Al la enhavo
Respondi

Du ju andestend?

de vedev, 2009-marto-26

Mesaĝoj: 25

Lingvo: English

henma (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-26 18:18:01

fizikisto:Shouldn't be the correct translation:

Aj andestend perfektli ŭot ju vroŭt hir, bat on ve kontreri, du ju andestend mi?
If jes, ven esperanto is no longer nided.
Aj ŭud prifer "on de kontreri" end "den esperanto...", bat dat cud bi bikoŭs Aj spijk Speniŝ es maj prajmari lendĵeŝ... okulumo.gif

(Dis luks rili agli)

Amike,

Daniel.

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-26 18:50:41

vedev:English spelling is terrible. why you will not produce revolution in this terrible spelling? ploro.gif
Actually, I myself would approve of such a revolution. Here is a society that agrees with you. But it will be difficult to get such reform accepted, because it would make it more difficult to read the English literature of the past 500 years.

jchthys (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-26 23:50:57

Miland:
vedev:English spelling is terrible. why you will not produce revolution in this terrible spelling? ploro.gif
Actually, I myself would approve of such a revolution. Here is a society that agrees with you. But it will be difficult to get such reform accepted, because it would make it more difficult to read the English literature of the past 500 years.
Ugh! I saw that society send a few solitary members to picket the National Spelling Bee in Washington the past few years.

furrykef (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-27 01:18:22

One of the problems is, it's impossible to regularize English spelling in a neutral fashion. There are many cases in English were two words are homonyms for one speaker, but not for another. If you don't accommodate all of them, then differences in pronunciation won't be reflected. If you do accommodate all of them, then English spelling will still be pretty complex and not representative of how it's really spoken in any given dialect. And if you decide to spell different dialects differently, people will have trouble reading each others' writing. You can't win.

- Kef

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-27 10:37:34

An interesting summation of the most often cited reasons for the impossibility of English spelling reform can be found here.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-29 06:39:18

vedev:
Miland:
vedev: du ju andestend vot aj printid hia? Iz it izi or difikalt fo ju?
Aj wud not kol it difikalt - bat wai not spel de werdz korektli? Choo vee komprenas? (Trans: du yu andestand?)
I can explain why. Because the English spelling is terrible. why you will not produce revolution in this terrible spelling? ploro.gif
Because the only really decent way to reform English spelling neutrally and correctly would be to divide it into multiple languages (e.g. each with their own rules), but truth be told even in Australia we would have seperate languages for each state. Not only that, but in some cases we have "dialects" which do not belong to a specific region but instead to a social class.

The current system is fairly good come to think of it, although "tho" instead of "though" and "rite" instead of "right" are examples of possible changes that wouldn't hurt anyone. Also spelling reforms are generally ignored anyway... But now text-messages of mobile phones and instant messenger software are changing this. e.g.
u
thru
rite
nite
and so forth.

And then there is the use of numbers etc as replacements for certain sounds. e.g.
8 = eight, ate, ait, etc
m8 (mate), l8 (late), tr8 (trait), w8! (wait!)
2 = two, too, tu etc
2 the movies (to the movies), 2 big! (too big!), timbuk2 (Timbuktu).

So within the century I think we will see the English language change a bit more because of new practices brought forth with technology, and even more so with languages such as Chinese becoming more prominent (and therefore influencing the way English-speakers think about their own language - I now see 'X' and 'Q' as 'Sh' and 'Ch' respectively when I see them alone).

So there are some small things that can be reformed, but even then you would have people either ignore the reforms or hate them ridulo.gif

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-29 06:46:05

Uws@u if ai rai' laik @ saeuf ozi then yu- prob@bli w@u-n' @n@staen' mi tu- wew.

(ae = short 'a' sound in cat), (@ = 'er' sound in 'bird' without the 'r') (u = u in put), (u- = ou in 'you' which is more like the french 'u' in 'rue')..... see my point? ridego.gif

vedev (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-29 09:02:41

white knight:
I can explain why. Because the English spelling is terrible. why you will not produce revolution in this terrible spelling?
Hope you are joking.
English may be terrible for you, as is Russian for any others.
So let it be as it is. rido.gif
Jes. But terribleness of Russian - it is its strong property. An enemy will not pass. rideto.gif

jchthys (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-29 13:18:21

ceigered:Uws@u if ai rai' laik @ saeuf ozi then yu- prob@bli w@u-n' @n@staen' mi tu- wew.

(ae = short 'a' sound in cat), (@ = 'er' sound in 'bird' without the 'r') (u = u in put), (u- = ou in 'you' which is more like the french 'u' in 'rue')..... see my point? ridego.gif
Sorry, I can't read it easily. Maybe if I tried really hard...

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2009-marto-29 13:18:40

vedev:
white knight:English may be terrible for you, as is Russian for any others. So let it be as it is. rido.gif
Jes. But terribleness of Russian - it is its strong property. An enemy will not pass. rideto.gif
I wouldn't call Russian spelling terrible; it seems quite phonetic and logical. I have to say that English spelling is indeed terrible by comparison. I am just lucky to have grown up with it.

But did not Zamenhof design Esperanto partly for this reason, that languages can be "terrible" to people who have not grown up with them, or do not have a gift for learning them?

Reen al la supro