Spelling Bee Protester replies

Bad analogy. The system is bad for dyslexics, not for the rest of us...

Yes, it is bad for the rest of us. We take two years to master, just partially, what takes others two weeks to master completely. We waste two years. And we get mugged by people who are illiterate when they could be productive members of society. There are 20 million or so who could read with a decent spelling system, who now do not. Most are not criminals but many are on the welfare rolls, or earn less and pay less taxes than they could. And who pays the extra taxes to cover all this? The rest of us, and that *is* bad.

Sorry, I simply don't buy it. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but we see through most of your silly and illogical arguments.

You began by suggesting that we revise the spelling system to help dyslexics. That didn't fly. Now you are trying to suggest that illiterate thugs got that way as the result of our spelling system. Our spelling system is responsible for all our social problems. Bull. It isn't that simple, unless you have blinders on and the argument, however illogical it may be, helps to promote your pet cause.

But it won't. Kids aren't learning for much deeper reasons than our spelling system and most know this. We all have the same spelling, but we don't all suffer from it's detrimental effects. Illiteracy is a basic social and cultural problem - not one resulting from a poor spelling system. Some kids choose not to learn. Changing the spelling system will not alter that fact. Changing things that affect their attitude and belief system might.

Your NEW argument doesn't wash any more than your last one.

Actually, I somehow feel like I am arguing with a troll. Is that the case? Did I fall victim to a troll? Sheesh, it almost feels like it b/c certainly no serious person could be advancing the silly ideas that you are floating.

So now you're completely switching arguments, without any evidence to support your new extended analogy.

This was a long post but I'll address some parts:

"I do not believe French has been reformed, but I doubt that France's literacy rate is all that bad. For that matter, the article does not inform us of the illiteracy rate among the English and Canadians, who have less standardization than we do. (Cheque, colour, etc.) "

See my post 103 for other rates. English speakers come off poorly.

The French have a rule that the final vowels are not pronounced. Using that rule they have little trouble reading because the language is then self-consistent and follows its own rules. But upon hearing a new word they have no idea which vowels to append to the part they can hear. So they do have trouble spelling.

"So, besides your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, you also engage in the straw man of "If we oppose you we support illiteracy." There is more to a language than getting the spelling right. There are reasons why Shakespeare, the original King James and Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible and Charles Dickens are kept in their original form. They are not only for the University educated, either. The look of the word, sometimes subtle differences in sound that cannot be reconciled with a Scando-Germanic sparseness, are important for great literature and poetry."

I have to guess what you mean by my "original post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy", since you don't say. I suppose you mean that the fact the reformed languages have lower rates of illiteracy does not prove that reform is the cause. But I addressed that in the *second* paragraph below, which you seem to have ignored:

>We have 22% functional illiteracy in America, some 40 million adults. In Sweden it's 7%, Germany 10% and Norway 12%. All those countries reformed their spelling, some several times in the last century.

>And their low illiteracy *is* due to their spelling. A paper in Science reports that Italians have just as much dyslexia as English speakers, as measured by trouble repeating syllables and by brain scans, yet there is far less trouble reading. The paper concludes that the difference is due to the spelling systems. (Italian has honest and phonetic spelling.)

As to keeping things in their original form, Dickens wrote in Traditional Orthography (TO), coming as he did after Johnson's dictionary. Nobody knows how Shakespeare spelled because the only thing we have in his handwriting is part of a deed. The earliest plays were published by two different companies whose typesetters were from (Holland, I think) and did not spell the same as each other. And much of the old material is published in modern TO because the original spellings are so odd at times (and not phonetic like SoundSpel, at least for modern pronunciations) that they are distracting or incomprehensible.

>"Homonyms help a reader who cannot "hear" the inflection of voice. But he will know the difference be "no" and "know," or "right" and "write." "

Yes, just as he knows the difference between the the same-spelled like/like in "I like things like that." It is not inflection but context and word order that enable us to parse spoken sentences, as also in the famous "Time flies like an arrow." that, even tho spelled in TO, can technically be parsed four different ways (As an order to go like an arrow and time flies, or to time only those flies that are like an arrow, or conventionally, or in the sense that "Horse flies like a horse, so Time Flies like an arrow (doubtless the Arrow of Time.)" [Granted inflection helps sometimes, but that is true even of sentences without homonyms spelled in TO.]

"As a traditional conservative, I believe that radical changes like this should not come from literacy councils, playwrights or even presidents. "

I agree with you. They should come from the bottom up. Proponents publicize the problem and solutions, daring rebels adopt "thru" instead of the absurd "through" (and "thru" and "tho" are in the dictionary now as acceptable alternate spellings), some dyslexics who have been unable to learn in TO are successfully taught in SoundSpel, people become familiar with SoundSpel and some demand their children be taught in it to save the time wasted on TO, the movement sweeps the country as the Internet did, and suddenly we have won! Granted that is a dream at the moment, but please note that it does *not* involve government mandates. (Can the dream be realized? Others have been, that of the American Revolution was, improbable as that seemed at first. You never know unless you try.)

"can you take on the issue of gravity"

And then quantum physics, brain surgery and then assembler. All three have given me trouble especially brain surgery. I propose that it be simplified so it could be performed with a can opener and a spoon.

Umm, well, perhaps someone is experimenting with that method, it sure would explain a lot....

You write "You began by suggesting that we revise the spelling system to help dyslexics. That didn't fly. Now you are trying to suggest that illiterate thugs got that way as the result of our spelling system. Our spelling system is responsible for all our social problems. Bull. It isn't that simple, unless you have blinders on and the argument, however illogical it may be, helps to promote your pet cause."

I originally wrote, in my very first post:

"Illiteracy often leads to poverty, desperation and crime. The USA has 2.1 million prisoners behind bars, the highest incarceration rate in the whole world. Is this due to spelling and illiteracy? Well, 60% of our prisoners are illiterate -- judge for yourself."

So while I may be expanding on those arguments I am not switching arguments. And I do not claim our spelling is responsible for all social problems, but that it increases illiteracy -- it about doubles it -- and illiteracy increases social problems. This is not new with me, it's generally known, it's an axiom, almost a cliche. Practically everyone who has ever been in a jail remarks on the prevalence of illiteracy. A US Supreme Court Chief Justice wrote "The percentage of inmates in all penal institutions who cannot read or write is staggering... The figures on literacy alone are enough to make one wish that every sentence imposed could include a provision that would grant release when the prisoner had learned to read and write."

But of course that was Warren Burger and since he was a liberal I guess you won't accept that he knew anything about criminology, even though he was Chief Justice. Sigh. There must be *some* way to convince you. Hold on while I look for a quote from Gabriel. Or maybe Attila :-)

As I've state, illiteracy is NOT a function of our spelling system. Changing the spelling system will NOT make kids want to learn. Their illiteracy is a function of deeper social problems. You can find all kinds of correlation between a lack of education and social-economic environments, yet we ALL have the same spelling system.

It is fine to focus on illiteracy. Might I suggest that you turn away from the overly simplistic notion that it is our spelling system that is the problem and turn your attention to all the social ills that result in illiteracy.

Yes, illiteracy and social ills are a viscious cycle and they feed on each other. However, your notion that our spelling system is somehow the cause is flat out naive, illogical and flies in the face of the simple fact that we ALL have the same spelling system - yet specific social economic groups are the ones who have issues with illiteracy.

Changing the spelling system, which would casue problems for the majority (are we all supposed to go back to school to learn your silly new system?) will not change the fact that certain kids to not want to learn for reasons far more complicated that how we spell.

A lot needs to be fixed to cure illiteracy and the social ills that come of it - long before we all suffer under your silly new spelling system. You basically want to disrupt everything for those of us getting along just fine, under the naive notion that it will somehow magically fix illiteracy in the minority of the population who have much more serious problems than you acknowledge.

Give it up man. I'm sitting here laughing at you, scratching my head and truly wondering if you are serious, or just a troll scoring points for each letter I type!

In my opinion ... You're hearing needs to be checked ... you can't seem to hear your village calling ...

Some of these exchanges are growing trivial and pointless, but there is one underlying, fundamental misunderstanding that may be worthwhile to clear up.

Many anti-reformers feel that English spelling is a great institution, an honest system purposely developed by our culture and now under attack by those who would corrupt it and dumb it down into something inferior and ignorant.

Reformers fundamentally disagree. The alphabet, and the system of writing that uses it, is a great institution and a brilliant invention. English spelling is a corruption of that system, a tragic mess that happened by accident and makes a mockery of the brilliance. Reformers want to correct that and return to the original rationality.

Foreigners whose own languages use the alphabet correctly, who know how it is supposed to work, are appalled when they see what we've done to it. Children who have successfully learned Cyrillic Russian, and German, and more, are disgusted and rebellious when they start to learn English and they gradually recognize what a horrible mess it is. One language teacher, trying to teach small French children English pronunciation from written words, realized what a monster he was being, since English spelling cheated, was corrupt, was Inconsistent, Vas INSANE! He wrote a poem about it , the Chaos, starting with :

"I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy..."

His point was that in an honest language uzy would rhyme with usy, and izzy would not. When they said that sentence, his students, naively believing English was honest, would say either "I will keep you, Soozy, boosy or ... Sizy, bisy. " And likewise hea-d does not rhyme with hea-t. At first the poem was funny, but as he went on and on with one inconsistency after another, and on and on and on , you could see he wasn't trying to be funny, he really hated it and could not stop. Here are the first three verses:

The Chaos

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind.

How well *should* the system work? A recent news article told of finding the earliest version of the alphabet scratched on some rocks in Egypt, dating from 1500 BC. It consisted only of consonants (because the vowels were predictable), just 15 or so letters. And, said the article, it could be learned in one afternoon!

How could that be possible? Well, because it was designed for one language only, each letter was a recognizable picture of an object starting with that sound. A few letters remain recognizable today -- -their word for water started with M (think Maritime) so M was a couple of waves. They had an S word for a snake or serpent, so S was drawn as a little snake. And likewise with all letters.

I did an experiment. I drew pictures for all our consonants, preserving M and S but making G a little Gun , B a V-winged Bird and so, and I found I could memorize that list in about 10 minutes. So the system could indeed be learned in half a day -- and probably in half an hour. They probably had some funny little song to help out with memorization, and maybe a scrap of bark with the symbols all scratched onto it, and they learned the idea behind it. Thereafter they could read and write! A skill previously known only to priests who had studied hieroglyphics for years. Can you imagine their joy? Gosh what a great idea!

Later the same letter shapes were adopted by people with other languages, so the correspondence of letter shape with a common object no longer worked. Still, it only took a few days to memorize the shapes and sounds, and you could learn to read in two weeks. (But don't believe me about that, ask a foreigner. Ask some Koreans, who are ever so proud of their alphabet, and rightly so. )

And the great invention spread rapidly until it covered the whole earth and every language except Chinese. It was so simple and so right that so long as you followed the rules you just couldn't lose.

Except in English, which broke the rules, which proceeded without plot or plan to incorporate spellings from languages with totally different rules, which enshrined spellings to reflect pronunciations a thousand years out date. Which allowed Flemish printers to add e's to the ends of words just to make the lines come out even. Which encouraged Johnson to pick the weirdest spellings of words precisely so it would be harder to learn, so reading wouldn't spread to commoners. With the result that, unbelievably, it takes us two years to learn. And what should be as easy and natural as learning to walk is so hard that most of us never master it. If the inventor could see it he'd be so disgusted he'd curse us with, with the Income Tax!

It is this brilliant heritage which we have fouled up and wrecked. Really truly FUBAR'ed. Our spelling is hated by everyone who knows how the system is supposed to work. They *despise* it. They recognize it is not a logical system, not really a system all, but more like a train wreck.

Reformers are not the ones who want to dumb down a noble system, they are the ones who are true to the wonderful idea of alphabetic writing. English spelling is the dumbed-down disaster, a monstrous vandalism of a great design. Reformed spelling is the effort to restore it and make it work right again. Through progress to lift it back to the level of 1500 BC.

I doubt that this will convince anybody we're right, but it may show we are not *trying* to dumb down anything.

Besides, firing that blast made me feel good . ;-)

Alan Mole

>Bluefish writes:

>As I've state, illiteracy is NOT a function of our spelling system. Changing the spelling system will NOT make kids want to learn. Their illiteracy is a function of deeper social problems. You can find all kinds of correlation between a lack of education and social-economic environments, yet we ALL have the same spelling system.

[You are right to an extent. Of course most English speakers learn, even with our spelling system. Those who don't either suffer from a specific problem (dyslexia) or have low IQ's and/or motivation.

But England has the same high rate of illiteracy, while right across the North Sea are the Swedes, with the same genetics, IQ's and social problems. But they have a different spelling system and one third the illiteracy. Ditto the Germans etc.

Of course there are differences in populations, and Canada has a slightly lower rate than the USA. But everywhere English speaking countries have high rates and similar countries (meaning they educate all their people) have lower rates. Sweden's rate is not zero, for they have retarded children like everyone else, and dyslexia and truants and lower class young drunkards who don't want to learn. It is not zero but it is two-thirds lower than England's.]
>It is fine to focus on illiteracy. Might I suggest that you turn away from the overly simplistic notion that it is our spelling system that is the problem and turn your attention to all the social ills that result in illiteracy.
> We cannot solve all the other social problems. "The poor ye shall always have with you." But we can solve spelling and cut illiteracy by half or two-thirds, and that's a good start. We'll leave you the other third...]

>Yes, illiteracy and social ills are a viscious cycle and they feed on each other. However, your notion that our spelling system is somehow the cause is flat out naive, illogical and flies in the face of the simple fact that we ALL have the same spelling system - yet specific social economic groups are the ones who have issues with illiteracy.
[The same groups in Sweden have a third the trouble.]

>Changing the spelling system, which would casue problems for the majority (are we all supposed to go back to school to learn your silly new system?) will not change the fact that certain kids to not want to learn for reasons far more complicated that how we spell.
[We emphasize, as Mark Twain emphasized in 1905, that no one would be required to abandon regular spelling. At most one would be asked, not told, to try to read messages that came to him in SoundSpel. And since everyone can read SoundSpel on the first try without much trouble, and quickly (within a page or two, within a minute or two) comes to feel fairly comfortable with it, this would not cause much of a problem for the majority. Just look at this passage in SoundSpel -- would anyone have to return to school to cope with *this*?

[We emfasiez, as Mark Twain emfasiezd in 1905, that no wun wuud be reqierd to abandon reguelar speling. At moest wun wuud be askt, not toeld, to tri to reed mesejes that caem to him in Soundspel. And sinss evrywun can reed Soundspel on th ferst tri without much trubl, and qikly (within a paej or too, within a minit or too) cums to feel fairly cumfortabl with it, this wuud not cauz much of a problem for th majority. Just luuk at this pasej in Soundspel -- wuud enywun hav to retern to scool to coep with *this*?]

>A lot needs to be fixed to cure illiteracy and the social ills that come of it - long before we all suffer under your silly new spelling system. You basically want to disrupt everything for those of us getting along just fine, under the naive notion that it will somehow magically fix illiteracy in the minority of the population who have much more serious problems than you acknowledge.

[What suffering? I repeat, nobody ever proposed to make regular spelling users read or write in reformed. Except very rarely to read a message in SoundSpel. (Which is not much worse than the typos which appear on this forum, which nobody even comments on, far less moans about.) Compare that to your suffering now -- it costs twice as much per year for each Special-Ed student as each regular one, and lots of those Special-Ed's would be regular if they could read better. It cost $25,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail, plus welfare for the family he cannot support plus the lost taxes he would pay if he were free and had a job, plus the cost of all the crimes he commits. Do all those expenses, paid from your taxes and mine, and all that misery not cause more suffering than reading "Can't U reed this?" instead of "Can't you read this?"

I agree with you in many ways. I too would like to see lazy undisciplined families shape up, like to see money spent on the gifted instead of the "challenged", and like to see the law favor the reasonable man instead of the criminal who is attacking him (and here in Colorado we have the "Make my day" law, which I heartily support.) But fixing our spelling will increase literacy, lift many families out of poverty by their own efforts, and cause practically no inconvenience to the majority.

I wouldn't be against spelling reform, but in France and Germany, they have government institutes that dictate spelling. Since English is spoken in so many different countries as a first language, and is used by numerous companies as an official language or working language, it's hard to set one standard.

We can't even settle on how to spell colo(u)r...

Germany has several spelling reforms. Unfortunately for me, I learned German before the last round went into effect. The last one went into effect maybe six years ago. Germans still didn't eliminate ß (Double S), that has been eliminated in Switzerland for a while, but they changed a bunch of the rules governing its use (sometimes you use double S, sometimes ß). And one thing the latest German reform did which I am still confused about is the introduction of triple consanants: Schifffahrt is the word for ship ride. Three F's.

But still, German spelling is easier, very few exceptions...

But fixing our spelling will increase literacy, lift many families out of poverty by their own efforts, and cause practically no inconvenience to the majority.

The problem Spellfix is that you have failed to convince me of your overall basic premise. To suggest that Sweden fixed their illiteracy b/c they changed their spelling is ludicrous. There is a lot more different between our two countries and cultures than the spelling system.

You haven't addressed my primary point:

Illiteracy is not a function of our spelling system. It is not a result of our spelling system being too difficult.

Illiteracy is a cultural problem. It is a function of children not willing to learn - the casue of which is highly complicated and contentious. Changing WHAT they learn doesn't change this underlying problem.

Again, you have failed to convince me of anything, simply because I recognize the problem is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. Chaning how we spell does not correct the fundamental problems afflicting those who will not (not can not) learn.

But fixing our spelling will increase literacy, lift many families out of poverty by their own efforts, and cause practically no inconvenience to the majority.

I'd be willing to bet if your proposal somehow became the law of the land, our illiteracy rate wouldn't change a whit. It's not what is wrong with the American education system or the American student.

While on business in Korea, school children would constantly run up to me and practice their English skills. Based on watching their "teaching channels" on TV, they probably all spell very well. They're encouraged and, thus, motivated to learn it. Education is about getting educated there. Here it seems to be more and more about the lowest common denominator and the path of least resistance.

The problem Spellfix is that you have failed to convince me of your overall basic premise. To suggest that Sweden fixed their illiteracy b/c they changed their spelling is ludicrous. There is a lot more different between our two countries and cultures than the spelling system.

You haven't addressed my primary point:

Illiteracy is not a function of our spelling system. It is not a result of our spelling system being too difficult.

Illiteracy is a cultural problem. It is a function of children not willing to learn - the casue of which is highly complicated and contentious. Changing WHAT they learn doesn't change this underlying problem.

Again, you have failed to convince me of anything, simply because I recognize the problem is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. Chaning how we spell does not correct the fundamental problems afflicting those who will not (not can not) learn.

Besides the fact that English speaking countries all have high illiteracy and equally-advanced countries with self-consistent spelling have lower rates, there is the paper in Science.
, "Dyslexia, Cultural Diversity and Biological Unity", Issue 29 2001/1, Paulesu et al.

The researchers found many dyslexics with trouble reading in English Universities. In Italy they had trouble finding dyslexics at all at the university level. But by giving tests of reading speed and phonological processing they finally found some. They also did PET tests (positron Emission Tomography) which can see which parts of the brain are active while reading. Dyslexics use different parts of their brains than normal readers. They found from that Italy has the same percentage of dyslexia as England. But Italy has relatively few people who can't read. Dyslexics have trouble in English but not Italian. Some quotes:
"In languages with transparent or shallow orthography (e.g. Italian), the letters of the alphabet, alone or in combination, are in most cases uniquely mapped to each of the speech sounds occurring in the language. Learning to read in such languages is easier than in languages with deep orthography (E.g. English and French), where the mapping between letters, speech sounds, and whole words is ofter highly ambiguous. Adult skilled readers show a speed advantage in shallow orthographies."

...Dyslexia has a universal basis in the brain and can be characterized by the same neurocognitive deficit. Clearly the manifestation in reading behavior is less severe in shallow orthography." ... "Although Italian dyslexics read more accurately than French or English dyslexics, they showed the same degree of impairment on reading latencies and reading-related phonological tasks relative to their controls. We conclude that a phonological processing deficit is a universal problem in dyslexia and causes literacy problems in both shallow and deep orthographies. However, in languages with shallow orthography, such as Italian, the impact is less, and dyslexia has a more hidden existence. By contrast, deep orthographies such as English and French may aggravate the literacy impairments of otherwise mild cases of dyslexia."

The whole paper makes similar points.

Science is a peer reviewed journal, perhaps the most respected scientific publication in the world. This paper makes it very clear that a transparent orthography allows most dyslexics to read, albeit a little more slowly than others, while a murky orthography leads to lots of people with trouble reading. (Personally I prefer "A consistent spelling makes learning to read easier" but I guess that's how you have to write for Science.)

Publication of these views in Science means they are accepted by most of the researchers in the area. I cannot think of any stronger source.

If this does not convince you please tell me what strong source refutes this conclusion. Or what *would* convince you.

Of course I agree that motivation and discipline and a will to learn are important, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, or overwhelm the discussion with one strong card. But there *is* strong evidence that our inconsistent orthography is linked to our illiteracy rate, and it isn't just different rates in English/non-English countries, it's this Science paper too.

I'd be willing to bet if your proposal somehow became the law of the land, our illiteracy rate wouldn't change a whit. It's not what is wrong with the American education system or the American student.

While on business in Korea, school children would constantly run up to me and practice their English skills. Based on watching their "teaching channels" on TV, they probably all spell very well. They're encouraged and, thus, motivated to learn it. Education is about getting educated there. Here it seems to be more and more about the lowest common denominator and the path of least resistance.

-----

Yes, they spell very well indeed. As the Korean told me "You teach a six year old the shapes and the sounds of the letters, and she practices a little. After two weeks, you say a word, any word long or short (but not a hard word because there is no such thing.) She writes the word. If she misspells it, YOU have misspoken. Children have good ears! And we have the best alphabet in the world, courtesy of King Sejong the Great!" He was really proud, and grateful, nearly six hundred years later. Under the old writing system, a clumsy effort to adopt Chinese ideographs to spell Korean words, only a few courtiers could read and write. Sejong and his scholars studied the matter, devised the new alphabet, and gave it to the people, saying "This is for you, and it is good. Use it". In a couple of years everyone could read and write, and this made everyone very happy. Except the courtiers, who had foot long fingernails to show they never worked, and hated the new system because it took away their exclusive privilege.

So next time you're there, ask a Korean and I'll bet he tells that story, and doesn't forget it was Sejong -- the Great! And that they still remember him. Unless, of course, his family was courtiers, in which case he'll rant about the effort to dumb down a noble system...

And of course we have more minorities than some, and of course it is not fair to blame our schools because millions of illiterate people stream across out southern border.

OK, why are the people streaming across our southern border illiterate? Spanish spelling is very simple.

I am in the printer toner business. Your attempts to make fewer letters in words will dry up our business. Expect an assassination to follow shortly.

We cannot risk the possibility you will succeed.

Thats funny (the clip of the kid and the cat) LMAO !!!

I jest gotta put ma 2 sents in hyar.

Is what y'all sayin is thet ye gonna change up tha way we is sposed to be spellin dese hyar wards ?

The English language is the result of the merging of at least 3 languages (Saxon, Danish, Norman French) and significant inclusion from Latin and Greek. Your proposal eliminates the history of our language from the language. Why don't you start your own simpler version of English for the lazy and call it Pig English. Oodany Uklay.

PS What are you going to do about the damn English who accent the wrong syllables?