Are people trolling when they type "rouge"?

[Dalebert]

I can see it as an honest occasional typo but I see it SO much and I often see it multiple times in a row. It comes up so much in the texts that I can't imagine anyone not really knowing how to spell "rogue". It makes me wonder if it is a purposeful accident kind of like "pwned" which started as a typo of "owned" but became familiar and a funny way of saying it.

Just asking this question makes me feel like a noob, though I've been RPGing for decades. Is that the case? Has it become a purposeful misspelling in order to be "cute"?

I cringe every time I see it. I can't help envisioning their character wearing a comical amount of blush on their cheeks or something.

I know. I should just get over it and hop on the cute bandwagon.

[Curaced]

I don't think it's typos or trolling so much as people just not knowing how to spell the word. Rogue is one of the most commonly misspelled words in the english language. People easily get them confused. Those familiar with dnd are less likely to, but it still happens from time to time.

[Dusk Eclipse]

It is probably because rouge is a word itself so spellcheckers won't detect is a wrong.

[Eulalios]

How about the general confusion btwn "horde" and "hoard"? This is culture-wide and for a while I used to ponder whether many journalists had at early ages been mis-directed by Gygax's spelling choices.

HORDE - a large, generally aggressive group of people / creatures / whatever. Like a very big MOB.

HOARD - a large, generally valuable grouping of objects. Like a very big TROVE.

/psa.

[Dalebert]

HOARD - a large, generally valuable grouping of objects. Like a very big TROVE.

Also a verb, I think, in case it wasn't confusing enough.

[Haruki-kun]

Misspelling a word on purpose is not really an attempt to troll. Usually, anyway.

I think it's a combination of things. Not knowing how to spell the word, how easy it is to make a typo, people not being native English speakers (in other languages, the pronunciation would suggest rouge is correct), etc...

[Kalmageddon]

Still not as bad as people writing "emporer" all the time in any WHk40 board.

[Dalebert]

Misspelling a word on purpose is not really an attempt to troll. Usually, anyway.

I admit I'm using the word pretty loosely. Usually it means you're trying to get someone's goat. Sometimes I see people and I picture them saying "Yeah, I spelled it like the cosmetic that you put on your cheeks. Whatchoo gonna do about it?" I just meant are they doing it on purpose knowing it's the wrong spelling. :)

[FinnLassie]

From the perspective of someone who speaks English as a second language, the difference between rouge and rogue is... It's just so damn close! Rouge makes more sense at least to me coming from the Finnish perspective, I mean, phonetically rouge is also much closer in terms of spelling compared to rogue. When pronounced the word ends with a [g] sound, and well, initially looking it feels like rogue should have... something more after the [g] is pronounced, you know?

It's just an easy mistake to make, really. English is one damn weird of a language.

[Dalebert]

It's just an easy mistake to make, really. English is one damn weird of a language.

I'm going to have to concede that point. It's too full of words spelled the same but meaning different things and tons of spelling exceptions to rules, etc.

[Cespenar]

My friend had a teacher who insisted "cavalry" was written as "calvary".

[FinnLassie]

I'm going to have to concede that point. It's too full of words spelled the same but meaning different things and tons of spelling exceptions to rules, etc.

Well, that's what you get with a language that's a pure mix 'n' match of several languages that aren't even related to each other. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[Brother Oni]

There's a saying I remember of 'never attribute to malice what can also be attributed to incompetence'.

Aside from the standard through, thorough and threw and other such misunderstandings, losing and loosing is a common one.

Another I see often is pus and puss.

[Coidzor]

Sometimes it's tongue-in-cheek, other times it's a typo. Since o and u are so close together and if one is trying to flow, sometimes the one hand will get both of them before the other hand makes it to the g. Not sure why, but it sometimes happens when I'm typing quickly, and then I have to go and correct it before I post.


Well, that's what you get with a language that's a pure mix 'n' match of several languages that aren't even related to each other. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

English: Till All Are One! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFHQcKxFd7E)


Still not as bad as people writing "emporer" all the time in any WHk40 board.

People refer to him as anything other than "THE EMPRAH!" these days? :smallconfused:

[Razanir]

When pronounced the word ends with a [g] sound, and well, initially looking it feels like rogue should have... something more after the [g] is pronounced, you know?

So clearly, we Americans should do away with the extra -ue like we did with analog(ue), dialog(ue), and other similar words. Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.

[TuggyNE]

So clearly, we Americans should do away with the extra -ue like we did with analog(ue), dialog(ue), and other similar words. Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.

I can get behind that.

[FinnLassie]

So clearly, we Americans should do away with the extra -ue like we did with analog(ue), dialog(ue), and other similar words. Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.

Having had the major focus on Brit English in school (although we do go through a lot of "what's different in Am. and Brit."), I didn't know those were shortened by you silly 'Murricans as well. :smalltongue: I learn something new everyday, eh. :smallwink:

[Haruki-kun]

The reason for that is that if the word were spelled Rog it would sound like "rug", and that's not how it's pronounced... The "ue" at the end of the word is to denote the long sound of the "o". Roh-oo-g.

EDIT: Analog and Dialog don't really need the "ue", so it works just fine in other types of English.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So clearly, we Americans should do away with the extra -ue like we did with analog(ue), dialog(ue), and other similar words. Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.

Well, the ogue is pronounced differently on rogue than those other two, so it should be roge.

Also, I'm not sure if I knew dialogue could be spelled both ways, or if I only knew it was spelled with a ue. :smallconfused:

[Haruki-kun]

I didn't know about dialogue, either. I'd seen analog spelled both ways, though.

Is this one of those color vs. colour things?

[KillianHawkeye]

There's a saying I remember of 'never attribute to malice what can also be attributed to incompetence'.

I was going to post this. It's known as Hanlon's Razor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)


Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[FinnLassie]

Eh. It should be roug, really, if we want to go with phonetic sense as there is the [ʊ] sound between the [ə] and [g].

I'm not mad about phonetics or anything.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eh. It should be roug, really, if we want to go with phonetic sense as there is the [ʊ] sound between the [ə] and [g].

I'm not mad about phonetics or anything.

But that's for Finnish sounds. I could argue that it should be rog, because then it would be spelled for its sound in Japanese.

[FinnLassie]

But that's for Finnish sounds. I could argue that it should be rog, because then it would be spelled for its sound in Japanese.

I am using the international phonetic alphabet.

[Winter_Wolf]

The people who type "rouge" when they mean rogue are largely the same people who type "tounge" when they mean tongue. Some people just aren't good at spelling and/or proofreading.

We should all be so lucky if that was the extent of people trying to troll.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by axharr
*horde vs. hoard*

This is culture-wide and for a while I used to ponder whether many journalists had at early ages been mis-directed by Gygax's spelling choices.

This has got to be one of the most common and excruciating confusions of homonyms anywhere around, and especially on the interweb. It drives me bonkers.


Originally Posted by Curaced
Rogue is one of the most commonly misspelled words in the english language.

And it works aloud, too. I had a friend in high school who insisted that Rogue, the character from the X-Men, was pronounced "rouge," the powdery kind. I'm not exactly sure what was going on there, but nothing we said could convince him otherwise.


Originally Posted by FinnLassie
English is one damn weird of a language.

Agreed. But imagine how Suomi sounds to us. :smalltongue:

Really, it's not even Indo-European, it's in the Finno-Ugric language family. Sanskrit is closer to English than Suomi.

I have a beginner's language tape in Finnish and it literally gives me headaches. No offense, I'm fascinated by the language, and there are few countries I'd rather visit than Finland...but wow. Hurts my head.


Originally Posted by Razanir
Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.

I was literally putting a bottle of Gatorade to my mouth when I read this. You almost had me.

:smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

From the perspective of someone who speaks English as a second language, the difference between rouge and rogue is... It's just so damn close! Rouge makes more sense at least to me coming from the Finnish perspective, I mean, phonetically rouge is also much closer in terms of spelling compared to rogue. When pronounced the word ends with a [g] sound, and well, initially looking it feels like rogue should have... something more after the [g] is pronounced, you know?

It's just an easy mistake to make, really. English is one damn weird of a language.

In fact, both of these words follow the rules of English. (Yes, they really exist. They are just not simple, and there are exceptions.)

A "g" followed by an "a", "o", or "u", has a hard sound, like in "rogue". A "g" followed by an "e", "i", or "y", has a soft pronunciation, as in "rouge"

There are exceptions, like the word "get" or "girl", but that's the basic rule, which is why "rouge" for "rogue" looks so odd to many of us. It shouldn't be pronounced that way.

[FinnLassie]

In fact, both of these words follow the rules of English. (Yes, they really exist. They are just not simple, and there are exceptions.)

A "g" followed by an "a", "o", or "u", has a hard sound, like in "rogue". A "g" followed by an "e", "i", or "y", has a soft pronunciation, as in "rouge"

There are exceptions, like the word "get" or "girl", but that's the basic rule, which is why "rouge" for "rogue" looks so odd to many of us. It shouldn't be pronounced that way.

I know they follow the rules in English, I didn't study the language in school for 12 years for nothing. :smalltongue: My point still stands though, English is a mix 'n' match of languages not even related to each other with sort of forms the recurring illogicality, exceptions, etc.

The problem is here that from my phonetic perspective, the written form makes little sense, and most folk I know from other non-English language backgrounds agree. It's damn easy to make the mistake even if you knew the rules of the language just because of the silly phonetics. It's an easy part to muddle up when it comes to English.

[dehro]

definately
than/then
youre
Affect vs effect


yes, I understand that english spelling can be challenging.. but.. isn't that what school is there for?
I mean.. US and UK must be the only places where one can actually take part in a spelling bee in school... that's an educational tool right there.

if strangers can learn it, why does it seem to be so hard for actual native english speakers? aren't they using and reading these words regularly enough to learn by repetition alone?
I really don't get how it can be challenging to learn to use words that are very commonly employed in pretty much every conversation.

[ShadowFireLance]

If you read a book on lead, did you learn to lead or did you learn about lead?

:smallcool:
*Ducks from flying books*

[Coidzor]

If you read a book on lead, did you learn to lead or did you learn about lead?

:smallcool:
*Ducks from flying books*

I can't recall any definitions of lead where the former would make sense or parse correctly.

[FinnLassie]

I can't recall any definitions of lead where the former would make sense or parse correctly.

It makes perfect sense to me.

[Coidzor]

It makes perfect sense to me.

It doesn't work for leadership, leading in dancing, story leads, or any of the various X going to Y or A going before B permutations. I'm having to look up definitions in order to try to find one.

[BWR]

I can't recall any definitions of lead where the former would make sense or parse correctly.

The metal lead, I assume.

[FinnLassie]

It doesn't work for leadership, leading in dancing, story leads, or any of the various X going to Y or A going before B permutations. I'm having to look up definitions in order to try to find one.

Why would it not work for leadership?

[Hyena]

HORDE - a large, generally aggressive group of people / creatures / whatever. Like a very big MOB.

HOARD - a large, generally valuable grouping of objects. Like a very big TROVE.

In feudal Europe, you own golden hoards.
In feudal Russia, Golden Horde owns you!

[SiuiS]

I can see it as an honest occasional typo but I see it SO much and I often see it multiple times in a row. It comes up so much in the texts that I can't imagine anyone not really knowing how to spell "rogue". It makes me wonder if it is a purposeful accident kind of like "pwned" which started as a typo of "owned" but became familiar and a funny way of saying it.

Just asking this question makes me feel like a noob, though I've been RPGing for decades. Is that the case? Has it become a purposeful misspelling in order to be "cute"?

I cringe every time I see it. I can't help envisioning their character wearing a comical amount of blush on their cheeks or something.

I know. I should just get over it and hop on the cute bandwagon.

Given how often a divine being is called a diety, I will say no. They aren't trolling. They just don't know how to spell.

[BWR]

Don't get me started on their/there/they're or your/you're
Or 'could of'.
*shudder*

[KillianHawkeye]

if strangers can learn it, why does it seem to be so hard for actual native english speakers? aren't they using and reading these words regularly enough to learn by repetition alone?
I really don't get how it can be challenging to learn to use words that are very commonly employed in pretty much every conversation.

Answer: Some people are dumb, and the rest just don't care about proper spelling.

[FinnLassie]

If people have difficulties with spelling, it doesn't mean they're dumb. :smallsigh: Yes, they might be a bit odd if they're people who are capable of doing it but opt not to for numerous reasons, but for the most part it's much more than being... dumb. *shudder*

[Jay R]

Why would it not work for leadership?

Because "on lead" is a prepositional phrase, and its object needs to be a noun. "Lead" with a short "e" is a metal, and a noun. "Lead" with a long "e" is a verb. You can have a book on leadership, because "leadership" is a noun. But you can't have a book on lead in that sense.

[Razanir]

definately
than/then
youre
Affect vs effect

*definitely (Oh the irony)

[dehro]

*definitely (Oh the irony)

I know.. that's why I put it there. :smallwink:

[Dalebert]

definately
than/then
youre
Affect vs effect


I know those words and their variations well, enough so that it bugs the crap out of me when I see them used incorrectly. That means I'm a total hypocrite because I still mess them up myself sometimes. :smallconfused:

It took me years to get "definite" right after repeatedly getting corrected by the spell-checker. "Your" and "you're" still get me to this day. I use "affect" and "effect" rarely enough that I actually stop and think about it so I'm probably not messing that one up often.

[Jay R]

At one place where I worked, the tech writers referred to continually incorrect spelling as the "seperate compatable delimeter syndrome".

[KillianHawkeye]

If people have difficulties with spelling, it doesn't mean they're dumb. :smallsigh: Yes, they might be a bit odd if they're people who are capable of doing it but opt not to for numerous reasons, but for the most part it's much more than being... dumb. *shudder*

Apologies for my lack of political correctness. One could also be dyslexic or have some other reading/writing-related deficiency. So that makes three options.

I suppose one could also be blind or visually impaired, in which case it's a wonder they're able to spell anything on an Internet forum at all. :smallamused:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

All hail the mighty roag!

[tomandtish]

Just remember:

"Huked awn fawniks werked fur mi"

also known as:

"Hooked on phonics worked for me", a popular phonics based English teaching course back in the 90s that used phonics to help with spelling. People took great pleasure in pointing out that using their method would get none of the words in their course name correct.

[dehro]

*Snigger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kge9ZzjsfW8)

[mucat]

"Necessary" is the one that I always botch. I mean, I know how it's spelled...until I actually try to type it, and then every possible option looks wrong! :smallfurious:

[Jormengand]

Affect vs effect

Of course, you can effect something, but it means something different (to put it into effect.)

[Coidzor]

Why would it not work for leadership?

Because of how the beginning of the sentence is constructed. It would be a book on leadership or leading or how to lead, not a book on lead.


The metal lead, I assume.

That works for the second one, and is why I didn't give that one a second thought. I'm not familiar with any use of the word where you use the metal as a verb though or another definition which would work better in the second sense and relegate the metal to the first sense.

[RFLS]

How about the general confusion btwn "horde" and "hoard"? This is culture-wide and for a while I used to ponder whether many journalists had at early ages been mis-directed by Gygax's spelling choices.

HORDE - a large, generally aggressive group of people / creatures / whatever. Like a very big MOB.

HOARD - a large, generally valuable grouping of objects. Like a very big TROVE.

/psa.


Also a verb, I think, in case it wasn't confusing enough.

Don't forget the homophone that's a verb describing certain *ahem* illicit activities.

[Wardog]

Don't forget the homophone that's a verb describing certain *ahem* illicit activities.

You mean what you might as well have spent your hoard on before the horde arrived?

[dehro]

I don't think I've heard of such a thing.

[sktarq]

I still seriously think we need to expand the alphabet. How about 56 letters? One for each phenome(sp)? Would clear up spelling issues- and saying words incorrectly that have only been seen in written form.

While we are at it-separating the inclusive and non-inclusive "we" would be nice too.

[Aedilred]

I don't think I've heard of such a thing.
It's not a common verb, but it's derived from a noun you'll probably have heard.

I still seriously think we need to expand the alphabet. How about 56 letters? One for each phenome(sp)? Would clear up spelling issues- and saying words incorrectly that have only been seen in written form.
For a moment there I thought you were saying we should have a letter for each pheromone. I'd still be up for that.

[Razanir]

I still seriously think we need to expand the alphabet. How about 56 letters? One for each phenome(sp)? Would clear up spelling issues- and saying words incorrectly that have only been seen in written form.

While we are at it-separating the inclusive and non-inclusive "we" would be nice too.

I believe you mean phoneme

[BWR]

I still seriously think we need to expand the alphabet. How about 56 letters? One for each phenome(sp)? Would clear up spelling issues- and saying words incorrectly that have only been seen in written form.

While we are at it-separating the inclusive and non-inclusive "we" would be nice too.

Is this a serious post?
I'll assume it is.
1. we have the International Phonetic Alphabet. And you run into the problem of 'writing the way we talk', which is that you suddenly have dozens of spellings for words, which makes reading slow down terribly. You have to read aloud to get anywhere fast. To illustrate, at one point there was something like 50 different ways to write 'should'. You don't need that.

2. Tok pisin fixed this with 'mipela' and 'yumipela'
'me-fellow[s]' and 'you-me-fellow[s]'
English steals from everything else, it can steal from its bastard children as well.

[SaintRidley]

definately
than/then
youre
Affect vs effect

Add defiantly alongside definately. That one always boggles my mind to see.

[sktarq]

Is this a serious post?
I'll assume it is.
1. we have the International Phonetic Alphabet. And you run into the problem of 'writing the way we talk', which is that you suddenly have dozens of spellings for words, which makes reading slow down terribly. You have to read aloud to get anywhere fast. To illustrate, at one point there was something like 50 different ways to write 'should'. You don't need that.

2. Tok pisin fixed this with 'mipela' and 'yumipela'
'me-fellow[s]' and 'you-me-fellow[s]'
English steals from everything else, it can steal from its bastard children as well.

It is serious. and well spelling started out that way too. Going through older English manuscripts is a royal pain in the rear because everyone spelled things differently. I figure the same shake out would occur in a Phonetic alphabet rather quickly. There are pronunciation guides in dictionaries for precisely this reason. Just make those guides the actual spelling-then let things evolve. Where do you think I got the 56 from? I went through a dictionary that had them in a table in the front and counted. I don't think that the actual symbols should necessarily be used as I think they could be too easily confused and are often needlessly similar but the idea holds. It isn't about writing as you talk as much talking more like you write just as much if not more.
as for item 2: I like this. Even if I feel that a 3 syllable word doesn't fit with the mostly short ones we have in English I'd still say steal this. Yumi or something. Actually just keep "We" and add "Zee" for ease of getting people to use it.

[dehro]

Add defiantly alongside definately. That one always boggles my mind to see.

Agreed, but it makes more sense because a spell checker won't notice it

[Aedilred]

It is serious. and well spelling started out that way too. Going through older English manuscripts is a royal pain in the rear because everyone spelled things differently. I figure the same shake out would occur in a Phonetic alphabet rather quickly. There are pronunciation guides in dictionaries for precisely this reason. Just make those guides the actual spelling-then let things evolve. Where do you think I got the 56 from? I went through a dictionary that had them in a table in the front and counted. I don't think that the actual symbols should necessarily be used as I think they could be too easily confused and are often needlessly similar but the idea holds. It isn't about writing as you talk as much talking more like you write just as much if not more.
The problem is that the variety of accents out there would render the written language non-phonetic for large portions of its speakerbase pretty much immediately, which rather defeats the point in trying to make it phonetic in the first place. It would also make the language rather harder to learn to read and write in the first place, to say nothing of those who've already learned, because you've doubled the number of characters.

[Karoht]

So clearly, we Americans should do away with the extra -ue like we did with analog(ue), dialog(ue), and other similar words. Henceforth the class shall be known as the Rog.I assure you people will go out of their way to screw that up somehow.

Also...
Sum droods r fer fite!

[The Glyphstone]

And bare durids r 4 tank.


Though any would-be adventurer should have a basic grasp of grammar, to avoid accidentally confusing a dragon hoard with a dragon horde as pointed out by Redcloak in a DCF bonus comic.

[BWR]

It is serious. and well spelling started out that way too. Going through older English manuscripts is a royal pain in the rear because everyone spelled things differently. I figure the same shake out would occur in a Phonetic alphabet rather quickly. There are pronunciation guides in dictionaries for precisely this reason. Just make those guides the actual spelling-then let things evolve. Where do you think I got the 56 from? I went through a dictionary that had them in a table in the front and counted. I don't think that the actual symbols should necessarily be used as I think they could be too easily confused and are often needlessly similar but the idea holds. It isn't about writing as you talk as much talking more like you write just as much if not more.
as for item 2: I like this. Even if I feel that a 3 syllable word doesn't fit with the mostly short ones we have in English I'd still say steal this. Yumi or something. Actually just keep "We" and add "Zee" for ease of getting people to use it.

Oh, I know what it's like to go through old MSS nd try to puzzle out the words, even beyond the spelling (not everyone's handwriting was great, and sometimes time hasn't been kind - but working with real MSS is easier than facsimiles).
But the problem of updating spelling as radically as this is that you are still stuck with letters having several different pronounciations dependant on combinations, unless you want to double the existing alphabet, forcing some radical changes to the existing written standards, and removing much of the point of orthography.
Perhaps most importantly, you are basing the spelling on one particular accent of, in this case, English and that is not very acceptable politically (nor would I be in favor of it ethically). Since standard English orthography is some centuries old and entrenched, there is no real reason to change it now, and various pronounciations are acceptable with one spelling.
Yes, unless spelling is updated periodically you'll end up like French and Irish which, to me at least, seem to ignore half the letters in their words (I know the spelling/pronounciation rules are there and fairly regular, I just don't know what they are), but that's a risk I'm willing to run.

As for Tok Pisin, 'yumi' just means 'you (sg.) and I', as distinct from 'yumipela' 'you, I and at least one other'

[sktarq]

The problem is that the ..., to say nothing of those who've already learned, because you've doubled the number of characters.

yep noted but I think it would shake out fairly quickly-some spellings would change some accents would change and it would be awkward for a bit but less trouble than converting signage overall. And point 2, yep noted but disagree. The comparative edge in learning the rest of the vocabulary faster would outweigh the difficulty increased difficulty learning the alphabet.


Oh, I know what it's like to go through old MSS nd try to puzzle out the words, even beyond the spelling (not everyone's handwriting was great, and sometimes time hasn't been kind - but working with real MSS is easier than facsimiles).
But the problem of updating spelling as radically as this is that you are still stuck with letters having several different pronounciations dependant on combinations, unless you want to double the existing alphabet, forcing some radical changes to the existing written standards, and removing much of the point of orthography.
Perhaps most importantly, you are basing the spelling on one particular accent of, in this case, English and that is not very acceptable politically (nor would I be in favor of it ethically). Since standard English orthography is some centuries old and entrenched, there is no real reason to change it now, and various pronounciations are acceptable with one spelling.
Yes, unless spelling is updated periodically you'll end up like French and Irish which, to me at least, seem to ignore half the letters in their words (I know the spelling/pronounciation rules are there and fairly regular, I just don't know what they are), but that's a risk I'm willing to run.

As for Tok Pisin, 'yumi' just means 'you (sg.) and I', as distinct from 'yumipela' 'you, I and at least one other'

Firstly doubling the alphabet is exactly where I started from. To 56 actually. As that is the number of symbols used to describe the language phonetically in dictionaries I've checked. As for the "standard" be old and outdated....I'm proposing to double the alphabet and change the spelling of nearly every word in the language - an update to those rules would be in order anyway. As for erring into the Franco/Irish problem that is simply an risk I think is not worth running-it eats at efficiency all over. It makes it harder to non native speakers to learn the language. Also would the change be going around telling people not to talk like they used to? Not directly. But give it 20 years and it will settle out. People said that Australia and the UK could never go metric. They did it was awkward but it has gone alright overall. Now my aunts (who are in their 50's and grew up on the imperial system) have to have me convert everything but miles into metric when I talk to them. I think the same thing would happen in language. And for the Tok pisin (which I'm going to assume is a pidgin tongue) I commend the idea but I'm not sure I direct swipe would work so well in English cadence is all.

[Aedilred]

yep noted but I think it would shake out fairly quickly-some spellings would change some accents would change and it would be awkward for a bit but less trouble than converting signage overall. And point 2, yep noted but disagree. The comparative edge in learning the rest of the vocabulary faster would outweigh the difficulty increased difficulty learning the alphabet.
And who decides which accent is "correct" and therefore the basis for spelling? We've had a standardised spelling in English for 250 years, and if anything we have more accents now than we did then. Changing the way things are spelt really isn't going to change pronunciation. In fact, spelling in English used to be generally phonetic (back in the day) and the pronunciation changed (which is why quite a lot of our lexicon is currently spelt non-phonetically).

Just to take something straightforward, how would you spell "going to"? Because however you spell it, some people are going to pronounce that "gunna".

It's also worth bearing in mind that writing English in IPA would also retard reading comprehension in other languages based on the Latin alphabet. I really don't think the long-term benefits of such a change outweigh the disadvantages, especially the short-term ones.

Oh, and on the metric point, the UK still isn't fully metric and after forty years of stubbornness the EU has officially given up on trying to make it happen. I can't see it happening with language.

[FinnLassie]

The problem is that the variety of accents out there would render the written language non-phonetic for large portions of its speakerbase pretty much immediately, which rather defeats the point in trying to make it phonetic in the first place. It would also make the language rather harder to learn to read and write in the first place, to say nothing of those who've already learned, because you've doubled the number of characters.

Woooord. Phonetics are quite interesting and something that bring difficulty to children in school, but transforming the whole written language in to the phonetic standards? Crazy.

I think this is sort of related... It was funny being on placement in a school here in Scotland where they used a phonics scheme made in England for majorly English accents. Kids were learning how to write the 'er' in words like fern. In the audio the guy pronounced it as [fəːn], and it got the children and the teacher a bit confused as in Scotland it's more [fɛrn].

[sktarq]

And who decides which accent is "correct" and therefore the basis for spelling? We've had a standardised spelling in English for 250 years, and if anything we have more accents now than we did then. Changing the way things are spelt really isn't going to change pronunciation. In fact, spelling in English used to be generally phonetic (back in the day) and the pronunciation changed (which is why quite a lot of our lexicon is currently spelt non-phonetically).
Firstly we have a pretty much standard way of pronouncing words. It exists. Most of it is done but we sure don't spell it that way. And it is not going wipe out accents, or anything. Look at say the word "water" it is one of the least accent-able words in general-flat as its taste. But that doesn't stop Boston from saying "whada" - it still wont stop them if water is spelled with a different letter to specify a soft "a" sound and they will still drop the "r" even if the e in front of it is removed as unnecessary. If spelling it "going" does not prevent some people from saying "gunna" then clearing up that it is not "guh-ing" for those blind to social history that it is a hard "oh" sound won't either. And that is an extreme example even most accents don't change phonemes-we remember the ones that do. Turning creek into crick (as I've found from Montana to Alabama) is memorable and also doable in writing but that is true of only a small part of accents. Most change emphasis, tone, and length of sounds. Also to clarify, I'm not saying we should make everybody write like they speak or speak exactly like they write with roaming grammar police. People will still be lazy with their t's turning them into d's. This wouldn't be a change about making the written language sound like how it is spoken - that is already a false idea. People don't write like they talk. The written language and the spoken one are closely related but different beasts but that doesn't mean that the written one should be so internally inconsistent.

As for writing in any other alphabet like IPA or an equivalent and being thus worse to learn other Latin Alphabet based languages one could say it would make learning non Latin based ones such Russian, Hindi, Arabic, or Korean easier. It would also make the changed language easier for others to learn-and that brings advantages.

It the sociological equivalent of the Vargas nerve in a giraffe. It is easier to stretch it a little bit farther as the heart moves away from the head than the reset to having the nerve run just a strait line. While it is cheaper for each one of that little further extension the overall cost I think is significant. And biologically it might be impossible but language is a social construct and can be changed by social will. Exactly who to rely on for a baseline and how to manage it would be questions to that society; personally, I'd probably keep the same sorts of lexicographers who have been keeping up our spelling for the past 250 years- dictionary people.
Also everybody reading this has sunk a significant amount of brain power in learning at least most of the rules of spelling in about 4 mostly dead languages Middle English, Middle French, Latin, Some Greek, and a polyglot of bits and pieces. That is a huge mental cost but frankly one seems to drive people to protect their investment-a sunk cost that I frankly don't think is worth defending anymore.

[Aedilred]

Firstly we have a pretty much standard way of pronouncing words. It exists.
Not really. There's a substantial difference between standard American English and standard British English, for starters, not to mention the rest of the Anglosphere. Sure, they may be broadly similar, but they're different enough to stymie any attempt at phonetic spelling from the outset, especially as most of the issues are with vowels. You could eliminate silent consonants, but, for instance, is the "standard pronunciation" rhotic or not?


And it is not going wipe out accents, or anything.
Of course it isn't, but then what's the point in a standardised phonetic spelling based on IPA if it's not actually phonetic for a large proportion of speakers?

I don't see how it's going to help new speakers in the long run, either. The whole point is surely to make life easier for people learning the language, but we'd saddled them with double the number of symbols to learn and interpret. It makes English less accessible for foreign speakers of languages written in a Latin-based script, not more, and I don't really see how it makes life easier for English speakers trying to learn languages in other scripts since it wouldn't match any of them.

All it would do is reset the clock on the divergence between the written and spoken languages from whenever the spellings were originally formalised. There are no real long-term benefits since spelling and pronunciation would immediately begin to diverge again and in a number of cases would never have stopped. Moreover there's a colossal sunk opportunity cost in retraining every existing English speaker in the new writing system, including many who struggle to read as it is.

Leaving aside the practical issue of the absence of a central body to enforce this change and the fact that English is spoken in such a wide variety of jurisdictions, maybe, in fifty years or so, it would eventually correct itself in states where English is already the standard. But it would be a massive, probably critical, setback to English as a world language, because it's just not worth retraining everybody retraining their second-language speakers in New Written English and while things shook themselves out people would switch to a new lingua franca that remained steady. Even in places like the US where there's already an established and growing second language, you'd probably find Spanish overtaking.

Maybe there are a couple of places where English spelling could do with shoring up, but the effort it would take to execute that would probably be better spent training people in the existing spellings. I can't see how a radical change to the writing system itself such as you suggest wouldn't do more harm than good.

[dehro]

http://doblelol.com/thumbs/why-english-hard-learn-funny_4628051651199889.jpg

[nedz]

Having cleverly beaten the evil rouge by means of a make-up contest, the party headed down to the treasure room, where they found a hoard of trolls.


What? Hey, it could happen!
But it can get confusing when you find a chest full of Jumping Caltrops or similar.

[sktarq]

Not really. There's a substantial difference between standard American English and standard British English, for starters, not to mention the rest of the Anglosphere. Sure, they may be broadly similar, but they're different enough to stymie any attempt at phonetic spelling from the outset, especially as most of the issues are with vowels. You could eliminate silent consonants, but, for instance, is the "standard pronunciation" rhotic or not? A bit of personal History I grew up social almost entirely with the British ex pat community in California. They came from all over the UK and ended up making up about 10% of the local population of our little Shangrila. Funny enough my single biggest spelling issues are with UK/US differences. But sound wise, no they may sound rather different but they use the same phenomes in the same order. Specific examples to the contrary can be found in both nations but I've only found a handful of examples in which there is really much debate. The accents are almost entirely emphasis, tone, and length issues. I've traveled both nation significantly and never had trouble understanding people (including the Scottish Highlands) using accents (Dialects with new words such as Cajun-no dice). And even when a group does have a phonetic difference I have not met more than a couple that are not a huge majority/minority split. The "normal" phonetic sequence is pretty well standard.



i don't see how it's going to help new speakers in the long run, either. The whole point is surely to make life easier for people learning the language, but we'd saddled them with double the number of symbols to learn and interpret. It makes English less accessible for foreign speakers of languages written in a Latin-based script, not more, and I don't really see how it makes life easier for English speakers trying to learn languages in other scripts since it wouldn't match any of them.
Yes double the number of initial symbols....and dead easy spelling and interpretation from then on. I actually got onto this idea from ESL students. There were a ton at the schools I went to and particularly in late grade and middle school (ages 8-12) when I was dealing with people in the US in large part to learn English they regularly came to me asking about some word or another. The most common issue was trying to figure out how some combination of letters sound in that particular case. I doubt I ever would have thought English was quite as messed up if I didn't have to deal with intelligent people looking at me as if I was dumber than a dog for how inconsistent the language was that I took for granted.[/QUOTE]



All it would do is reset the clock on the divergence between the written and spoken languages from whenever the spellings were originally formalised. There are no real long-term benefits since spelling and pronunciation would immediately begin to diverge again and in a number of cases would never have stopped. Moreover there's a colossal sunk opportunity cost in retraining every existing English speaker in the new writing system, including many who struggle to read as it is.
Firstly English has become more regionally normalized than it used to be not less since the introduction regularized spelling and the like. So much so that dialects of English are having to be carefully preserved. I'd argue that a standard reference accelerated that and limited drift. And while yes retraining would be difficult for some I would not be advocating


Leaving aside the practical issue of the absence of a central body to enforce this change and the fact that English is spoken in such a wide variety of jurisdictions, maybe, in fifty years or so, it would eventually correct itself in states where English is already the standard. But it would be a massive, probably critical, setback to English as a world language, because it's just not worth retraining everybody retraining their second-language speakers in New Written English and while things shook themselves out people would switch to a new lingua franca that remained steady. Even in places like the US where there's already an established and growing second language, you'd probably find Spanish overtaking.
Again because I would see a transition period for whatever areas would make such a change that this issue is rather irrelevant. (Some things would be written in both for years because some things are more resistant to change). Where do I think such a change would first be accepted. Text msgs, emails, and signs. Have forms in both. Teach kids both and see which one they remember, ask for and start using.

[SiuiS]

*definitely (Oh the irony)

That's the point; if he said "definitely" them he would be complaining that people spell the word right.


Just remember:

"Huked awn fawniks werked fur mi"

Ironically, pronouncing that phonetically didn't get me anywhere close to hooked on phonics. I was wondering what huking was (juke and ukulele), I audibly pronounce the difference in on and awn, fawn is a work so adding iks just made it like beatnik, and fur is nowhere remotely close to how the word for is pronounced by anyone who enunciates clearly. Mi also is most likely to use Japanese vowel structure stuff.

Man. That was a weird sentence. That program must have sucked.


*Snigger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kge9ZzjsfW8)

And then it's four hours later and I was doig something, wasn't I?


"Necessary" is the one that I always botch. I mean, I know how it's spelled...until I actually try to type it, and then every possible option looks wrong! :smallfurious:

Yeah. Nothing worse that when EVERY variant of a word looks wrong.


I don't think I've heard of such a thing.


Add defiantly alongside definately. That one always boggles my mind to see.

My favorite? When people say they would like to see people be outspoken about a fictional character. And then I realize they dropped either an extra T or an apostrophe and want the fictional character statted out, not stated.

[Devils_Advocate]

Using a phonetic representation of spoken English wouldn't require standardizing on a particular accent. People with different accents could just spell words differently, and the differences would be exactly as minor a barrier to communication as they are orally. Surely different accents of spoken English correspond more closely to each other than they do to written English, so that the overall difficult in translating between different modes of the language would be less under such a system than we have now? Written English doesn't play the same role in facilitating communication between speakers of mutually unintelligible dialects as written Chinese, say. (At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case with Chinese.)

Mind you, it's still a fairly ridiculous proposal. For starters, I can't imagine how one would convince people to do such a thing. More importantly, surely there are so many various patches that would benefit natural language that a switch to a conlang would be a more efficient improvement?

[dehro]

And then it's four hours later and I was doig something, wasn't I?


hey there.. join the club, we have cocktails with tiny umbrellas in them.

[BWR]

Using a phonetic representation of spoken English wouldn't require standardizing on a particular accent. People with different accents could just spell words differently, and the differences would be exactly as minor a barrier to communication as they are orally. Surely different accents of spoken English correspond more closely to each other than they do to written English, so that the overall difficult in translating between different modes of the language would be less under such a system than we have now? Written English doesn't play the same role in facilitating communication between speakers of mutually unintelligible dialects as written Chinese, say. (At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case with Chinese.)


Spoken (ha) by someone who hasn't really come across the really odd dialects and accents in English. Fact of the matter is that having a single written standard does make things a lot easier to read and understand. Certes, it's not quite the same as Chinese but there are some very different dialects out there.
Would "ee laowpt oor yawt" mean much to anyone?
Or my sister who wanted a "diktar sat" for her birthday?
Or in the words of Mark Twain: "Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld."
Not everyone understands all accents and trying to find out what people are saying is hard enough IRL, never mind trying to read it. Just look at how many people complained at whatisname in Agents of SHIELD for having an impenetrable Scottish accent. That accent was recognizably Scottish but that's it. Since everyone should write phonemically, youæll have no differentiation between English and Scots (http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spellin_an_grammar) (which is easy to read, compared to other stuff you'll get.

Then you'll have to factor in all the non-native English dialects and accents. Without standard spelling they will have little or no clue how to pronounce new words or how to write what they already do know and if you have spoken to people who really can't speak good English you will know just what a mess that will be.

Apart from spending way too much time puzzling out what people are trying to say, as well as lexical differences, the translation of old works into the new version will be too time consuming and expensive to be worth if for most books, leading to an even greater gap between new and old.