Nooalf Discussion

POSTED BY: m52nickerson
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 13:45
VIEWED: 39366
PAGE 1 of 17

Okay JO753 I have read through the nooalf website now a couple times. You want to debate, lets go.

I would however appreciate if you would not use it here because I do have a hard time reading it. Which I will explain later.

You call this the start of a revolution against institutionalized stupidity, yet on your site I fail to see any type of evidence given for this. I know everyone likes to joke about how stupid people are but in reality the world is getting smarter.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/the-world-is-getting-smarter

Your profile claims that because of nooalf you can think about some things better. Really? In all my years of life I can't say that I had ever thought about how a word is spelled an idea was turning in my brain. I don't picture words in my head.

So what is the point of all this. I see no valid reason for it. Spelling being hard, or not phonetic is not a valid reason. English is not a phonetic language. Written English is not designed to communicate phonetics, but knowledge. This fact is very important because one of the first things that are hurt by a change to nooalf or any phonetic spelling system would be this passing of knowledge.

One of the best things someone who is going into a science field is to learn some Latin. Having even a basic knowledge of Latin roots can very effectively allow someone to understand the meaning of words they have never seen. Thing is many of these words are not pronounced as they are written. Biology is one such word. When one sees the word they can easily recognize the roots and understand it's meaning.

Even when the roots of words do not reveal it's meaning that word itself can have a very meaningful purpose. 1,2-Dibromoethane not only names a compound but also tells someone what the exact makeup of that chemical is. Without spelling rules you lose that. Some people mat spell it just as it is, but go over to the UK or else where in the world and listen to how they say it.

Plus standardized spelling also allows a person to quickly look up the mean of any word they do not know the meaning of. Without standard rules dictionaries would become unruly. Making it that much harder for someone to understand.

That leads me to the next point and sever weakness of trying to make English a phonetic language. Who phonetics are you going to use? A person from the Midwest pronounces words a lot different than a person from Scotland. The Welsh and the folks from Minnesota also a bit different. Than you have those around New Orleans. Any difficulty you have with understanding someone with a different dialect is just going to be amplified if they are spelling words how they pronounce them. Just take an American and a Brit and see how they pronounce "methane". However put that word on the side of a tank and everyone understands what it is.

So now we have just made it harder for people who speak the same language but have different dialects to communicate in the one way that is common to every English speaker.

That also means that if this cluster went into effect and children are taught this it would be near impossible to go back a read older works. Shakespeare can be hard know, it would be impossible for someone taught this. Yes, it could be converted, but again into what dialect?

Finally we have the fact that not all people find phonetics all that useful. People who are deaf from birth or a young age do not lean language though sound. For them reading language that does not have spelling standards would be near impossible. I myself are not deaf but have hearing loss and growing up a speech impediment. I struggled with language, still do. I have never been a good speller, but that have never held me back in any type of critical thinking. I also have a very hard time sounding words out. So when I read now, which I can do pretty fast I tend to look at words as a unit, as a complete symbol. That means like many the most important parts of the word for me is the beginning and the end

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Shakespeare wrote in a time when they didn't have standardized spelling.

It's actually a relatively recently thing, that was invented with the dictionary.

While it's convenient, I don't think a wide variety of spelling or bad spelling is a deal breaker in terms of the transfer of knowledge. Ultimately just having a set alphabet is already a big step towards simplicity compared to some other languages (Chinese, I'm looking at you).

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Shakespeare also invented a lot of words. Most of which he did to make the language of his plays sound prettier. It is one of he reasons Shakespeare is not easy reading.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Shakespeare also invented a lot of words. Most of which he did to make the language of his plays sound prettier. It is one of he reasons Shakespeare is not easy reading.

---

Ironically, I didn't have any problem reading Shakespeare, and was usually the one translating it. I also think a lot of people just find him pretentious in this day and age, and are opposed to trying to understand it.

Reminds me, we once went to The Taming of the Shrew in class and the man who played Petruchio did pages and pages of that dialogue and all the idiots in my ADVANCED ENGLISH CLASS could whinge about was that he was overweight... I told them when they could do what he just did then they could talk- but until then SHUT UP. I wish I could go back in time and say it where the guy could hear me. Couldn't have been easy doing Shakespeare for clueless teens.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

M52, all your points are valid. As annoying and inconsitent as English spelling is, we are speaking and reading our linguistic history, with the mash of languages and cultures that have gone into creating it.

Phonetics of any particular word will vary greatly from place to place, as does language usage. Let it evolve freely, I say.

David Mitchell on Americanisms for some light relief

How do you pronounce?

scone
(rhymes with Tron)

clerk
(rhymes with dark)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

1,2-Dibromoethane

Ah. Chemistry. Familiar territory. I felt my brain relaxing.

"Who phonetics are you going to use?"

Joke I heard a long time ago. An east-coaster was traveling and happened to be in Texas, in a restaurant for dinner. He asked the waitress what was the special, but was stumped with one time - balled, or, bald potatoes. After some back and forth, with him wondering were these potatoes in balls or was bald another way of indicating 'peeled' he asked the waitress to spell it out. And she said - you know - balled. b.o.i.l.e.d. ...

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thanks for the support, Byte.

I hav found that objectorz often hav a poor awareness uv the history uv English and assume the spelling haz been the same forever.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Okay JO753 I have read through the nooalf website now a couple times. You want to debate, lets go.

---

Congrats! However, I think you may hav gotten sidetracked sumwhere, considering sum your following comments. Therez a section called Krazy JOz Bad Lojik Skeet Shooting Club that dealz with the most common objectionz to reform.

Quote:

---

I would however appreciate if you would not use it here because I do have a hard time reading it.

---

The casual and inconsistent fonetic improvements I uze in forumz iznt Nooalf.

Az I stated in the other thred, its to wear out your inner spelling cop. Think uv it az exersizing an unuzed muscle.

Quote:

---

You call this the start of a revolution against institutionalized stupidity, yet on your site I fail to see any type of evidence given for this.

---

I dont hav the resourcez to do a proper study on the effect uv nonsense on human thinking abilityz. And seriously, how woud that be conducted?

However, I do hav my own experience and its not hard to understand the basic hypothesis. If you giv sumwun bad info frum the start on a subject, intentionally bilding a bad lojik structure in their hed, without any correctiv input, how can they help being confuzed wen finally confrunted with reality? Our mindz are not a bunch uv completely isolated programz. Everything influensez everything else to sum degree.

Kidz get the idea uv authority based thinking hammered into their hedz even befor starting skool. Its not just the culture, its part uv the social nature uv our speciez. Conform or be cast out.

Quote:

---

I know everyone likes to joke about how stupid people are but in reality the world is getting smarter.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/the-world-is-getting-smarter

---

---

I think sum people are getting smarter and otherz dummer; that there woud be a divergence soon, if other factorz werent developing to stop it. (genetic engineering & direct computer/brain interaction)

Therez a debate going on now about our intelligence relative to our ancestorz. Cave men had bigger brainz, but wether that meanz they were smarter iz in question.

[url] http://news.discovery.com/human/shrinking-brains-intelligence-110207.h
tml[/url]

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? If you believe in evolution, you hav to take it seriously!

Quote:

---

Your profile claims that because of nooalf you can think about some things better. Really?

---

My brother consistently scored higher on IQ tests than I did, yet I am alwayz the wun explaning thingz and finding the flawed lojik.

Granted, its possible that its transpozing cauze & effect and personal anecdotes are weak evidence, but I believe comparison between nativ English speakerz and thoze with languagez with better orthografyz will support the notion.

Quote:

---

So what is the point of all this. I see no valid reason for it. Spelling being hard, or not phonetic is not a valid reason.

---

You claimed to hav read the site a couple timez. Much uv it iz about the many advantajiz for change.

Quote:

---

Written English is not designed to communicate phonetics, but knowledge. This fact is very important because one of the first things that are hurt by a change to nooalf or any phonetic spelling system would be this passing of knowledge.

---

1. Written English wuz not 'designed' at all.
2. Wut makes you think it cant do both? Your premise impliez that spoken English cannot tranzmit knowledge.
3. There iz no majik within traditional spelling that communicates info better than a fonetic system.

Quote:

---

One of the best things someone who is going into a science field is to learn some Latin.

---

Latin iz a fonetic spelling system.

Quote:

---

Having even a basic knowledge of Latin roots can very effectively allow someone to understand the meani

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME