CDRLabs.com

Oh yes.. let's lower the bar even farther so idiots can learn to spell.

http://www.startribune.com/389/story/534351.html

When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?
Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

Eether wae, the consept has yet to capcher th publix imajinaeshun.

It's been 100 years since Andrew Carnegie helped create the Simplified Spelling Board to promote a retooling of written English and President Theodore Roosevelt tried to force the government to use simplified spelling in its publications. But advocates aren't giving up.

They even picket the national spelling bee finals, held every year in Washington, costumed as bumble bees and hoisting signs that say "Enuf is enuf but enough is too much" or "I'm thru with through."

Thae sae th bee selebraets th ability of a fue stoodents to master a dificult sistem that stumps meny utherz hoo cuud do just as wel if speling were simpler.

"It's a very difficult thing to get something accepted like this," says Alan Mole, president of the American Literacy Council, which favors an end to "illogical spelling." The group says English has 42 sounds spelled in a bewildering 400 ways.

Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy — witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues.

They might as well include l33t speak and IM abreviations too..

...proving once again there are WAY too many idiots in the world.


And I think I work with about 95% of them...

the fact that someone came up with such a stupid idea is just sad!

the problem with spelling words the way they sound is that words are constantly being mis-pronounced. So do we keep readjusting the spelling of words as new ways of saying them become pre-dominante? How long before we have a different written language for each area with different accents. Heck, what would texans write like???

dolphinius_rex wrote:Heck, what would texans write like???

If Texans are like Bush.. they probably can't write anyway.

I showed this article to my wife who's a teacher. She thought it was a good idea.

I thank (note phonetic spelling in accordance with Texas proununciation) that it sux.

Ideas like this have been around a long time.

A classic showing the absurdity of these ideas is "Meihem in ce Klasrum" by Dolton Edwards, first published in Astounding in Sept. 1946 and kicking through various anthologies ever since (e.g. "A Stressanalysis of a Strapless Evening Gown" where I found it). The versions on the web like this one unfortunately normally omit another bon mot that was added to the print version:

Code: Select all

HE:     I M A B.
SHE:    U R!
HE:     S, R U A B 2?
SHE:    O S, I M A B 2. R U N TV?
HE:     S, I M A TV B.
SHE:    G!

Children's Primer
New Style

G

Lexicological note (no offense intended DR):

become pre-dominante

Something that takes a long time to achieve a state of dominance is just dominant, no pre.

Something that was dominant from the beginning could rightly be described as PREdominant. (No terminal e either.)

But I can see why that was used because predominant is used more frequently nowadays, probably to add emphasis which if true is a misuse of the prefix pre, rather than just dominant without the prefix pre.
As such, it is a manifestation of verbal puffery.

It is the same as all the asshole politicians, particularly the Pentagon types, always claim nowadays that they have "preplanned" something as they are so goddamn extra special that only they have the wisdom to preplan while the rest of us are relegated to only have the limited capabilty to simply "plan."

So I pose this rhetorical question: Would these scumbags ever brag about having "postplanned" something?
Of course not, the halfwits.
So then, if there is no such thing as postplanning, what sense does it make to use preplan because there is no postplan to contrast it with.
All plans are made prior to the events to which they are aimed and preplanning is the same as planning; in a time scale, there is no difference.
Preplanning is just their grammatical form of prepuffery.

Oh yeah, the Pentagon phonies love to tell us how wonderfully smart they are as they "prepositioned" their bombs.
Well, then what the hell is "postpositioning"?
Prepositioning only makes sense if there is postpositioning to contrast it with.
Is that picking up the pieces after they are exploded?

Over and out for the night.

CowboySlim wrote:Lexicological note (no offense intended DR):

become pre-dominante

Something that takes a long time to achieve a state of dominance is just dominant, no pre....

Yes... that was part of my point... to say... that.... speech is ... changing....

ok, it WAS a mistake

Not to worry DR!

I, CowboySlim, being of sound mind and body, never misspell a word.

But I sur mayke a lot of typos.