Andrew Price 2 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Don't worry Bill. The nurse will be with you shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Gordon 2 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 All I can say to that is that if wasn't for people being dim, I wouldn't be crazy. ...Okay... maybe not as crazy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Over the years i have seen how passionate people can become when discussing the use of English, both in the written and its spoken forms. Particularly current usage, such as the meaning of words, how it is written and spoken. Always seeing a falling of standards. For my part, I have tended to denigrate much of what my granddaughters have been reading. Current rubbish, frequently written by celebrities. I would introduce then into the classics of old. As I baby sat, two nights a week, I did introduce them to the classics, Alice in Wonderland, Kidnapped, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I was totally taken aback, that in the 100 or so years since they were written, much as changed in how we construct sentences, the meaning of phrases and words, not withstanding what i presume were common words. To the extent, that much of what would have been common to hear, now requires a degree of explanation of its meaning, as i was going along. I found the books difficult to read out loud, as i needed to undertake a translation into current forms, so they could be understood by todays children. Which convinced me that there is very little in the English language that is fixed in some sort of aspic. When addressing the question of mathematics, I can do nothing but find fault with modern methods. There seems to be little that is logical about how both multiplication and division are taught. It is as if the mathematicians and teachers of old, were all total numpties. I found that I had to get the idea across that tables were a concept that if I had a group of items, which occurred a number of times, it could be expressed as a single value. This was done with a variety of household objects, from cutlery and anything else that come s to hand. Kids get simple concepts, that is not good enough for some with political agendas. I did the same with fractions, toast cut into pieces etc. Contrary to the opinions of some educationalists, unlike language, maths and relationships do not change with time,. 2 + 2 = 4 or A + A = C and always will. The comment with respect to calculators is just as applicable to computers when used in numerical work, you need to have a ball park value in mind, to recognise that the answer provided may not be correct. I personally do believe that traditional ways of teaching have a lot of merit, that is those methods developed incrementally over many generations, Whereas much of the modern methods, discovered by modern free thinkers are often a product of their vanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Gordon 2 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Well spoken and very apt, Erfolg. Particularly the last paragraph. I don't remember who said it first, and I may not have the quote precisely, but : " Another man's intelligence is decided by the degree of agreement he is in with you" You must be a genius! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert baker Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Artificial inelegance is no match for natural born stupidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 61 years old now, so if I remember rightly not all kids were good at maths and English when I wor a lad. Some went on to do very well for themselves though, what's the standard now ? I don't know..but with an election looming I expect the teachers will shortly get kicked from pillar to post again. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Posted by PatMc on 02/02/2015 21:18:55: Posted by Martin Harris on 02/02/2015 00:17:17: It's all very well quoting figures from sources such as QI (which as I recall, failed to apply the whole rule) but my belief is that the concept that the rule is flawed ignores the important proviso that it only applies when the sound is "ee". If anyone can provide any examples where this doesn't work then I would be interested to know of them! Martin, here's a few to be getting on with : heifer, either, neither, reiver, weird, madeira, species achieve, chief chiel cockatiel codpiece. Before reading this please bear in mind that I am championing the general validity of the full rule, which is I before E except after C when the sound is E. There may be some differences in pronunciation in your part of the world but heifer, either and neither do not have an "ee" sound in the English spoken by the Queen. Reiver is an interesting one which does appear to be an exception - it's from Old English and appears to have evolved outside of the general rule. I wonder if the pronunciation has changed over the centuries but I don't think that anyone - even on this forum - can go back quite far enough to remember! Weird has an "ee-er" sound as does Madeira - which is not an English word anyway, species is both a singular and plural (there are many other words with the ies suffix which I would contend are plurals and therefore the sound is "ees" (at this point I would have liked to have used a full stop but the forum software created a smiley!) None of the words "achieve, chief, chiel, cockatiel or codpiece" are subject to the "I before E" rule as their IEs follow h, h, h, t and p respectively. So in conclusion, we have one word so far (reiver) which fails to abide by the guideline but perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule? Edited By Martin Harris on 04/02/2015 00:45:42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Gordon 2 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well said, Bert. You wouldn't happen to read "The Darwin Awards" by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert baker Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 No Mate I read it on a Tea mug, I am spanner swinger, last book I read was Captain Pugwash. Oh and of course the BMFA handbook I did manage to pass my A and B BMFA achievements, thinking of the jet C for my next one. Edited By bert baker on 04/02/2015 07:26:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Gordon 2 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well Bert, it is worth picking up. If you ever feel down about doing anything dumb, give it a read. I guarantee you will feel so much better. "The Darwin Awards" are based on true stories and given "for service to humanity by removing themselves from the gene pool or have disabled themselves from procreation", thus preventing passing on their stupid genes. One chap, for instance, was hammering on a cap to a pipe bomb held between his legs. He survived, but his wedding tackle didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Price 2 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Just had a quick read of a couple of Darwin Award stories. Site is worth revisiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Posted by Martin Harris on 04/02/2015 00:38:58: Posted by PatMc on 02/02/2015 21:18:55: Posted by Martin Harris on 02/02/2015 00:17:17: It's all very well quoting figures from sources such as QI (which as I recall, failed to apply the whole rule) but my belief is that the concept that the rule is flawed ignores the important proviso that it only applies when the sound is "ee". If anyone can provide any examples where this doesn't work then I would be interested to know of them! Martin, here's a few to be getting on with : heifer, either, neither, reiver, weird, madeira, species achieve, chief chiel cockatiel codpiece. Before reading this please bear in mind that I am championing the general validity of the full rule, which is I before E except after C when the sound is E. There may be some differences in pronunciation in your part of the world but heifer, either and neither do not have an "ee" sound in the English spoken by the Queen. Reiver is an interesting one which does appear to be an exception - it's from Old English and appears to have evolved outside of the general rule. I wonder if the pronunciation has changed over the centuries but I don't think that anyone - even on this forum - can go back quite far enough to remember! Weird has an "ee-er" sound as does Madeira - which is not an English word anyway, species is both a singular and plural (there are many other words with the ies suffix which I would contend are plurals and therefore the sound is "ees" (at this point I would have liked to have used a full stop but the forum software created a smiley!) None of the words "achieve, chief, chiel, cockatiel or codpiece" are subject to the "I before E" rule as their IEs follow h, h, h, t and p respectively. So in conclusion, we have one word so far (reiver) which fails to abide by the guideline but perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule? Edited By Martin Harris on 04/02/2015 00:45:42 So now you’re saying that the rule is : I before E except if the letter immediately preceding is C and the sound of the IE/EI combination is “ee” as pronounced by the Queen, all other pronunciations fall outside the rule. Words derived from languages other than English, even when they have been in assimilated into the English language for a very long time, also fall outside the rule. Words that end with “ies” and sound “ees” are also excluded. Seems a nice simple guide for 11 year olds to remember. I see no reason to doubt the pronunciation of the word “reiver” any more than any word that you consider does fall into the rule. It’s a word with long association in the border counties of Scotland & England that occurs in many local folk songs & poems so any change in it’s pronunciation would have an impact on other words in the same ditties. I don’t accept that “weird” or the “dier” part of Madeira comprise two syllables & I fail to see why you don’t accept “species”. Nor do I accept that regional differences in pronunciation should discount “heifer”, “either” or “neither”. If words that stem from other languages are not acceptable then that must rule out the majority of the modern English language. IMO for a rule on spelling to be valid it must be simple to apply & near universal across the language or it's not fit for purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 IMO for a rule on spelling to be valid it must be simple to apply & near universal across the language or it's not fit for purpose. I think that if the rule is intended to be remembered by 11 year-olds, then it need only apply to words that 11 year olds might reasonably be expected to use. Conversely, a universal rule must necessarily be more complicated. Surely a rule must only work more times than it doesn't in order to be of net value! Compared to randomly guessing ie versus ei with a 50:50 percent split, the rule helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncebounce crunch Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Wots rong with the way kids spell words, it don't matta no more when computas dus all the work for ya, ya don't even need punktuation and who needs maffs when ya can get apps that can count fore ya. you oldies knows nuffin dus yas. oh how old scool is yous lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted February 5, 2015 Author Share Posted February 5, 2015 Great!Actually your punctuation and apostrophes weren't bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Price 2 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Steve. They are still there to be seen, will be tomorrow and so forth. They haven't disappeared, therefore aren't applies, not all that weren't stuff, like, innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve T Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I have genuinely had complaints from 'the new younger generation!' That my text messages/sms are too,long as I spell out all words in full and use punctuation, hopefully where it should be in context of the message. It doesn't make me LOL. If I was Chinese would that be ROR? Raff Out Roud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Price 2 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 There seem to have been so many of them, so to which of the new younger generations are you reffering Steve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony K Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Very early this morning on the BBC news site, the main headline was " Police shoot dead man in Copenhagen". Why would they shoot a dead man? Revisiting later, I noticed that the headline had been changed to "Police shoot man dead in Copenhagen". Does that mean that the Police shot a man who was dead in Copenhagen? Now the headline reads "Copenhagen gunman shot by police". Well done BBC, the third attempt makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perttime Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 The English spelling "system" doesn't exactly make it easy to learn reading and writing. You could actually say that it is preventing kids from learning. Here's an article: How Spelling Keeps Kids from Learning: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/how-the-english-language-is-holding-kids-back/385291/ The link seems to throw up an ad before you can read the article, so here's some excerpts: """""""""""""""""""""""""" Simply put, written English is great for puns but terrible for learning to read or write. It’s like making children from around the world complete an obstacle course to fully participate in society but requiring the English-speaking participants to wear blindfolds. English spelling wasn’t always so convoluted; there was much more rhyme and reason to Old and even Middle English. But the spoken language has evolved, as all languages are wont to do: Pronunciations have changed and foreign words have been introduced, sometimes retaining the spelling conventions of their original languages. Written English has also evolved—but mostly in ways unrelated to the changes in the spoken language, thanks in part to shenanigans and human error. The first English printing press, in the 15th century, was operated by Belgians who didn’t know the language and made numerous spelling errors... As a result, there’s no systematic way to learn to read or write modern English... By contrast, languages such as Finnish and Korean have very regular spelling systems; rules govern the way words are written, with few exceptions. Finnish also has the added bonus of a nearly one-to-one correspondence between sounds and letters, meaning fewer rules to learn. So after Finnish children learn their alphabet, learning to read is pretty straightforward—they can read well within three months of starting formal learning... ... it typically takes English-speaking children at least 10 years to become moderately proficient spellers—memorizing about 400 new words per year—and because they forget and have to revise many of the spellings they’ve previously learned, "learning to spell is a never-ending chore" """""""""""""""""""""""""" Edited By perttime on 15/02/2015 09:19:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 With appologies to George Bernard Shaw.... GHOTI - Pronounced "Fish" GH as in Tough O as in Women TI as in Nation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Loughbrough pronounced "luffbru" Why isnt it pronounced "Luffbruff" or "Loabro" Leominster - Pronounced "Lemster" Rules? English in the same breath??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmBuff Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I remember raising the standard of grammar used on this forum and received a barrage of criticism that at times bordered on personal insults. 😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 What is it about the UK that is resistant to simplification of our language. In some respects it is bizarre that many will defend and justify grammar and spellings that defy any logic. The Victorian it appears were enthusiastic about complicating the English language as a symbol of a superior nationhood. I note that the Germans from time to time, officially accept current word usage and structures, whilst committing to the dustbin of history both words, grammar and type faces no longer relevant. Whereas we seek to dislike spellings or new usage of a word and new words, because they have originated typically from the USA. It all seems to be a mind set. Rather than logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.