To get in on this wonderful debate, can I say that RK and Stevertigo are both full of it?
In particular, phonetic spelling is never going to come and is, in my opinion, not particularly desirable. It would, among other things, make any older book ultimately unreadable. English came to its current (relatively) standardized orthography by a lengthy process of natural development, for the most part. Further, I'd say that spelling is surely one of the least difficult parts of learning a foreign language. The process of foreign language learning (as opposed to learning one's own native language) is geared towards seeing the words in print, and I'd say I'm probably considerably less likely to misspell words in French or German than I am in English, simply because I associate French and German words at least as much with what they look like in print as with what they sound like. And French words are at least as non-phonetically spelled as English words, although the pronunciations associated with the non-phoneticness in French is probably more standard than in English.
In any event, how would any mass spelling revision even come about?
In any event, the issue of spelling really has very little to do with the initial question, which had more to do with grammar (and with wikipedia, even!). And I genuinely don't understand the argument that using correct grammar is somehow cultural imperialism. Like spelling, English grammar rules evolved over centuries, and have, for the most part, been followed in written language (with some variations, as who/whom problems, for instance). The fact that somebody who has learned English as a second language does not know how to properly express an idea in English suggests to me that it ought to be corrected, not that somehow us native English-speakers are exercising our cultural hegemony over non-native English speakers. Personally, I wouldn't mind if a native French speaker exerted their cultural hegemony over a hypothetical effort on my part to write something in French by correcting improper grammar (and word use, perhaps). In fact, I would hope that that would be done. I don't see how having articles written in some kind of pidgin would have any value over being written in proper English. Would the incorrect English written by a native speaker of Chinese be more or less intelligible to a native speaker of Russian than correct English? I don't see why the former would be, at the very least.
In any event, I shall maintain my ridiculously Burkean views on this subject against all you linguistic Jacobins.
best,
John Kenney (jlk7e)
jlk7e (John Kenny) wrote in part:
To get in on this wonderful debate, can I say that RK and Stevertigo are both full of it?
We're trying to practise WikiLove here, even if all of us feel the same way privately.
In particular, phonetic spelling is never going to come and is, in my opinion, not particularly desirable. It would, among other things, make any older book ultimately unreadable. English came to its current (relatively) standardized orthography by a lengthy process of natural development, for the most part.
And what impositions by unnatural means have occured weren't always so great! They put the silent "S" back in "isle" (where it hadn't been missed) -- and at the same time put one in "island" that had never before existed. Then Webster changed "-ise" to "-ize", putting the United States out of step with every other English speaking country, while failing to (as he wanted) phoneticise the usage of "s" (instead just switching one rule for another).
In any event, how would any mass spelling revision even come about?
Webster tried, but he was only able to affect one country. Shaw tried, but he wasn't able to affect anybody permanently. LittleDan may try with a decentralised approach -- we'll see how well he does.
In any event, the issue of spelling really has very little to do with the initial question, which had more to do with grammar (and with wikipedia, even!). And I genuinely don't understand the argument that using correct grammar is somehow cultural imperialism. Like spelling, English grammar rules evolved over centuries, and have, for the most part, been followed in written language (with some variations, as who/whom problems, for instance).
The main point (IMO) of the accusers of cultural imperialism is that the variations over the centuries have been much greater! This is true even in the written language, but more so in the spoken, and that a language hasn't been written down much before is little argument against writing it now (see [[nds:]] aka [[za:]]). Bangladeshi dialect would qualify here -- they learn this natively and are hardly making *mistakes*.
Now, there's a question as to whether what JTDirl was *originally* complaining about is this, or ESL users that *are* making mistakes. But this is, I think, what SV and RK are arguing about *now*.
As for Wikipedia, I still believe that every participant in this debate is changing things to standard, internationally understood written forms (sometimes even changing one standard form to another, which is OK too). So interesting as the debate is, I doubt that it'll have any impact on Wikipedia!
-- Toby
I wrote in part:
The main point (IMO) of the accusers of cultural imperialism is that the variations over the centuries have been much greater!
Erg ... I *meant*: the variations that we have *today* as a *result* of the evolution over the centuries (which the OP referred to).
Now, there's a question as to whether what JTDirl was *originally* complaining about is this, or ESL users that *are* making mistakes. But this is, I think, what SV and RK are arguing about *now*.
"this" in the last sentence refers to the same as "this" in the first: all the stuff that came before. They're not arguing over the question.
See, this is why I read my posts again when they come through in the digest! ^_^
-- Toby