Instead of quoting that entire little nitpick you did (by the way, awesome job on alienating yourself from many of the regular posters by pointing out spelling, punctuation and grammar inaccuracies, that's hot) I will point out that this board is a natural reflection of its context - colloquial conversation about Transformers. While the capability to write English properly is a benefit while posting on the boards, nowhere is it a requirement. This is a website dedicated to leisure - we're not here to advance our jobs or prove ourselves in a scholastic context. We just want to talk about Transformers. Additionally, I've come to think of a person's capability to craft sentences & grammar properly in the same context as I would their fashion sense. (FOR THOSE OF YOU TOO DENSE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT IS A METAPHOR!) Those with a stronger grasp of punctuation, grammar and spelling do a much more dapper job of making their point. Those who are struggling to keep their commas and who,whose,whoms about them...well, they make a point, but is it worth reading if you have to bear looking at something written poorly? Just because I don't sit down at this board and shit perfect english from my fingers doesn't mean I don't have the capability to do so in a professional or scholastic setting. I don't think people WANT to care about those things here. Now, does that provide validation for using the crap-ass spelling & grammar system highlighted in the source article? Oh HELL no. If we go with my metaphor, people wear relaxation clothes when they're off-duty and wear a suit or uniform while at work. If they dress themselves in a fashionable form outside of work, it's simply a compliment to their ability to be seen and be noticed. Similarly, people aren't taxed with the need to write English perfectly while on the boards, while it might be a definite necessity of their job to write in perfect English. If they choose to mind every p, q and comma when they're not writing professionally or in a scholastic context, it just means they're that much more effective in getting their point across.
I am merely pointing out the fact that people here criticize others while their own grasp of the language in itself isn't sound. They criticize change as something horrible while missing the underlying argument of the first posted article. This new language looks weird and is different, so people condemn it. If this is truly a debate on communication, then all ideas on language need to be analyzed. This debate also revolves on the main purpose of language and how it should be. Some people like the intricacy of language. The more complex the better. Some people don't want language to be logical (ie one word having one meaning, one pronunciation meaning one word, etc). If you do want things to be logical though, the article makes sense. What is so wrong with writing words like how they sound? That sounds logical to me. People would be less likely to mispronounce things. If you think of language like as art (as one poster pointed out) then a language that is logical isn't for you. Which is fine, there is no "right" or "wrong" way a language should be. It all depens on your preference. People also have to realize that language gets corrupted all the time. Words get mis-spelled and mis-pronounced all the time. Words in the English language are sometimes borrowed from other languages. These borrowed words, mis-spelled words, and mis-pronounced words then become the rule. I read that article, and it started me thinking on how if a child were to be learning English, how hard it would be to learn it when there is no rhyme or reason to the language. When every word is a trial and error process, instead of a logical process. As far as me alienating everyon, I didn't mean to attack them. I wasn't trying to say "ha ha, you is stoopid, me is better than all of you, all bow down to me". I just wanted to point out that the article should be treated in fairness. I am not here to agree with everyone and agree with the majority opinion. You're right, this is a TF board, intended to discuss TFs. However, this article is intended to discuss language, not TFs.
Take this article for instance: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13560741/ Its an interesting read. How we analyze the world, how we do math problems, how we look at computer programming. These are all related to how we learn and perceive language.
hehehehe ... I love metaphors. Good one, Ops! I'm just wondering why I was quoted in Supererion's post just then? Did I make a grammatical oopsie-nono too? I would be beholden to Superion33 if he would be so kind as to point out my literary foibles and peccadilloes, and fain would I restrain to err that way again. ... And yes, that last bit was in iambic hexameter for you folks playing at home.
Verily, Lance. Thine words ring with an air of veracity unbeknownst to me. Actually, I was quoting you because I agreed with your opinion. English IS an extremely complex language to learn. Hence, why some people (like in the article) want to make it simpler.
Thats why I will never make fun of someones punctuation or spelling, because everyone makes mistakes. I do think its messed up that people are making fun of omega Knight, hes what? 13? Thats messed up.
Iambic pentameter (five unstressed/stressed pairs or 'feet' per line) is by far the most widely recognized type of iambic meter, but there's also monometer (one foot), dimeter (two feet), trimeter (three feet), tetrameter (four feet), heptameter (seven feet), octameter (eight feet), nonameter (nine feet) and so forth.
Funny, I never said that I was perfect in my spelling and grammar. I did it because it was a case of hypocrisy. Someone criticizing someone else for a problem they themselves have. I don't think I am a hypocrite. I gladly admit my errors because I am human.
Strict phonetic spelling doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to another area of the language. If everyone spoke English the same way, simplified spelling might be a good idea. The fact is that we don't, and it's not even remotely plausible to get everyone to do so. So, under the proposed system, learning to read one local form of English might be easier, but things written in the same language in another region would look like gibberish. That would mean familiarizing yourself with countless dialects across multiple English-speaking countries and multiple continents for a knowledge of written English to be as functional as any of ours here. As it is, we've got board members from all around the world, but we communicate just fine without much effort to decipher most of the messages. We all only had to learn English once with reasonable difficulty instead of over and over again with slightly more ease.
Sometimes its better to ignore the idiots. trust me. its not worth it man. Don't let others bait you.
Whats the difference between a derivational speller, and a phonetic one? Arent they both sound based ways of spelling words? Also, whats with the pentameter stuff? Isnt that related to poetry, what does that have to do with a.. more simplistic version of the written language.
The point is that people within the SAME dialect still mispronounce things. Lets take care of that first. Not how a guy in NJ pronounces something as compared to a guy in London as compared to a guy in Sydney. Lets just focus on the guy in NJ and his neighbor down the street.
While it would be nice to make things more consistent at least between people in the same dialect, no, that isn't the point. The point is that people who are supporting this phonetic spelling system want words to be easy to read and spell by being spelled the way we say them. That doesn't work because we don't say things the same way to begin with.
speaking as someone who speaks english as a second language, i can testify its uses for reading comics and understanding porn. yay english!
Wow there are some really anal, snotty, people making some really condescending posts in this thread....
