| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 11:15:32
Seems to me that this belongs in a thread of its own, and not in the FYC.
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
No, the incorrect form is very common over here too.
Isn't this the nature of language?
It IS constantly changing and today's widespread incorrect usage becomes tomorrows correct usage.
The word Silly (originally Selig) meant bookish and studious but through being asociated with weedy and scrawny people who were physically useless the meaning turned to "worthless"
It will never stop me hating the word "bling" though. Has that made it to the OE dictionary yet?
I used to frequent a newsgroup (alt.usage.english I believe) which discussed just such things. Fascinating stuff (especially for someone who writes poetry, as I do). One of the things that no one there could answer me is how the word "yahoo", coined (I'm sure) by Jonathan Swift in his book Gulliver's Travels went from meaning a person who acts in a savage manner to today's usage which is as a cheer or outburst of joy.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/16/2007 : 00:06:36
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
A lot of English spelling has to be learned, rather than being intuitive. I got picked up on another fourum for spelling authoritative as authoratitive. This is because that's how I say it.
Doesn't that just mean you mispronounce it?
Yup, if you say it the first way for real . Try saying it a few times and see if you really say authorItAtive. Gotta say it as you would say it in speech (as in, don't slow down just to test this out). Of course, we've got to take all the accents floating around on this site into consideration too.  |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 20:01:25
A lot of English spelling has to be learned, rather than being intuitive. I got picked up on another fourum for spelling authoritative as authoratitive. This is because that's how I say it.
Doesn't that just mean you mispronounce it? |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 00:13:31
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm a poet. I love words and language and used to be involved in several forums on the subject. But while I may have published a verse or two, I'm no expert.
(Okay, I'm a language discussion voyeur! So sue me.)
Poets are experts at using and manipulating language and producing written language that may be concious or subconscious - but is quite magical. I couldn't compete with that (I'm a voyeur on the haiku pages!) even though I'm a good prose writer.
I am also a terrible language learner! Give me some language, written or spoken, and give me some linguistic tools (the translation and word class of a few words, hints on some prefixes and suffixes) and I'll do a damn good job of pulling it all apart. By being immersed in a language situation I'll understand enough to get by, but my analytical little mind won't let me just absorb and produce! I overthink, and my ability to produce sounds is frustrating because I know how they should be formed, but whatever is coming out of my mouth is obviously not it!
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 20:05:28
I'm a poet. I love words and language and used to be involved in several forums on the subject. But while I may have published a verse or two, I'm no expert.
(Okay, I'm a language discussion voyeur! So sue me.) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 13:58:05
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
[quote]But I don't think that the reason this thread was started was because people wanted to be bombarded with detailed evidence from theoretical and applied research.
Well, it was only started because C.L. didn't want me arguing against 'til in a different thread, and I don't think she really minded what the content here then would be. However, I of course don't expect you to post anything that you don't want to.
I moved the discussion over to the "Off-Topic" forum so we can all be free to discuss this topic - or even go off this topic - to our hearts content.
Hi, yes, I appreciate that. I talk about and write about language all the time in my work and I was just getting a little too sucked in. I wanted to back off a bit without seeming as if I was disagreeing with or not wanting to discuss with Salopian, who was only going to push me to more and more intensity! (Especially in light of some frustration expressed in other forums  ) Hopefully people have got something out of the discussion, but there was just so much being talked about I hoped others would come back in with other ideas or observations if I stopped posting so much. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 13:47:33
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
[quote]But I don't think that the reason this thread was started was because people wanted to be bombarded with detailed evidence from theoretical and applied research.
Well, it was only started because C.L. didn't want me arguing against 'til in a different thread, and I don't think she really minded what the content here then would be. However, I of course don't expect you to post anything that you don't want to.
I moved the discussion over to the "Off-Topic" forum so we can all be free to discuss this topic - or even go off this topic - to our hearts content.
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 12:41:56
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I do not intend to sound pretentious or to make assumptions about your or other people's knowledge.
Yes, sorry - I phrased my post badly and did not mean to suggets that you did.
quote:
But I don't think that the reason this thread was started was because people wanted to be bombarded with detailed evidence from theoretical and applied research.
Well, it was only started because C.L. didn't want me arguing against 'til in a different thread, and I don't think she really minded what the content here then would be. However, I of course don't expect you to post anything that you don't want to.
quote:
Already the discussion you and I have been having is conflating several linguistic areas
Yes, this is fair. I agree that it would be messy to try to continue in an unstructured way such as would be the case here, floating between different aspects.
quote:
I just don't think this is the place to get into this. The more you answer the more I am in danger of getting pedantic and tempted to quote research and waffle on about language theory.
It's definitely fine to discuss it here, especially as it is far less off-topic than most off-topic things (and people here are more aware of linguistic issues than the average person), but as I say, it is of course fine if you don't want to. And for the record, I wouldn't have any problem with you being pedantic or quoting research. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 10:58:53
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I have an unfair advatage of being linguist, and I have other forums where I can discuss language research. I won't bore people by going on with this.
Ah, but what am I? Not professionally (although I still work with words), but educationally I am a linguist (x 2). I do accept that I find other Englishes easier to understand than most people seem to, so admittedly I cannot be objective on this front either. No language point will ever bore me.
I do not intend to sound pretentious or to make assumptions about your or other people's knowledge. I know there will be other linguists out there, and literacy teachers, and some of them will disagree with my theories - that's the nature of research. I have had 12 years of doing not much more than researching, teaching and applying knowledge of language.
But I don't think that the reason this thread was started was because people wanted to be bombarded with detailed evidence from theoretical and applied research. Already the discussion you and I have been having is conflating several linguistic areas, and I just don't think this is the place to get into this. The more you answer the more I am in danger of getting pedantic and tempted to quote research and waffle on about language theory. Like I say, I do that in other forums and I got involved in fwfr for other reasons.
I do like the fact that lots of things are discussed in Fourum but it's more fun when lots of people join in and two people don't end up running away with it as we seem to be doing - and that applies to any topic posted. I've already spewed two long, pompous posts, which have had limited appeal in regard to generating a discussion, so I just want to let it be now. Thanks
|
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 09:28:57
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I have an unfair advatage of being linguist, and I have other forums where I can discuss language research. I won't bore people by going on with this.
Ah, but what am I? Not professionally (although I still work with words), but educationally I am a linguist (x 2). I do accept that I find other Englishes easier to understand than most people seem to, so admittedly I cannot be objective on this front either. No language point will ever bore me. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 09:25:03
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Other examples which I know are used are the single 'l' in words like travel(l)ing. There's no reason at all for insisting on a 'll' in those words.
This is a bit different, because it was a conscious and official change - it did not build up through popular usage. There were two Americans who drove it, I seem to remember; I forget their names. -ll- was already established by concensus over history, and I don't really think it was appropriate to override this. (Actually, I never think conscious spelling reform is a good idea, such as the recent German 'changes' that mean -sss- now occurs.) The single-/double-letter difference does also cause problems in that American children have to learn when to have which, e.g. American English does not have submited. (Of course, it is hard to be objective about whether it is easier to learn the British English system, but it is certainly not the case that the American one is completely plain and simple.) |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 09:20:52
Salopian, your opinions are accepted.
I have an unfair advatage of being linguist, and I have other forums where I can discuss language research. I won't bore people by going on with this. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 09:10:22
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
The Englishes of the world vary much more than in accent - grammar and lexicon are different and they are not mutually intelligble in many cases. I am sometimes found incomprehensible in Australia - mostly for the use of words, but even between two apparently similar dialects, grammatical structuring and intonation (which is different to accent) cause many a misunderstanding - sometimes amusing, sometimes not. Eventually the Englishes of the world will become as varied as the Abrabic language 'dialects', some of which are no longer mutually intelligble.
Grammar barely varies between Englishes, and never to the extent of blocking intelligibility that I can think of, with the exception of Scots and patois dialects. Even in the latter cases, it is the accent and, you are right, some vocabulary that really causes problems in understanding. When written down, all Englishes but these that I have ever come across are readily understandable. I don't agree that English is differentiating further, though. International communications are causing it to become more similar again (and Arabic too, for that matter). Even emerging youth dialects are mainly multinational now.
quote:
Re spelling
Children are taught that /i/ is i and /ai/ is i-e
Mit-mite, Sit-site, kit-kite, bit-bite,
Therefore they spell
fight-fite (assuming fit-fite), night-nite (assuming nit-nite) and so on.
Yes, if they are taught that way. This does not make -ite intrinsically better, though.
quote:
A poor teacher won't at some point pick up on the need to inform learners of the -ight patterning group. It cannot be surmised from how the alphabet represents sound-symbol.
I think the vast majority of teachers would teach this, though, and even if not, since -igh- is always pronounced the same it does not (in reading terms) seem to really cause long-term problems.
quote:
'Whole-word' techniques also need to be used in English literacy teaching therefore. The most common worldwide approach to literacy is the phonemic approach (with languages with alphabets, of course), which provides tools for breaking a word down phonemically to assist with reading or writing new words. In English those tools fail with 'right' which is why that patterned set is learned and 'right' recognised as a whole as the symbol for the meaning (like Chinese character recognition). Other languages in the world, like Spanish, can predict spellings phonemically with consistency.
I agree that there are different methods of reading and a multi-faceted approach is best.
quote:
You also cannot predict 'fight' as being part of the 'right' pattern without being told it. There is nothing about the English alphabet and the sound-symbol match that can generate the 'correct' spelling of 'right' and its companion words - for a learner of any age. You need to learn the words as a 'whole'.
No, I don't agree. Yes, you need to learn -igh- as a whole, but this is no different from learning -i-e- as a whole (except that the former is completely consistent). For example, I really doubt that there would be many people who by the time they are fluent readers could not pronounce a made-up word such as zight. In contrast, some might pronounce zite as "zeet", because they might think it were from French or something.
quote:
Many children never learn to break down language phonemically because of their cognitive learning style. They therefore do not automatically use phonemic tools as a natural process and use sight recognition for all words - into adulthood. This means encountering a new word can sometimes be impossible to decipher and you need to ask someone 'how do you say that'.
Yes, O.K., there are problem more cases of this than I thought.
quote:
If you think about your own spelling and reading practices, especially in generating errors or dealing with new words, you can identify on the surface what kind of a writer-reader you are. I'm a phonemic speller-writer - hence my spelling mistakes, particularly when typing fast, often represent 'how the word is said' (although I make all sorts of other mistakes too, of course).
I did not think I was massively like this, but have noticed myself doing it a lot lately. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 23:38:03
quote:
Many children never learn to break down language phonemically because of their cognitive learning style. They therefore do not automatically use phonemic tools as a natural process and use sight recognition for all words - into adulthood. This means encountering a new word can sometimes be impossible to decipher and you need to ask someone 'how do you say that'.
Before anyone jumps on me, reading this back it sounds like I'm saying one learning style is better than another. It's not. There are advantages to learning 'whole words' too - such as being able to better predict that pronunication of a word that a phonemic speller will get wrong. Cognitive learning styles don't just relate to literacy of course.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 23:31:22
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
No one (save for late Nite Dj's and all nite convenience stores) uses nite in America. It isn't at all commonplace outside of such cheezy (same rule applies to that one btw) promotions.
Yeah, point taken guys. That spelling did originate in America though.
Other examples which I know are used are the single 'l' in words like travel(l)ing. There's no reason at all for insisting on a 'll' in those words. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 23:25:57
The Englishes of the world vary much more than in accent - grammar and lexicon are different and they are not mutually intelligble in many cases. I am sometimes found incomprehensible in Australia - mostly for the use of words, but even between two apparently similar dialects, grammatical structuring and intonation (which is different to accent) cause many a misunderstanding - sometimes amusing, sometimes not. Eventually the Englishes of the world will become as varied as the Abrabic language 'dialects', some of which are no longer mutually intelligble.
Re spelling
Children are taught that /i/ is i and /ai/ is i-e
Mit-mite, Sit-site, kit-kite, bit-bite,
Therefore they spell
fight-fite (assuming fit-fite), night-nite (assuming nit-nite) and so on.
A poor teacher won't at some point pick up on the need to inform learners of the -ight patterning group. It cannot be surmised from how the alphabet represents sound-symbol.
'Whole-word' techniques also need to be used in English literacy teaching therefore. The most common worldwide approach to literacy is the phonemic approach (with languages with alphabets, of course), which provides tools for breaking a word down phonemically to assist with reading or writing new words. In English those tools fail with 'right' which is why that patterned set is learned and 'right' recognised as a whole as the symbol for the meaning (like Chinese character recognition). Other languages in the world, like Spanish, can predict spellings phonemically with consistency.
You also cannot predict 'fight' as being part of the 'right' pattern without being told it. There is nothing about the English alphabet and the sound-symbol match that can generate the 'correct' spelling of 'right' and its companion words - for a learner of any age. You need to learn the words as a 'whole'.
Many children never learn to break down language phonemically because of their cognitive learning style. They therefore do not automatically use phonemic tools as a natural process and use sight recognition for all words - into adulthood. This means encountering a new word can sometimes be impossible to decipher and you need to ask someone 'how do you say that'.
If you think about your own spelling and reading practices, especially in generating errors or dealing with new words, you can identify on the surface what kind of a writer-reader you are. I'm a phonemic speller-writer - hence my spelling mistakes, particularly when typing fast, often represent 'how the word is said' (although I make all sorts of other mistakes too, of course). I also sound words out when meeting new words. |
|
|
