Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
What's in a spelling? That which we spell a rows by any other form would smell as sweet.
Yeah Will !
Yeah Will !
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
JTrader!!!
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?
Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
JTrader
Guest
- Messages
- 5,741
- Likes
- 507
JTrader!!!
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?
Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Yes, the Nazis used it first, then the commies copied them, apparently.
The Neurotoxicity Of Fluoride In Drinking Water
Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual
In Liberty & Freedom-Fluoride
UK Indymedia - Just say NO to Fluoride in your Water
YouTube - Alex Jones Interviews Dr Daniel Stockin on Fluoride (1 of 5)
Last edited:
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
"Cna yuo raed tihs?
Olny 55% of plepoe can
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but teh wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!"
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55% of plepoe can? - Yahoo! Answers
;-)
Olny 55% of plepoe can
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but teh wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!"
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55% of plepoe can? - Yahoo! Answers
;-)
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
yeah bit like talking.... Body language first,63% tone,30% then the actuals words are about 7% (something like that)...
as long as people focus on the communication, thats the main thing, I mean the english language has been changing for centuries.. so its just adapting again..... lets not meddle with progress....
Spades a spade even if you write it shovel ....
as long as people focus on the communication, thats the main thing, I mean the english language has been changing for centuries.. so its just adapting again..... lets not meddle with progress....
Spades a spade even if you write it shovel ....
Vaco
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,134
- Likes
- 269
pfff
the report makes no mention of immigration, it is about words that ENGLISH children in English schools repeatedly spell incorrectly over the decades.
And if you really want to back in time, if it wasn't for this little island been invaded by dodgy roman foriegners who cant spell you would still be sh*ing in holes in the ground.
As for more recent times this country would come to a standstill if it wasn't for immigration. England always seems to be lacking skilled workers of one kind or another, doctors, nurses teachers etc, then theres the unskilled workers who actually dont mind doing a hard days graft.
trendie
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,875
- Likes
- 1,433
clarity with language reflects clarity of thought.
language is the means with which we express ideas, and the nuances of thought.
if you weaken language, you weaken the capacity to express the thoughts swirling around your head to others.
it's not just spelling, but the reduction in vocabulary, that is a problem.
the above experiment in reading can only work if you first CAN spell the words correctly.
and have a grasp of grammar, syntax and sentence structure. (I know that's tautological :cheesy
when we write, we write differently depending on the situation. in a BB, or relaxed environment, we can be more casual.
But, in a business and professional environment, we have to be more strict with punctuation, grammar and spelling. (see any Terms and Conditions small-print as examples of the need to be specific, and compare that with the morons who say "we wuznt told abaat that" when their insurance doesn't pay out)
This can only happen if you know the exact and strict uses FIRST.
Chow. (I know that should be ciao, but isn't that the point about correct spelling?)
Whatever! Laterz.
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
clarity with language reflects clarity of thought.
language is the means with which we express ideas, and the nuances of thought.
if you weaken language, you weaken the capacity to express the thoughts swirling around your head to others.
it's not just spelling, but the reduction in vocabulary, that is a problem.
the above experiment in reading can only work if you first CAN spell the words correctly.
and have a grasp of grammar, syntax and sentence structure. (I know that's tautological :cheesy
Yes, I do actually perfectly agree with that.
It's actually a problem here too, companies complaining that applicants for our 3 year vocational training programs that everyone has to go through above unskilled level / below academic level in order to become anything from a hairdresser, bank teller, mechanic, mid level civil servant etc etc, that these people lack even the most basic skills these days, and that's fresh out of school at 16, 17.
That is a real problem for countries like ours that have nothing apart from our brains, and need these people for one heck of a lot of implementing of ideas that (largely) the academics devise.
Now, seems my neighbour hs cum home rght now, and then 2 quikly, so loks lke I must work later it ceems when his wive rngs.
Chow
wasp
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,107
- Likes
- 880
pfff
the report makes no mention of immigration, it is about words that ENGLISH children in English schools repeatedly spell incorrectly over the decades.
So what. Once upon a time you tried and tried again until you were competent. Now we should change to accommodate those who won't try.
Another topic and frustration altogether.
If I went to Thailand tomorrow, I would take a Thai phrasebook, remove my shoes when entering a religious building and wear as much clothing to cover my skin in public as possible.
If a foreigner came to this country I would expect them to respect our culture as we do theirs, not change our country to accommodate them.
I am all for immigrants but England should England. I lived in Hong Kong for 5 years and learnt their language and cultures and tried to fit in as best as possible.
In the 1750's Samuel Johnson penned a dictionary and since then, words may have been added but the language prevailed and to change the dictionary because it fits better on a mobile phone text is embarrassing.
Last edited:
Mr. Charts
Legendary member
- Messages
- 7,370
- Likes
- 1,200
Mr. Charts
Legendary member
- Messages
- 7,370
- Likes
- 1,200
What's happened to England?
Simple.
10 years of Socialist rule.
Richard
Simple.
10 years of Socialist rule.
Richard
JTrader
Guest
- Messages
- 5,741
- Likes
- 507
Lest we never forget -
WarsOfTheRoses.com - Wars of the Roses
WarsOfTheRoses.com - Wars of the Roses
Gumping
Established member
- Messages
- 876
- Likes
- 152
donaldduke
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,665
- Likes
- 260
If country is pronunced as 'cuntry' why isnt county pronounced as cunty?
Well, we don't learn 'em like these days, do we Donald?
In any case, how would it help us if we did - after all the thought police will legislate to prevent any legitimate use of language, for example, I'll probably find yourself in trouble (with your browser?) if you come from Scunthorpe or another place with similar spelling. So, we're forced to abandon Anglo-Saxon words (legal since 1964) and resort to French, or merely imply we'll see you next Tuesday - and we think we're all so clever?
And to think that I used to have a Cortina, and I could only dream about driving a 2.8i Capri. Golly, those were the days!
Cheers
Mayfly
In any case, how would it help us if we did - after all the thought police will legislate to prevent any legitimate use of language, for example, I'll probably find yourself in trouble (with your browser?) if you come from Scunthorpe or another place with similar spelling. So, we're forced to abandon Anglo-Saxon words (legal since 1964) and resort to French, or merely imply we'll see you next Tuesday - and we think we're all so clever?
And to think that I used to have a Cortina, and I could only dream about driving a 2.8i Capri. Golly, those were the days!
Cheers
Mayfly
Vaco
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,134
- Likes
- 269
English is so wrong on so many levels how can anyone be expected to learn it correctly.
How did we ever learn how to talk???????
Ain't English Weird?
We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England .
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking
English should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in
which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out,
and in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?
How did we ever learn how to talk???????
Ain't English Weird?
We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England .
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking
English should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in
which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out,
and in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?
Whilst I agree that spelling is important I think it must be remembered that English is a "living" language. As such it will always be undergoing change.
How is accepting commonly mispelled words really any different to accepting the change in meaning of a word. I don't know of anyone who would now use the word gay to mean "happy and full of fun"(as on old dictionary of mine defines it!)
How is accepting changes in form and grammer any different? We no longer say thee and thou, having replaced such words with you.
Why is the way we spell a word today the correct way, even though it may be very different to how it was spelt 200 or 300 years ago?
As for going to another country and learning their language etc. We(the west collectively) live in a democratic society. If an individual comes to our shores we can reasonably expect them to adapt to our way of life. If many individuals come there is a point at which we, as a democratic society, must accept and adapt to the new arrivals. That is of course if we are to truly live by the ideals we espouse. Take it to the logical conclusion, if enough French people(simply as an example) moved to the UK and used the democratic process to push for and hold a referendum on what language was to be spoken in Britain from then on, what would happen to the "Queen's english" then? Here in Australia the Queen has the right to veto any law we make so I'm going to assume she has the same right over there(correct me if I'm wrong) so I suppose she could do so. That wouldn't be very democratic though would it?
Extreme example I know. My point being that the suggestion that all others who come to "our country"(wherever that be) should hold the exclusive responsibility to adapt to our way of life, culture, language etc is not really in keeping with the democratic ideals we so often claim to live by.
Just my two cents worth.
Cheers,
PKFFW
How is accepting commonly mispelled words really any different to accepting the change in meaning of a word. I don't know of anyone who would now use the word gay to mean "happy and full of fun"(as on old dictionary of mine defines it!)
How is accepting changes in form and grammer any different? We no longer say thee and thou, having replaced such words with you.
Why is the way we spell a word today the correct way, even though it may be very different to how it was spelt 200 or 300 years ago?
As for going to another country and learning their language etc. We(the west collectively) live in a democratic society. If an individual comes to our shores we can reasonably expect them to adapt to our way of life. If many individuals come there is a point at which we, as a democratic society, must accept and adapt to the new arrivals. That is of course if we are to truly live by the ideals we espouse. Take it to the logical conclusion, if enough French people(simply as an example) moved to the UK and used the democratic process to push for and hold a referendum on what language was to be spoken in Britain from then on, what would happen to the "Queen's english" then? Here in Australia the Queen has the right to veto any law we make so I'm going to assume she has the same right over there(correct me if I'm wrong) so I suppose she could do so. That wouldn't be very democratic though would it?
Extreme example I know. My point being that the suggestion that all others who come to "our country"(wherever that be) should hold the exclusive responsibility to adapt to our way of life, culture, language etc is not really in keeping with the democratic ideals we so often claim to live by.
Just my two cents worth.
Cheers,
PKFFW
Similar threads
