. Just as an example, Sally and billy left the house, these are going to the movies.

and which isnt really described by these either, and more to be used with the other rather than as a replacement. you cant say these of these? and mean which of these?.

also unless you're talking about a were-something, were and where have completely different sounding pronunciations.