For goodness' sake, buy the poster!

[Woodwould]

The scary part is, English classes here in Canada are being completely revamped. They were called stuffy and it was believed children weren't learning.
(This is one of my dad's big stews. He'll rant for hours. This and the new math curriculum)

The new method of teaching how to read, is full word recognition. So, no more sounding out words, no more learning component letters and how they form the word and no more root word with prefix/suffix. If you don't recognize the word, look it up in the dictionary.

I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a serious PITA and most kids I know would just put the book down. Which is a shame because I think most people get their vocabulary from prolific reading.

The other groaner, what do you think full word recognition is going to do to the already atrocious spelling problem? When you don't sound a word out or learn it's component letters, how do you learn to spell?

That does sound like a recipe for a generation of illiterates.

[munruben]

You sure stirred up a can of worms with this topic Ww; but interesting nevertheless.

[rsser]

SG, there's been debates ad nauseum about that issue Downunder, and some good research that's worth a look. Not being a primary (grade school?) teacher, mercifully I don't have to deal with that issue.

SilentC, the trouble with 'rules' is that they typically follow practice. So we have no warrant for getting on a high horse, other than being grumpy old men. IMO teachers at all levels are teaching yesterday's rules.

Same in my case. I do it because I'm employed (part-time) to do so.

I'm glad to be mostly out of my game. I have the 2nd highest academic qualification there is, and dammit I got it the hard way. But when I'm asked to assess PhD theses, I bend over backwards to ignore forms of expression that irritate me and try to appreciate what the writer is trying to communicate.

Cos that writer is 30 years behind me and forms of communication change.

[silentC]

I'm still not quite sure what we're arguing about here. When you say "forms of expression that irritate me", do you refer to spelling mistakes or incorrect word use, like "their" instead of "they're" or "would of" instead of "would have"? Or are you talking about otherwise correct language that you nevertheless feel is inappropriate in a thesis?

It's just that I don't think any of the examples in the original link are forms of communication change. They're nothing more than mistakes and if we ever see them in the dictionary as acceptable usage, I'll go learn French and give up speaking English.

[rsser]

The former silentC. Here are some examples that I think represent stylistic or convention variations over time and while the newer forms irritate me I don't regard them as a hanging offence:

Different from/to
Compare with/to
Misplaced apostrophes: egs. it's/its, sofa's (when what is meant is sofas)
Possessives: egs. Jesus' death/ Jesus's death; women's/womens' health
Abbreviations: i.e./ie. or eg./e.g.

Of greater concern is confusion over homophones: eg. their/they're/there, or who's/whose. The meaning is clear from the context in most cases. I'd let one or two of these go but point out consistent errors.

In my youth split infinitives were a serious faux pas; they're widespread now.

Ditto not ending a sentence with a preposition. That was a rule that even in my youth was pretty much only adhered to by pedants, snobs and students on exam days.

Passive voice was standard usage in my undergrad days but in my discipline active voice is now acceptable and sometimes encouraged.

So, most kids have the fundamentals of verbal language before they go to school where they may or may not get instruction in parts of speech, rules of grammar and so on. In my view some of these rules are helpful to learners in understanding their mistakes (eg. the two functions of an apostrophe) but through history formal instruction in and practice of them has operated as a form of social exclusion. ('To whom do you wish to speak, young man?' - see the many novels in English lit. with social class as a theme.)

[silentC]

The former? Do you know something I don't? I hope I'm going to make it through to the new year.

[rsser]

Ah well, then there's the comma ;-}

And debates about whether to use them (publishers have acquired a dislike for them for some reason) and where they go and when semi-colons and colons might better be used.

Best wishes for the New Year.

[silentC]

I throw in the odd colon or semi colon every now and then. Fortunately no-one seems to know enough about them to pick me up on it when I get it wrong

All the best for 2011!

[rsser]

Here's a nice eg. of the homophone problem, taken from the online blurb of James Ellroy's memoirs:

The Hilliker Curse is a predator’s confession, a treatise on guilt and the power of malediction, and above all a cri de cœur.

ADDED Ah, that's interesting. 'Coeur' was rendered 'cur' on the website. So probably the blurb writer didn't get the sack after all.

[springwater]

Here's a nice eg. of the homophone problem, taken from the online blurb of James Ellroy's memoirs:



ADDED Ah, that's interesting. 'Coeur' was rendered 'cur' on the website. So probably the blurb writer didn't get the sack after all.

No wonder you make an elegant maul

[rsser]

The homophone confusion that really tickles me is 'to wait with baited breath'.

Might be good to go fishing with someone doing that but not to sit too close

[artme]

Years ago there was a Holden T shirt ( marketed by them ) it said "When your hot your hot"

[Tom the Tin Man]

Very much like the sign posted on the door leading from the factory to the sales and administration office at my place of work: Please wipe you're feet.

[Shrek3]

Interesting movie posters here - for free: GigglePEDIA Posters

[Bushmiller]

I'm not sure if I will complete this post as it is my second attempt. My previous attempt was deleted when I opened a new window to check the spelling of Munruben. I wanted to compliment him on being articulate. So if I don't get to the end it's his fault!

Yes, I know I should have copied it first, but I thought this window was being preserved and not replaced. I will try not to digress further, which is a difficult task. I was born to digress.

Now in this first pragraph I have used apostrophes and a smiley face. Apostrophes tend to simulate the spoken word as opposed to the more formal written word and on this forum it appears to me absolutely appropriate. The smiley face allows you a further insight as to my mood and meaning.

I know that if I had a good command of the language I would be able to convey my true meaning exactly. However, I am not Charles Dickens and I don't have several hundred pages.

Spelling and grammar or lack of it can be an issue to those well versed in it, but nowadays I believe it is just as important to convey a message. English is one of the worst languages for multiple meaning and spelling of similarly pronounced words. It is this aspect that makes english so adaptable to litterature. Clearly some illiteracy is laziness, but often on the forums I believe it to be enthusiasm. The involvement of some forumites is incredible.

I would not like to prevent that. I see so much lethargy and phlegmatism amongst young people that I would not decry them for spelling and grammar. They should be encouraged to participate. For those of you who are wondering as to my age, when asked what I think of middle age, my stock reply is that "I see middle age as a lost opportunity."

At school we had a minor punishment called a PC. Nothing to do with the IT world of today, it stood for "penal copy." It was a form of writing "lines" and comprised of a preprinted series of words, which had been identified as difficult to spell, and had to be copied perfectly beneath each word.

I still recognise these words today when I see them, but still can't spell most of them!

I nearly used a smiley face there, but went with an exclamation mark instead. Does it come to the same thing?

Language is developing; Dynamic even and we can't expect it to remain constant. The language of Shakespeare is strange to us. Chaucer's words are difficult to understand and old english is as different to twenty first century english as a foreign language.

Words have different meanings today. One of Shakespeare's minor characters said "Can Cleopatra die?'

Translated today it would be "Can Cleopatra come?" She was reputed to be a lady of insatiable appetites. The rabble in the pit would have been falling about w*****g themselves with laughter.

I was going to say wetting, but I never quite know what is going to be edited out. Last time I used ####, it had a job done on it so now it will have to be posterior. Actually, if it is in the dictionary I think it should be allowed. (Digression; sorry, sorry, sorry)

Not long after the turn of the twentieth century George Bernard Shaw, who for those of you who didn't know was a keen motorcyclist (digression, irrelevant), endeavoured to reform the english language by introducing a phonetic system of spelling. The pompous poms rejected it out of hand, but it was well received in America where they are close to illiterate and struggling with spelling.

On that note I think I should stop.

Regards
Paul