Nooalf Discussion

POSTED BY: m52nickerson
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 13:45
VIEWED: 39366
PAGE 2 of 17

Part of the information our written language communicates is its own complex history. Part of the information we get from the many contradictory spellings in English are clues to the many other languages we've borrowed our words from. The history of our laguange from before it was even English is embedded in our words. Destroying all that with radically simplified spelling would make our laguage poorer, less meaningful. Less connected to our history as English speakers. More convenient, sure, easier in some ways, perhaps less politically embarrassing, but to say nothing worth while would be lost would be churlish.

I think of the inconsistancies of our written language not as mere chaos but as pieces of a complex, fascinating puzzle. They're like our laguage's scars; the marks of experience on the body of our language that makes it unique. We're all tempted at one time or another by the idea of somehow erasing our scars, but it's a bad, bad idea. Wisdom and age know better.

I love that language evolves. But the best part of that evolution is that it's never perfect.

Which is not to say that I, in any way, object to any individual spelling as he or she sees fit--that's all part of personal expression and that's pretty sacred to me. But if somebody wants to come along and remove all the unsightly wrickles and blemishes from MY language, I will reach way back into my pre-English history and tell him to go fuck himself!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Yes I looked at it. It does not address anything I brought up here.

---

Not word for word, but your general ideas are adressed either there or elswhere on the site.

This debate will go on indefinitely if you dont admit points based on the concepts.

Quote:

---

Spelling is not bad information, simply a standard.

---

Think uv spelling az the material the ritten language iz made uv.

Woud you spend 10,000,000$ to bild a house out uv the wreckage uv other housez, all the bits uv dry wall, vinyl siding, rotting wood etc., or spend 500,000$ to make it out uv new stainless steel?

The point iz that a haphazard standard only works at all due to the great effort everybody makes to learn and maintain it. A standard based on lojik and efficiency works for everybody insted uv everybody working for it.

Quote:

---

A certain level of conformity is need for society.

---

True. But wut iz being taught failz to conform to lojik, thus teaching kidz that lojik iz not important.

Quote:

---

Yes, but I don't take it (Idiocracy) as a serious look at the future.

---

You shoud if you believe in evolution. The danjer iz real.

Quote:

---

Hey did you hear we put a badass rover on Mars...with a hovering crane?

---

Who iz 'we'? Its not the case that you can take anybody off the street and they will be able to dezine a marz rover if you pay them enuf. You cant even select only Ph.D engineerz and expect a successful dezine. Talent counts for more than just playing ball.

Quote:

---

1. Okay, I never stated that it was designed.

---

From your OP:

Quote:

---

Written English is not designed to communicate phonetics, but knowledge.

---

Quote:

---

2. No, I made a statement regarding written English. I imply nothing about spoken English.

---

This iz an example uv not going by ideaz. The idea that standardization itself iz the essential concept for correct transfer uv information and that firmly linking that standard to the spoken language will degrade this iz adressed here: [url] http://www.nooalf.com/DEBUNK2.html] in the 4th PULL!

Quote:

---

Really, debunked? Citation needed.(using root word etymology to figure out wut an unfamiliar word meanz)

---

Also adressed on that Debunk paje, but you are challenging my claim that it wuz debunked centuryz ago.

Sum thingz dont lend themselvez to Googling. I tried, but it kept bring up the etymology uuv the wordz I included with 'etymology'.

So, just consider a few reazonable interpretationz uv common wordz from the perspective uv sumwun who duznt know ancient Greek, Latin, German and a few dozen other languajez:

Microscope: A pocket telescope.

Telephone: A phone you can use at a distance. like them newfangled speaker fonez that understand commandz.

Shampoo: Fake shit.

Internet: A net within a net to seperate smaller fish.

Inflammable: Fire proof.

Quote:

---

Oh, I think it is lazy for people not to learn how to spell new words properly.

---

Dont you think its lazy to not make the effort to organize things?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
The basic concept uv standardizing the letter to sound correspondence fixez that problem. (dialects proliferating and diverjing)

---

How so?

---

Also addressed in the Debunks. Wen everything you read iz ritten in a standard fonetic system, you can see and examine the difference from how you say it.

Nooalf can spell dialects and accents AND hav a standard.

Quote:

---

That fine for the pronunciations, but we are talking about the actual spelling.

---

Thus the basic concept.

Quote:

---

So you have that software and have tested it to find that it is 100% accurate?(Nooalf to traditional tranzlation software)

---

Several uv my colleguez hav made tranzlatorz for their reform systemz. I havent yet.

Herez Tom Zurinkasez Truespel tranzlator: [url] http://www.truespel.com/en/[/url]

Hiz system iz rediculously inefficient, but he put alot uv work into development and pr

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Part of the information our written language communicates is its own complex history.....But if somebody wants to come along and remove all the unsightly wrickles and blemishes from MY language, I will reach way back into my pre-English history and tell him to go fuck himself!

---

sore. i hav xu lengx but not xu fleksubilite.

You obviously arent very familiar with that history. 2 books I recommend to everybody, especially people making the historical record etymology case, are [url] http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&a
mp;field-keywords=the+stroy+of+english] and [url] http://www.amazon.com/Art-Spelling-Madness-Method/dp/0393322084/ref=sr
_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351914065&sr=1-1&keywords=the+art+of+spelling].

The spelling wuz the rezult uv alot more kaos than most people realize.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
You obviously arent very familiar with that history.

---

Why be an asshole? What did I say that wasn't true?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

I wuznt being an asshole. Just assessing your level uv knowledge on the subject. And pleez dont take that az an insult, kuz the subject seemz boring to most people, at least befor they start getting into it.

Your inaccurate statements:

Quote:

---

The history of our laguange from before it was even English is embedded in our words.

---

Wordz werent lifted whole and left intact from other languages. They were taken az needed by random individualz and spelled however by everybody who adopted them for centuryz. Scribez tranzlated ancient classics, spelling by their own preference or momentary wim. Typesetterz who didnt speak English added letterz just to fill in rowz. Later, scholarz attempted to correct spellingz by gessing the source language for wordz and roots, very often mistaking Greek or Latin or olde English etc. New wordz were created by ordinary people with no reference at all to the past.

There iz no reliable embedding. And even if there wuz, the notion that any practical advantage coud be gained thats worth 300 billion dollars per year to prezerve iz ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Destroying all that with radically simplified spelling would make our laguage poorer, less meaningful. Less connected to our history as English speakers.

---

Wut destroying? Anybody who really carez to know the history uv the wordz can go to the library and fill their brainz to overflowing. They will learn the best available info frum the most respected academicianz. Far better than taking haf baked gessez based on their own limited knowledge and the peculiar spelling uv any word. "Hmm. The silent L probably indicates a French origin. If I'm correct, I know exactly jack squat more about this word that I've been using since I wuz 7."

So a few centuryz frum now, long after Nooalf haz supplanted the Olde Spelling, elite nerdz can earn the privilij uv entering the holy aisles uv an actual book library, armed with their Oxford Encyclopedia app and track down the orijinz uv KoF, eJYQKAsN, KWiR, etc. without 10 billion people having to learn and then rite cough, education, choir, etc. collectively trillionz uv timez per year. How exciting it will be for the nerdz!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

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

First off I'm debating you, not your best of the 80's style website. I know you are probable desperate to drive traffic to to it but I'm not helping.

You argue that teaching children standard spelling is teaching them that logic does not matter. This could only be true if there is an expectation that words are spelled phonetically. There is no rule for this, nor does there have to be. In saying so you still hand wave away different dialects. Which you claim on your site is because written language is not phonetic. Pretty sure this shows you seem to not understand history.

It really comes down to the fact that you have all these claims, but not one shred of empirical evidence to support them. Even your debunked page is nothing but your opinions. You claim that it has been debunked years ago that the roots of a word can't help someone derive its meaning, yet you give examples of doing just that.

Through this you make a lot of promises, more so than the last use car sales man I talked to. You say texts can be translated to nooalf with 100% accuracy yet you don't have a translating software that can do that. You say nooalf can be standard and be in different dialects. How the fuck would you do that?

My favorite part is claiming that if the rest of the world would wake up and see the problem your friend would win with his system because he is better prepared. Congratulations, you are following in the long history of snake oil salesmen. You invent the cure and than try and convince people they have the disease.

Well no one is buying.

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:
Congratulations, you are following in the long history of snake oil salesmen.

---

Bingo. This schmoe is trying hard to make a sale...

Jo - do you go about posting in your newspeak at all the chat sites you can find, trying to generate traffic for your page and win over converts? Gotta say, I'm just not impressed.

Especially ironic is your reference to Idiocracy. Your odd invention and your dismissal of all nuances of dialect, communication, history, and meaning in written language are right out of that `verse. You want to destroy the richness of written English for everyone because of a disability that a small fraction of people suffer from, though you present no evidence (evidence - not opinion) that your "creative" spelling actually helps. That is straight up Idiocracy.

If you're serious, how about carrying out a study as to your language's efficacy, then submitting the results to a peer-reviewed journal? Do that, rather than waving your hands and repeating your (somewhat cluttered and hard to read) opinions, and maybe you'll get more positive responses.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Wordz werent lifted whole and left intact from other languages.

---

I never said they were.

Quote:

---

They were taken az needed by random individualz and spelled however by everybody who adopted them for centuryz. Scribez tranzlated ancient classics, spelling by their own preference or momentary wim. Typesetterz who didnt speak English added letterz just to fill in rowz. Later, scholarz attempted to correct spellingz by gessing the source language for wordz and roots, very often mistaking Greek or Latin or olde English etc. New wordz were created by ordinary people with no reference at all to the past.

---

I'm aware of this information. I've read some of the same books you have. You seem to think that these factors have destroyed the coherency of our written language. I don't agree. And I don't think it much matters, really. I see language as a living thing and as one of our most democratic institutions we've got going. Yes, "random" individuals are responsible for what language is. That's not a glitch, it's a feature. :) Usage has always been the final arbiter in what we concider language. We have no Académie française in the English speaking world. We have no New Speak Dictionaries.

I'm curious--and this is my attempt to converse with you--so, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on Orwell's 1984? Do you think he was full of shit about language? Do you see any similarities between what you propose and what he called "New Speak?"

Quote:

---

There iz no reliable embedding. And even if there wuz, the notion that any practical advantage coud be gained thats worth 300 billion dollars per year to prezerve iz ludicrous.

---

See, you want language to be more "reliable" and more "practical" than it is. Good for you. You think you know what a more reliable and practical English language would look like. Interesting. And you think that you can force it to be more reliable and practical somehow. Have at it. Do your worst. Me, I don't need it to be any more reliable or practical than it is. I don't expect it to be more practical or reliable than it is, anymore than I expect my own history to be more practical or reliable than it is. Language is a link to the past. And the past cannot be improved.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to change it. By all means. But your need to change our language is not mine.

Quote:

---

Wut destroying? Anybody who really carez to know the history uv the wordz can go to the library and fill their brainz to overflowing. They will learn the best available info frum the most respected academicianz. Far better than taking haf baked gessez based on their own limited knowledge and the peculiar spelling uv any word. "Hmm. The silent L probably indicates a French origin. If I'm correct, I know exactly jack squat more about this word that I've been using since I wuz 7."

---

And this is you being a dick by presenting your opposition as fools. It's so ironic to me, that you come here and blather on and on about improving language and, from what I see, you haven't the faintest clue about or interest in communicating with the members of this community. Actually communicate, actually reach out and make new connections. Deeply ironic.

Who expects to walk into a room full of strangers and start insulting them and talking down to them and to win them over to his way of thinking? You don't see that that's exactly what you're doing here?

Quote:

---

So a few centuryz frum now, long after Nooalf haz supplanted the Olde Spelling, elite nerdz can earn the privilij uv entering the holy aisles uv an actual book library, armed with their Oxford Encyclopedia app and track down the orijinz uv KoF, eJYQKAsN, KWiR, etc. without 10 billion people having to learn and then rite cough, education, choir, etc. collectively trillionz uv timez per year. How exciting it will be for the nerdz!

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