Enuf Is Enuf

[homeschoolmom]

While I do not advocate spelling reform, I can see the point behind the difficulty non-natives and children have in making sense of our crazy language. Having taught first grade and now teaching my own kids, it is frustrating for kids to be taught rules only to be taught a series of exceptions as well. Spelling was my least favorite subject as a child, as a classroom teacher and it still is. However, I, myself am very interested in phonics, etymology and orthography.

Bi thee weigh, az a speler, I suc.

[jeffpugh]

There is a great shirt I've seen around, and it goes something like "hukt on fonix werkd for me". Wierd. But, I've heard Welsh was a difficult language to grasp. A few things in the language that make English speaking peoples' head spin. Best person to tell us though, is Nadezhda (I know she speaks Welsh).

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' post='1371879' date='Aug 27 2007, 06:21 PM']Wow, I thought there were more important things going on in the world than whining about how "difficult" it is to spell! I think grammar is more of a deal. My dear fiance is always talking about "borrowing" me something. I'll admit that I do sometimes get "its" and "it's" mixed up once in a while.

Well, why don't we just go to a purely text-spelling kind of society, with dumb stuff like "BRB", "G2G", and what not?[/quote]
In the book 1984, they talk about the government minimizing language and making abbreviations for everything and "simplifying" it. My brother pointed out that George Orwell (the author) is really giving people entirely too much credit by having the government do that in the book. The world is filled with people minmizing our own language.

[homeschoolmom]

isn't that what text messaging is all about?

[MissScripture]

Pretty much. I don't text, though, and I refuse to talk to people in instant messenger if they constantly use things like "u" and "r" instead of writing out the words. It bugs the snot out of me when they do that.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1375070' date='Aug 31 2007, 04:55 PM']Pretty much. I don't text, though, and I refuse to talk to people in instant messenger if they constantly use things like "u" and "r" instead of writing out the words. It bugs the snot out of me when they do that.[/quote]

[MissScripture]

Too bad my little sister doesn't feel the same way. We've had many arguments about her spelling out words. "But it takes too long!"

[Brigid]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1375070' date='Aug 31 2007, 04:55 PM']Pretty much. I don't text, though, and I refuse to talk to people in instant messenger if they constantly use things like "u" and "r" instead of writing out the words. It bugs the snot out of me when they do that.[/quote]
... it bugs me sometimes. it sounds bad, but it pretty much depends on how much I like the person who's doing it. my best friend isn't the best typist, so I end up having to decipher what she says a lot, but I don't really mind, because it's her. if it's someone I'm less than crazy about, I get a little annoyed. I always write out words... occasionally, I'll say lol or brb, but other than that, everything is spelled out and punctuated correctly. well, I do use lots of smilies when I'm on pm, and I always use an overabundance of ellipses. but other than that...

[Resurrexi]

If all educated men wrote in Latin, there would be no worries about spelling in vernacular languages.

[Brigid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376749' date='Sep 2 2007, 11:58 PM']If all educated men wrote in Latin, there would be no worries about spelling in vernacular languages.[/quote]
um... not true, stm. if everybody wrote in latin but didn't write in their vernacular, which is what it sounded like you were suggesting, things would get really confusing. so either everybody would need to speak and write latin, or everybody would just speak and write in their vernacular.

and why latin? it's a very cool and beautiful language, I'll give you that, but is it really reasonable to expect everybody to learn it to communicate when we're already getting along fine?

silly stm... think about these things before you write them.

[Resurrexi]

Well, back in the age of the faith, most educated men would have everyday conversations in the vernacular but read, write, debate and discourse in Latin, a language which united all Catholics, especially those of the Latin Church.

I think that works a lot better than having each man read, write, debate and discourse in whatever his vernacular tongue is, because he cannot be understood by all educated men of the world and because he quite possibly will not be able to be understood by those who speak the descendant of his native tongue 500 years into the future.

[Brigid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376774' date='Sep 3 2007, 12:28 AM']Well, back in the age of the faith, most educated men would have everyday conversations in the vernacular but read, write, debate and discourse in Latin, a language which united all Catholics, especially those of the Latin Church.[/quote]
yeah, but... wasn't that when most people weren't educated? I mean, I don't exactly know when "the age of faith" was (is there such an age?), so I'm kind of guessing, but at the time I think you're thinking of, the vast majority of people weren't educated, and the few (wealthy men or monks) who were wrote only in Latin. so yeah, they could all converse in Latin, but the majority of the population had no idea what they were saying. that doesn't seem very unitive to me...

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1376774' date='Sep 3 2007, 12:28 AM']I think that works a lot better than having each man read, write, debate and discourse in whatever his vernacular tongue is, because he cannot be understood by all educated men of the world and because he quite possibly will not be able to be understood by those who speak the descendant of his native tongue 500 years into the future.[/quote]
you didn't really answer my question... why latin? I mean, why not english? a ton of people in the world already know it, and if latin was the unifying language, everyone would have to learn it. and we really are getting along fine without everybody understanding everybody.

and the last part, about not being understood by those 500 years in the future? where in the world did you get that? five hundred years ago it was 1507 - in 1507 Martin Waldseemüller published his map of the world, and named the new continent America, in honour of Amerigo Vespucci. also in 1507, Leonardo da Vinci completed the Mona Lisa. (facts courtesy of wikipedia.) I think we're able to understand people 500 years in the past, so why would people 500 years in the future have trouble understanding us?

and, um...sorry for the thread hijack...

[Mercy me]

Don't apologize for making perfect sense. You are right.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Brigid' post='1376803' date='Sep 3 2007, 12:41 AM']yeah, but... wasn't that when most people weren't educated? I mean, I don't exactly know when "the age of faith" was (is there such an age?), so I'm kind of guessing, but at the time I think you're thinking of, the vast majority of people weren't educated, and the few (wealthy men or monks) who were wrote only in Latin. so yeah, they could all converse in Latin, but the majority of the population had no idea what they were saying. that doesn't seem very unitive to me...
you didn't really answer my question... why latin? I mean, why not english? a ton of people in the world already know it, and if latin was the unifying language, everyone would have to learn it. and we really are getting along fine without everybody understanding everybody.

and the last part, about not being understood by those 500 years in the future? where in the world did you get that? five hundred years ago it was 1507 - in 1507 Martin Waldseemüller published his map of the world, and named the new continent America, in honour of Amerigo Vespucci. also in 1507, Leonardo da Vinci completed the Mona Lisa. (facts courtesy of wikipedia.) I think we're able to understand people 500 years in the past, so why would people 500 years in the future have trouble understanding us?

and, um...sorry for the thread hijack... [/quote]

By the "age of faith" I'm referring to the time of St. Pope Gregory the Great (died in 604) until the end of the counter-reformation (c. 1648), the time usually called Mediæval.

The reasons why Latin is the best universal language are:
1) It is the official language of the Roman Rite, the rite of the Supreme Pontiff;
2) The majority the documents of the Supreme Pontiffs and Oecumenical Councils are in Latin;
3) The translation of the Scriptures from their original languages into Latin contained in the [i]Vulgata Clementina[/i] has been declared by the Church to be without error in regards to faith and morals;
4) Many of the Early Church Fathers wrote in Latin;
5) Most of the great theological works (such as Summa Theologiæ) are in Latin;
6) Latin is more precise than many Languages because of its grammar;
7) Many modern languages are descended from Latin or use the Latin alphabet and it is therefore easier to learn for most people than a language which uses another alphabet such as Greek.
8) It is not the vernacular of any people and is therefore universal and unchanging.

By not being understood 500 years in the future, I meant that a language can evolve such a great deal in 500 years that, for example, something that was written in English in 1100 would have been almost incomprehensible to and English speaker who lived in 1600.

Edited September 3, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Resurrexi]

double post

Edited September 3, 2007 by StThomasMore