メッセージ: 90
言語: English
Christa627 (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月8日 14:58:07
Bemused:Berkuz it haz aa ng sawnd and dhen aa g sawnd.Christa627:Christa627 yuu get mii voot.orthohawk:Noo! Riit it liik dhis!Tempodivalse:No, no! MINE!!!!kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:
--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.
Dher is no wa yuu wood be aybl to convins the grammur natseez to disaarm dhemselvz. Am I rite? Just rite down yur rispons heer.
>Dher iz noo waa yuu wud bee aabl tuu kunvins dhu gramr notseez tuu disorm dhemselvz, dhoo.
Singgl vawel foor shoort sawnd, dubl vawel foor long; udhr sawndz ii kan eksplaan laatr.
Just wun kwestion, whii dhe dubl g in singgl?
apalmer27516 (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月9日 0:50:32
--Abraham
lagtendisto (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月9日 10:48:35
Mustelvulpo:In some cases pronunciation can differ within a relatively small area.In my opinion rural areas tend to scrunch syllables contrary everyday life at bigger cities constrains to speak more phonetic than inside rural areas. The more people move into some city the more onsite used phonetics gets one letter one sound like. Unfortunately that way local dialects die off, too. At least that seems to be situation of German language.
ChuckWalter (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月10日 21:15:52
zaragorti (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月10日 21:50:06
oreso:These are nice features!With the possible exception of number 2 in the original post's jpeg ( 'farmers produce produce' ) none of these are nouns made from verbs. While they are homonyms they do not have a common meaning or root. They really are just horrific examples of how confusing English can be. When it comes to making verbs from nouns and vice-versa, Esperanto is the most versatile language I know of.English's ability to take words 'as they are' and use them as nouns or verbs or whatever
orthohawk (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月11日 4:26:44
ChuckWalter:The only problem with reforming English spelling is that all old texts would be fifty times harder to read. I can currently read a King James Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or The Red Badge of Courage and still understand it, but if I've only ever learned phonetic spelling then all of that raw literature would be lost to me. We could still translate them, but that is a lot of work and many books would never be reprinted. I would have to take an “Old English” class in school in order to enjoy historical literature.I'm sure there are spellcheck programs that one could use. Copy and paste and voila! same text in the new spelling.
Alkanadi (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月11日 7:35:15
ChuckWalter:I can currently read a King James Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or The Red Badge of Courage and still understand it, but if I've only ever learned phonetic spelling then all of that raw literature would be lost to me.This is a direct copy-and-paste from the original King James Version of 1611:
"And whosoeuer shall giue to drinke vnto one of these litle ones, a cup of cold water onely, in the name of a disciple, verily I say vnto you, hee shall in no wise lose his reward."
Source
I prefer phonetic spelling. I am sure that with the power of technology we can update these old texts.
Tempodivalse (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月11日 13:36:19
Alkanadi:This is a direct copy-and-paste from the original King James Version of 1611: ...Very old texts (Early Modern English, e.g. Shakespeare-era) will tend to be more phonetic.
Even in post-reform, you will still be able to guess at the meanings of the old words most of the time. It'd be kind of like reading pre-1750 texts in Russian, when the alphabet still had 40 letters and a bunch of odd archaisms we would chuckle at today. Discernible, and with a modicum of study it gets easier.
robbkvasnak (プロフィールを表示) 2015年5月11日 15:42:21