An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics

The Rational Argumentator ^ | January 5, 2004 | G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. r9etb: All properly spelled, I see. I guess that means you surrendered the autonomy of your own thought to do it, right?

Mr. Stolyarov: That was so due to the lack of any "ph" combinations in the "proper spelling" of that frase. I emfasize the need for gradual linguistic change rather than instantaneous sweeping reform, for rational linguistic utilization needs to be automatized into a matter of habit lest it hinder the speed of a man's writing.

In three months' time, I shall suggest another adjustment.

[general_re]

Rules of spelling themselves should be freed from the coercive grasp of the government...

That's right - The Man and his dipthongs are holding you down.

Comes a point when you go so far right that you wind up on the left - this is exactly the kind of thing that they lap up at the deconstructionism conferences of the MLA...

[Petronski]

Ghoti spells fish if one pronounces gh as in enough, o as in women and ti as in motion.

From now on, spell fish GHOTI.

[r9etb]

Rules of spelling themselves should be freed from the coercive grasp of the government (by putting an end to public schools, for example), though governments should be free to establish linguistic policies pertaining to their OWN official documents, which may serve as vehicles of suggestion for linguistic change, but not forcible standards.

LOL! No, wait ... ROTFLMAO!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

(chortle)

You don't think, perhaps, that spelling conventions are helpful to those of us who prefer to understand written communication, and that perhaps spelling rules are not (heeeeee heheheheheeeee) a government plot.

I will also note that, outside of France (really!), I am unaware that there is ANY government involvement in the development of spelling rules.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!! You're killin' me.

[MineralMan]

"It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language. "

Hmmm...yet you spell all of this in a non-rational orthography. Try it this way:

It harmz us not at al tu no thet thu origin ov thu rut for thu wurd filosofy haz that histuree. indeed, it ekspandz our awarnus ov langwaj.

There's a rational orthography for you. You choose not to use it, preferring normal English orthography, except for the singly phoneme you wish to alter.

Dilletantism is not the same as objectivism. Ayn Rand would be disappointed.

[r9etb]

The Man and his dipthongs

[general_re]

"Is that a consonant in your pocket, Mr. President? Or are you just happy to see me?"

[ScudEast]

..."our Anglo-Saxon forebears," which, except for matters of ideology (which is individually processed) should have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to an individual's life or decisions.

That's all well and good, as far as barbarism goes, but if you think that your life or decisions are not determined by the past before you were born then you are in denial. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point?

[God is good]

Good comeback.

[Eva]

In addition to denying the Greek roots, the phonetic (fonetic?) spelling would really only benefit phonetic readers and be really annoying to sight readers. It would drive me crazy and be very distracting.

[r9etb]

In three months' time, I shall suggest another adjustment.

Ahhhh, I see. You've got a Long Term Plan. Unfortunately for you, I've arranged for one of my totalitarian operatives to steal a copy of it, which I reproduce below:

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.

European officials have often pointed out the English spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomolies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using "s" instead of the soft "c." Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard "c" could be replaced by "k" sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it would be announsed that the troublesome "ph" would henseforth be written "f." This would make words like "fotograf" twenty persent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible.Governments would enkourage the removal of double leters whish have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop them and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing "th" by "z." Perhaps zen ze funktion of "w" kould be taken on by "v," vitsh is, after al, half a "w." Shortly after zis, ze unesesary "o" kould be dropd from vords kontaining "ou." Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of ze Guvermnt vud finali have kum tru.

[MineralMan]

"My favorite poem, "The Westerner," by Badger Clark, illustrates the proper approach toward the past.

My fathers sleep on the Eastern plain,
And each one sleeps alone.
But I lean on no dead kin.
My name is mine, for fame or scorn,
And the world was made when I was born,
And the world is mine to win."

Proper? This is your conceit. It is one way to approach the past. It is not the only, nor the "proper" way to do so.

Your transparent attempt to impose your "proper" way is amusing. Had you any power, it would be frightening. Since you do not, I will continue to chuckle.

You'll find that Free Republic is not a forum full of Randian Objectivists. Your meanderings will not always meet with universal approval here, and you'll have to do better at justifying them than you have up to this point.

Again, I suggest you return to simple musical compositions. There is nothing to argue about in them.

[God is good]

So you want us to talk in ebonics?

[Eva]

I don't agree with you, any one who has studied etymology, is dependent on the proper spelling to derrive the meaning of the word. There are so many words that I come across that I would have no idea what they meant if I did not recognize the Latin or Greek root.

[xm177e2]

There is a problem with your orthographic suggestion. In the instant case of the word Philosophy, you ignore the usefulness of the "Ph" construct, which is a clear link to the origin of the word, from the Greek root "philos."

Under the new system, "Filosophy" would obviously have descended from the Greek root "filos."

But I guess if the King's English was good enough for Socrates, then we should keep the spelling as "philos."

[GulliverSwift]

This is a very entertaining thread y'all have going here. I'd contribute but you two are doing such a fine job there's no need to hear my echo.

[r9etb]

Under the new system, "Filosophy" would obviously have descended from the Greek root "filos."

And it would refer to the wisdom of eating things wrapped with delicious, thin, flaky Greek dough.

[Consort]

Colloquial ebonics and jive: Ersatz argot patois?

[SoothingDave]

This is not mere speculative fiction; having at one time learned English as a second language myself, I could not at first avoid slipping into my conversations an occasional “hafazard.”

Undoubtedly, English holds its pitfalls for non-native speakers. However, the language and its conventions are not in the control of any one person, and one should simply accept the quirks of the language for what they are. There is information conveyed in our spellings far beyond a mere "guide-to-pronunciation."

SD

[r9etb]

slipping into my conversations an occasional “hafazard.”

Well, this would certainly qualify as a hafazard theory....