I don't even think people should use text language on computers.It's understandable if you're using a mobilephone where the keys are tiny and you have to press it,like,4 times to get the letter you want. But on a keyboard you have all the letters right there.People are just too lazy.I think text language is quite hard to get sometimes too.Why make everything so simple?The english language is a very interesting language.Why make dumb it down for those who can't be arsed to try and learn to spell?
Yes, brilliant let's make it easier for everyone and just spell the way we please. Please, no. While we dropped thine and thee, we didn't start spelling in crazy ways to make things 'easier' for illiterate people. I feel that dumbing it down, and even using numbers in speech is sinking to a new low. You can't sound out 2. As Shaw pointed out, one could spell fish 'ghoti' if they wanted to. Please, try to preserve the last bits of linguistic intergrity we have left.
Ok, this video is very old, but I still want to say it. I`m not an english speaking person, and I`ve noticed that simplifications like using "2" actually makes it more difficult to read the text, because you have to think about the meaning.
Adn the idea of "fonetic spelling system" maybe would make it easier to english people, but for others it wouldn`t make a difference.
I think the evolution of spelling is a good thing, but I wouldnt consider thru, 2, ur etc. evolution, more like devolution, a dumming down. It just strikes me as being very similar to Newspeak from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
"the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year"
I say no, this is just saying, we could study English, or we could just change it all for the people who quite frankly just can't be bothered to use correct English.
i don't think using that changing the language to suit with texual language is a way to tackle illiteracy at all. i think that it is just a way to decrease the numbers quickly, but in the long term, i don't think it will help at all. better education systems would be a more sufficient way to teach children or adults the english language, but then again i haven't factored in the issue of money and such.
i hate people who use 'text language' so it may just be me.
I'm sure you know this (as does everybody else) but replacing to/too/two with 2 would be a bad idea: three different words with three different meanings...changing them into the one "symbol", let's say, would confuse the three - thus causing difficulty in comprehension... and I think learners of English as a second language have a hard enough time as it is...
Wow, I don't think that made any sense...
P.S. I miss your long hair! I miss my long hair, too! LOL!
We should stick to normal english spelling, I don't see the need to change it. It won't combat bad-spelling, it'll just make it correct! but people should chill about spelling. It doesn't matter all that much.
i actually never use text/email language.. well i do but this only includes cos and lol..and thats only on msn. i dont think i could bring myself to write down on paper...
"i need 2 get thru..."
....it actually took me two efforts to not write to.. how sad..hahaha
I read about this in the newspaper and the guy was like French is spelled phonetically which is not true. This is the worst idea I have ever heard how would future generations be able to read classic writings like Shakespeare if they rite lyk this its ridiculous!
I think it's a ridiculous idea. As a linguist yourself you are probably very aware of the structures of languages. Words aren't just random letters stuck together with a meaning. If spelling were to change, it would also make english more difficult for foreigners to learn I think, and not only that but it would make foreign languages harder for english people to learn as people wouldn't have much knowledge about their own vocabulary and where words stem from etc....I'm done now xD woop woop xxx
"Stupid populist fuckers shouldn't be given a platform to spew their imbecility. "
come on dont be a fool you have been intelligent so far but come on we can talk like that on the internet on phones not in real language thousands of years old because an unbelievably slow minded idiot cant do the most basic thing as spelling.
This idea of a so called "proffesor" is, in my mind, proposterous, I find the dumbing down of a language which is spoken by the once biggest Empire the world has ever seen, Ridiculous, all this will achieve is the saving of a few letters in some words, E.g. Gr8 instead of Great, saving 2 letter's, and our future children and Grandchildren etc being horrible illegible to us in the near future. Leave it how it is in my eyes. Please reply to this comment(apologies if I have spelled something wrong)
umm... personally, i think people who write "ur" instead of "you're" or "your" just sound like idiots, even when they are texting or emailing or whatever.
Evolution of language occurs naturally as far as I know and enforcing 'dumbing down' onto a language would just be... wrong. It's such a fascinating thing to study, and tearing it down to its bare essentials would confine the language dramatically, leaving it almost expression and emotionless.
I'm all for 'would have' gradually becoming 'would of' over time and the decline of the apostrophe wouldn't/wouldnt make me too sad, but overhauling an entire language just to make it 'easier' is badness.
The only reason English speakers let up on their language is because its quicker & more convienent, NOT to be taught. In my opinion, if we let people spell things any way they fancy, our culture will get lost in the depths some 100 years from now. I think it is hard to believe that this idea was even thought of. This will give a bad reputation to America, because we're already known as slackers by Japan and China , or at least we should be. So, if we let up on our language, disaster lies ahead..
Yes, let's dumb down the language, English is just too difficult. Why do Chinese students bother learning -proper- (yes there is such a thing) spelling so that some of them end up being better spellers that native English speakers? Let's send them the message that we have so little respect for our own language, that we don't care how anyone spells it.
Stupid populist fuckers shouldn't be given a platform to spew their imbecility.
im sort of mixed on this matter it would cause some confussion for the likes of me on the other hand it could make my life easyier as my spelling and grammer is rubbish and to this day im still shocked how I passed my g.c.s.e english exam i do use text talk but there is still text talk that i dont understand I also do try to use corect English
I may take a part time teaching English Sapin while attending film school,this topic gives me alot to think of as I know find myself asking what defines proper English in the sense that many now believe that if you can communicate w someone effectively they are speaking properly.Thanks for this vid!
appropos of spelling evolution - or revolution - America is celebrating this weekend the 250th birthday of Noah Webster, a native of my state of Connecticut, who in 1782 began to "reform" British spelling and usage to suit Americans - removing the "u" from colour, etc. and an extra "i" from "aluminium," and so on. Actually I enjoy British usage I hear on Youtube - "whilst" as an example - but find it odd that you pronounce weekEND and GARage thusly while we do the opposite!
I don't really want to be closed minded about the issue, but I think that idea is kind of crazy. Why lower our standards just to make things "easier"? Rise above the mediocrity.
things change and cultures change so i think it would probably make it a lot easier for children to learn and would make it easier for dislexics like me, some things are spelt rediculously. it would change british culture but thats how history is made, if nothing changes then there would be no history and nothing of interest would ever happen
How can someone even suggest that? That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
Everything would be changed and in a way the remaining English culture we have left today will just fade away even more. It's lowering standards and just looks ridiculous.
When my sister was in school... probably first and second grade mostly, they encouraged "inventive spelling" when writing... so they were supposed to sound things out and spell them the best they could and not worry about "correct" spelling - focus on getting their ideas on paper. It stressed her out and she'd come home and want to re-write everything correctly :-)
i am dislexic so remembering i before e except after c is hard...because for every rule there is an exception...such as weird...if following the above rule it would be spelt wierd because i is before e...it was always hard to remember all the exceptions...
Thats such an unromantic (in a love for english) suggestion. Imagine reading the paper or a novel....stumbling upon these words, they would stick out so profoundly. It's laughable. Although, thats my opinion as someone who was taught english in such a way. If you taught future generations this is would be acceptable because they wouldn't know any different....and this probably would help with the whole illitercy struggle. So I'm for it in that sense.
'Your Opinion Counts'? Jez, your turning into sky news!
Haha no of course not...
Spelling, and the study of latin and other academia which has little relevance to the masses, was brought in to make the differenication between the educated and uneducated ie the rich and the poor. As a country the continues to struggle with class, allowing spelling to evolve with language could help break down some barriers.
i think taht some things shoul b changed, but really i dont think alll "im" talk should b made proper, because its slang... and it doesn't really look nice to have a paper typed w/ lower case i and nubers and acranims everywhere..
I'm fine with change, but this would take a bit of getting used to.
What I have to say though, is it really that hard to pick up a book? Just read, you'll see how things should be spelled.
That said, most people do know how to spell, but they just spell things like that for the sake of convenience, I would hope everyone knew the differences between to/two/too. But who knows....
I love how it seems that the only people responding are those who seem to be literate and well spoken. Anyway, I think that lowering the bar on english to get kids to learn to read easier would be like raising the speed limits to get people to drive slower. It doesn't really make sense. Most kids today aim for just enough. Students could excel if challenged. Its sad that its become cool to not study and to fail tests. That's why I'm only at a community college with zero academic scholarships.
I definitely think it would be a bad idea to let people use text speak and other shortened forms of English to become acceptable within a learning environment. What happens when the people learning English in such a way need to get jobs? I can't see many employers reading a C.V in text speak and then giving them a job.
As usual, a very thought provoking video Jazza :)
I don't think such a shift would indeed be beneficial, as instead of truly increasing literacy (with the English language), we'd simply be lowering the bar regarding what passes for literacy.
i still use thine, thee and thou in common speech, it makes life easier if there arnt words that mean two things so 2 meaning to, too and two would just make life more confusing
not everyone pronounces words the same way due to regional accents that's why we stopped spelling words phonetically and regionalised spelling
i dont even write in text speak when i text! i can't stand it and if i had to read a book with "2dy chldrn, we r gona lrn abt spelin" i would re-write the book myself out of irritation. the only words i spell incorrectly are those with punctuation in the middle of them [or genuine mistakes] but having to write and read mostly without vowels would pretty much drive me insane.
as a person who cant spell even if she tryed my first thought was oh yeah toaly cool! but really i dont think that it shouled be changed for many resones but they all bowle down to the fackt that there is programs and other tools that can add in spelling and gramer. and you can learn to spell or use those tools.
i did not spell chek my comment to prove how bad a speller i am and i got 85% in my gr.12 english! beleve it or not!
I don't think we should change it. It seems to me that we are lowering the standards so that it would be easier. I think that using the "phonetic language" in everyday life is fine, but children should still learn the "old way".
BTW the LHC wont destroy the world yet, that will happen in october (i think don't hold me the that)
and i think to change the english language to phonetics cos it makes it more exsasable for every one and i think that it may be easyer to learn(i don't now if it is i'm just spetulating)!!!!
Aslo trhee was a sduty taht sohw taht hmunas can slitl raed wdros taht are jbuelmd up as lnog as the frsit and lsat lttrees saty the smae!!!!!
I am training to be a teacher, and although my spelling is awful sometimes, i do think this is a good idea, to some extent. For some children a guess at the spelling of a word is better than no try at all, and continually marking their attempts as incorrect can be disheartening, to a point where they stop trying. So i think yes allow phonetically plausable mistakes to occur.
bueno si mi opinión cuenta, no conozco lo que pueda costar a los chicos "nativos" pero la evolución del inglés es difícil de entender para idiomas como el español en el cual escribimos tal como pronunciamos, sin embargo creo que es acostubrarse, tanto los niños como el resto del mundo que intentamos aprender inglés, así que adelante con la evolución del spelling. por cierto la oreja de van gogh tiene nueva vocalista ^_^
Are you kidding me? I think if the English language changes to the form of abbreviations that we use to ease texting that will just show the rest of the world how stupid americans/ the english speaking world is. When in actuality many english speaking people are amazing intellectuals and leaders. i think the stereotype of the common english speaking person will grow to an extreme.
hu ar u going to ask to change it? There's no authority for English like the Academie Francaise, which administers the language. We have the OED, who simply record the changes as they actually happen. So if everybody uses "ur", it'll go in to the next edition of OED, no questions asked. The online "Urban Dictionary" goes a stage further and encourages neologisms, most of which thankfully remain stillbirths.
if they have learning disabilities, then its different. They're not stupid. But still i know tons of people that have learning disabilities and they're perfectly capable of reading and writing english. if the system is changed, its just gonna frustrate the kids that are struggling to learn to read and write.
dis is a gud idea mayte...i dont got no bad grammar and any1 who sez overwise is a propa dkead.
I have to disagree with you on this one jazza. The above is not english. It is fuckwit. Spoken by fucktards. I miss the kind of english you'd find in Shakespeare, it was so much more involved, romantic, educated...and even though English is apparently the hardest language to learn, there are several foreign exchange students at my school who speak better english than the underclass. Good issue though.
Wells is a foolish complier to the social apathy to the English language.
I love our language, but this scares me to no end.
I mean, people don't understand most words and how to spell them now, but in then years time it's bound to get worse.
If schools are foolish enough to listen to this crackpot fool, then the education of our children will fall even more rapidly and we shall devolve into little more than retards.
I think it would ruin the attractiveness of the language. I'm bilingual, seeing as I live in Malta, and from a very young age, children are taught Maltese and English. When comparing the two, the English language is so much more delicate, and neither language is particularly phonetic. English words are being added to the Maltese vocab, but it's a mess: computer = kompjuter It looks horrific, and sounds terrible. Well, that's my two pence (:
I don't have time to do a video response so I'll stick with...
WTF?
I think it's a preposterous idea =/
that means that people who can't be bothered to spell will take over england =(
if we shorten all written prose and stuff into "txt" speech then reading english will become awkward because then there'll just be too much ambiguous context in written English. If that were to actually happen I'd cry. I hate abbreviated spelling =(
As a teacher of intermediate children your video was food for thought. We have to teach a second language - I have covered sign language in the past and next term my clss will be looking at txt lng. We have 2 keep up with the times!
I think it's important to teach correct spelling and punctuation as it can have such a significant impact on the actual meaning of a sentence. Let's not be lazy! :)
if children r having a hard time learning how to read then it should be targeted by finding better ways that suit a broader range of childrens learning style. The language shouldn't be changed because some teachers can't unlock a childs brain power.
I'm not sure that's a goos idea. The more you read, the more you realise that the differences between words like your/you're, their/there/they're and to/too/two are really important to understanding what a sentence means. English isn't that hard, if anyone doesn't know these simple rules then that's the fault of the teacher or the student, not the language.
compared to many languages english spelling is not that hard. In spanish, for example, we have several ways of writting words and conjugating verbs.I agree that in text messages when you talk with people your age you are able to use 2 instead of to/too/two without problems but if you are trying to talk with a foreigner or someone who is not your age it would be really confusing.
I... completely disagree. Not everything has to be simplified and made easier. Honestly, how difficult is it to write "to" instead of "2"? I think it's awful that the idea even came up. How lazy can a person get? o.o
I think that teaching kids the 'easy' way to spell words as opposed to the correct way to spell words is a very bad idea. Sure spelling is hard, but so is life. In this case, I think the French have it right. Their 'L'Académie française' is in charge of maintaining the French language at its purest form. Perhaps my view is different because I'm American, but I really don't that the American school system's standards need to drop any lower or be ridiculed any more.
People only use 'Text Talk' to save space on their texts because of money. I don't i use full spellings because that's just how i am. We all know it's informal and it shouldn't be taught to children. We want to advance in our education not decline. It wouldn't be an improvement at all.
Our world has already become lazy through the centuries with food, transport, household equipment. If we became lazy over our language and how we comunicate then we're doomed
Why do we use a more-or-less Roman alphabet for a language that uses 44 sounds? Historical reasons, and it would be harder to change than to live with things the way they are. There have been many proposals to simplify and regularize English spelling. I'm fond of Mark Twain's "A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling."
All the while, some object to spellings such as tho, thru, and color. Maybe we don't have enuf ghoti. ;)
I think that by changing the English language this way we'll just be enabling laziness. Even when I send text messages or use instant messenger I always type full sentences because it isn't that hard. Other than that a lot of people have difficulty reading those short messages if they don't know what the symbol or short hand stands for.
I don't know, i'm open to change (even though i dislike it somewhat) but with words like too/to/two and your/you're we can't afford to alter all homophones to have the same spelling, as this would probably confuse children even more grammar wise. Also, if to/two/too were changed to '2' there would be less indication of how to pronounce the word. It's a good idea and we sould stay open-minded but with those particular examples it's probably best to stick with the spellings we have now :)
I disagree. I think that English is fine as it is right now. This isn't to say that I'm not open to the change; I just think that it would be too much, too soon. I mean, haven't you ever read Shakespeare and loved the phrasing and wished just a little bit that we still spoke like that? Let's enjoy our English properly!
That is not right at all. Even now, when I send an email, I always check for spelling errors. Why dumb down the english language because people don't want to bother with learning it?
i stopd typin lyk diz wen i woz 11. da onli peepz hu typ lyk diz r lazy th guvament shudnt b changin da spelins cos dats wel sik init. Seriously. Im not impressed with this. I only know one person who types like that, and shes 10. All other children i know type properly! NO JKE LOLOL. If them spelling lot (never said my grammar was good.) do this, i'll fall into a state of deep depression Maybe they should just TEACH people how to pronounce things? CRAZY STUFF I KNOW! Lazy buggars.
I think we should stick with 'normal' English. Yes, it may be hard for other language speaking countries to learn to write English, but I just think that it would be more benificial for them to learn to write it the standard way.
It did make me think when you pointed out that we spoke withe extrae e's and 'thee' not that long ago.However if language continues to 'evolve' as you say, how long will it be before we speak in grunts? Personally I think we should really keep our current spelling system and not succumb to laziness and immaturity (because thats what it is.Friends tht spke lke diz whn dey woz twelve,now type in full english).
I like normal english, I try not to over-abbreviate or anything. I don't think they should CHANGE rules to incompass this, because if someone wants to use it, they can, and if they don't, it's still within 'the rules' to spell properly.
Thyne videos are so thoughtful and interesting. I dont think language should be "dumbed down" just because of textual communication. Although this topic would make for an interesting class or lecture in a college or secondary school setting.
I read this in the paper and thought 'are you for real' what a douche!! I realise language evolves, but i think its a natural progression, not something brought in by the government
I think that if children learn this new speech at an early age then they will never learnt to spell and speak properly, which is a bit ridiculous. And lets be honest...who wants their children to speak text?! I have a four year old sister and if the first thing she wrote was "2 Jen. I love u" i will be a little disappointed. I just dont think its right im afriad
we should definitely stick to normal english. this "AOL english" should just stay on the internet and texting. I feel that it would dumb down the language.
and yeah, if I'd see the words "ur" and "2" every single time I read something, I would become incredibly annoyed.
I can see why it would be a good idea, but I am kind of against it. here's why: You mentioned about how it wasn't long ago since words like "thee" and "thy" were used. Well, imagine if we used them to speak now? people would look at us as if we were weird! So, therefore, if this new method was introduced, how long will it be before people think spellings like "too" and "through" ridiculous also? and I just don't think it right for that to happen.
spelling is overrated! but i think changing the language to meet kids needs is a bit lazy. instead of chaning the language, i think changing the method of teaching would be more effective. besides, spelling only really counts when your writing a paper or something of that sort. spellcheck anyone?
well, with those little words, I dont understand why there should be a change because they are used so often
but with nouns verbs and adjectives that are longer and used less often, I wouldnt mind a change in the dictionary. But before that, im still wondering which words were subject to change, I think thats a crutail piece you left out, Jazza
I Think a Hybrid of the two would work well but it would take some getting used to reading ur and 2 on every page, I think u did a great job explaining both sides and making this video interesting!
Changing the English language by force would be like making a whole other artificial language, like Esperanto. It's (Esperanto) really easy to learn, all the verbs are pretty much regular, etc. No, they're not exactly similar, but it's the same concept.
You don't write like you talk, but you've learned to write it this way, so you should be used by now... Why simplify a language? It's only all the more fun when it's an itty-bitty difficult and challenging! But that's only my opinion... ;)
True, languages evolve, but let's not copy the Portuguese example, because it's ridiculous, the way in which the language evolved (I'm Portuguese :S)...!!! And, personally, I find the English spelling somehow incoherent as to the pronunciation, but I've learnt to write this way, so I wouldn't say that the adjective to apply here is "confusing" or whatever...
Assuming you mean the 'Acordo Ortográfico', the spelling reforms of the Portuguese language. My first reaction was also of absolute horror, in every possible way, and then I wondered if I wasn't just being lazy and conformist. Languages evolve, useless letters disappear, but because it's change, we automatically oppose it, while alleging "historical pride" and "respect to our roots".
Of course it feels weird, and like we're writing in 'brazilian' and stuff. But we, as a people, have adapted to numerous changes in language, laws, currency: I suppose I can learn to write differently if it will serve a greater good.
(But mind you, just because I'm not opposed to changes in language, doesn't mean I oppose hard work or proper spelling. --')
So, yeah, I'm not British, but because of these reform thingies, I can relate, I guess.
I say DON'T change any of the English spellings!!! For as difficult and confusing as the English spelling may be, it's like that that it was stipulated.
It is annoting when people use "2" instead of "to, two or too," but even more annoying when they use "to" as in aswell, or "too" and in "I am going TOO do that," so i'm torn :S
I'm Dyslexic and I had a horrible time learning to read and spell, but changing the English language is ridiculous.I know the idea is to make it easier to teach children but I can't help thinking its just being lazy, not bothering to teach kids to read and write properly.
I like new English thing to be honest. I think it is a brillant thing. It does make it easier for people to use. The only disadvantage is people who dont know text language would fall behind.
I agree with the evolution for the english language, but I think it should just happen on its own. It will happen whether we force it, or agree with it or not. Language is always changing.
Please to be keeping the English Proper. It makes us look stupid and suddenly a lot of words can start sounding the same and meaning the same thing but spelled completely differently.
there is a time and a place for improper spelling and chatspeak.. on the internet, and in text messages.
kids have to learn the way things in this language are spelled.
english is evolving.. we're adding new words! but that doesn't mean we have to spell 'through' as 'thru' in school. it's actually really annoying. my math teacher does that.
WOW. i know it won't go away.. but i'd rather keep to/too/two because how would you know the difference if you use 2. i mean other words like through being changed to thru can be changed i guess but your/you're should be kept the same too cause one is you are and ones ownership..
It sounds to me like this is basically an excuse for people to be even more lazy. Also, if we did go to this phonetic spelling system, reading will be complicated by the fact that there are suddenly more words that are spelled the same and are difficult to differentiate for children who are also learning grammar at the same time. If we become lazy with writing, what is next?
Although there are many aspects to this debate, I think it all comes down to communication. One of the reasons we have standardized spelling and grammar is to help us all get the clearest, most accurate message possible from the other person. So, where ever English as a language is going, it just needs to fulfill its purpose as a tool to effectively communicate. (And sorry if there were any spelling errors there!)
While I agree that it would be nice to be able to hear and write it. That could cause problems in the understanding of some things. Words like read and live, which change with sentence structure would be very confusing. I can read this sentence:
It's been red 2 Xs.
But, with that rule, was it read twice, or was it painted twice?
Thee and thine took a awhile (comparatively) to filter out, text speak is so new I think it will evolve (is evolving?) as another "language" and not as English.
I think that learning to spell helps us in many other aspects of life as well. I myself strive to use proper grammar at all times, though I often find myself irritated that I can't spell as well as I like. I believe this is because my school taught me short-hand when I was younger, so I never learned how to truly spell. If I had learned, I may have learned to read faster. Not saying that I don't read fast now, but I could have been better. I believe that it would just give kids and easy way out.
I do see where making the spelling easier would help, however, I don't believe that numbers should be used to replace a word. The point of a word, is that you read it. Also, by changing the spelling of words to make it easier, you are just making the way of life easier. I know that that is mostly the point of learning anything is to make life easier -to work smarter not harder as my mother would say- but I think that as humans, we are lazy enough as it is. To Be Continued...
If the english language is going that way then what is there to stop it? And if is in fact just a "fad" then it won't catch on anyway. I don't think anyone can really alter the natural progression of a language. I'm sure it will happen gradually right under our noses and no one will even care.
I think simplification could be accomplished. In Africaans, for example, the verb "to be" has just one conjugation. You is or you ain't ;) In English, "there" and "their" of course mean different things but not much is achieved by spelling them differently. However, the meanings of "to" and "too" vs. "two" are really different, so I'd favor narrowing that to two spellings.
Most importantly, however, will be to create a new word. Something that rhymes with "orange".
I think that it's better to keep English and spelling as it is. Honestly, it's not all that difficult to spell correctly and use correct grammar/punctuation on the internet.
I disagree that textual internet communication is just a "fad", but I also disagree with the idea of replacing correct grammar with such shortening of words, using chat speak. I think shortening words is fine, but replacing to/two/too with "2" sounds absurd to me.
I would really be annoyed if they changed the spelling. I spent twelve years of my life learning how to write properly in English.
Somebody wanted to do the same thing to French and get rid of silent letters which would be even worse because, then, the "liaisons" from one word to the next wouldn't make sense anymore.
i think that we should stick to normal english spelling, because it is more eloquent, and also, if we change this, the cognants that the english language has with other languages will be completely thrown off, making languages harder to learn.
I know that the English language 'evolves', but changing 'to 'too' 'two' into '2' or 'through' into 'thru' makes people lazy! People should be taught great spelling skills and I only think using abbreviation is only right when you text. Phones aren't spacey!
I think we should stick to normal english spelling because it might be kind of difficult to get some people to accept the abbreviated spellings, and it would definetly piss off like 4th/5th graders who want to be in the national spelling bee! XD
Honestly, I think the language being replaced by a more phonetic system would be terrible, it would ruin our language.
I hate the idea of sitting down to a good book that reads "I may nt b mch, Mr Finch, bt im stl sherif of maycm cwnty"
It would also pave the way for a dumbing down of our language into a simple and inarticulate one, completely getting rid of the vibrant and powerful language we have that is the most common spoken in the world. Changing our language changes the worlds language
Personally, I would hate having the spellings done away with. Yes, languages evolve, but this would be a bit ridiculous, in my humble opinion. For one, not everyone on the internet/text spells things the same way, so you'd have the argument of which spelling to accept. Secondly, if you have one word with one spelling that means five things... how does that make English easier to learn?
I think that rapid textual communication is good for the computer and Phones. But teaching it as a normal thing would just be dumbing it down. Saying hey your not smart enough to learn the regular way I did so here's the easy way.
Just because a whole lot of people can't be bothered to include all the vowels in a word does not mean the rest of us should have to stoop down as well. Personally, I just get headaches when I try to read people's text massages you use constant abbreviations and zeros instead of the letter 'O'. And really, if we go this direction, what's to stop us from putting emoticons in our English papers?
"A large part of what makes the English language beautiful is the spelling. If people find it hard, maybe they ought to create another language like Simple English or something, leaving ours as it is."
i'm all for using abrv (ah the irony!) in text on the internet or on phones but i'm not sure about it being taught like that. Using thru and 2 is basically just shortening the word but i don't think that would make it easier. i would expect not everyone would teach and write like that so there would be a lot of confusion.
well im in school..and i think it is fine the way it is. i use proper english in class and use my shortcut talking on the streets. haha...i use it all and it is deff.that this is not hard. for us kids..un less we r stupid or something
I don't think this is a very good idea. Yes, languages evolve. I personally think its sad that we stopped using thee/thine to denote familiarity rather than the more formal you/your set, but such things happen. However, this speech pattern disappeared along with the idea of a class system when the world began pushing for equality. It's a far cry from merging words like two, too, and to, which have very differnt meanings. There are two. There are, too! Same sound. Different meaning. Point made.
A large part of what makes the English language beautiful is the spelling. If people find it hard, maybe they ought to create another language like Simple English or something, leaving ours as it is.
Jazza you as always are so intelligent and amazing. I guess I agree with this but I think it'd be a little odd at first. Sort of like we're diminishing the english language but yes it would be easier i've thought about this.
The english language is beautiful because of its' intricacy. If we give into using "chatspeak" as common language, I don't think it would help the problem at all. If anything, this act of laziness would just send the message to people that it's ok to take shortcuts when something gets too hard.
I can see where you're coming from, Jazza, but I think it would be a terrible waste of a beautiful, if complex language if we eliminated what makes it somewhat unique.
Language changing is essential i agree. We don't want english to turn out like latin. And I'm pretty sure that none of us could read an old english book and understand it. Are you saying that spelling should have some kind of rule set so they can understand spelling error? Also i can see how the to, too, and two could be integrated. Many other languages use the same word, in many different situations. You just have to look at it in context to the words around it.
NONONONONO! This is a terrible idea! The reason people are so effing stupid is because we have made it socially acceptable to spell like that. It's ridiculous and the guy who suggested that should be hit in the face with a shovel.
interesting issue.and,though I think that spelling in English is overly complicated.I don't think changing it drastically really is the way to go.I mean, how could a sudden change be brought about, and would that change only effect UK english?-This actually reminds me of how in America they tried to convert us to the metric system.Which though it's way easier and used by the rest of the world..just didn't catch on. I guess, people like what they are used to...even if there is a better method.
Im Dyslexic and I think it will make english a million times easier to learn because those with a learning disablilty go through life not being able to spell well at all and never able to use more complex words.
But also its nice to keep a formal style of writing when needed. I like how it is at the moment, but when learning it was a huge issue for me personally.
I don't even think people should use text language on computers.It's understandable if you're using a mobilephone where the keys are tiny and you have to press it,like,4 times to get the letter you want. But on a keyboard you have all the letters right there.People are just too lazy.I think text language is quite hard to get sometimes too.Why make everything so simple?The english language is a very interesting language.Why make dumb it down for those who can't be arsed to try and learn to spell?
MotyQuest 1 year ago
Yes, brilliant let's make it easier for everyone and just spell the way we please. Please, no. While we dropped thine and thee, we didn't start spelling in crazy ways to make things 'easier' for illiterate people. I feel that dumbing it down, and even using numbers in speech is sinking to a new low. You can't sound out 2. As Shaw pointed out, one could spell fish 'ghoti' if they wanted to. Please, try to preserve the last bits of linguistic intergrity we have left.
divaofthestage 1 year ago
Ok, this video is very old, but I still want to say it. I`m not an english speaking person, and I`ve noticed that simplifications like using "2" actually makes it more difficult to read the text, because you have to think about the meaning.
Adn the idea of "fonetic spelling system" maybe would make it easier to english people, but for others it wouldn`t make a difference.
sabinesaule 1 year ago
I think the evolution of spelling is a good thing, but I wouldnt consider thru, 2, ur etc. evolution, more like devolution, a dumming down. It just strikes me as being very similar to Newspeak from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
"the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year"
scary.
itscooltobeyou 2 years ago
it can but I hope it doesn't
god wouldn't that be confusing if it did evolve in that way
NaraNobu 2 years ago
its a bad thing I've only just learnt the current language
liam15200 2 years ago
Spelling is fun.
The less able should be supported by extra help, not by insulting the intelligence people who can spell.
beforeyouwerefamous 2 years ago
i fink yoo argh a cumpleat dick ed hand doant noe wot yew argh tallkin aboat yew stewpid argh soul
gregthegooner 2 years ago
I say no, this is just saying, we could study English, or we could just change it all for the people who quite frankly just can't be bothered to use correct English.
Johnintheplace 2 years ago
i don't think using that changing the language to suit with texual language is a way to tackle illiteracy at all. i think that it is just a way to decrease the numbers quickly, but in the long term, i don't think it will help at all. better education systems would be a more sufficient way to teach children or adults the english language, but then again i haven't factored in the issue of money and such.
i hate people who use 'text language' so it may just be me.
jessyHEARTLESS 2 years ago 6
You kinda look like Joh Travolta in this video. The whole thing is bollocks. The idea. Not your face. :)
hey1127 2 years ago
I'm sure you know this (as does everybody else) but replacing to/too/two with 2 would be a bad idea: three different words with three different meanings...changing them into the one "symbol", let's say, would confuse the three - thus causing difficulty in comprehension... and I think learners of English as a second language have a hard enough time as it is...
Wow, I don't think that made any sense...
P.S. I miss your long hair! I miss my long hair, too! LOL!
alfie1888 2 years ago
We should stick to normal english spelling, I don't see the need to change it. It won't combat bad-spelling, it'll just make it correct! but people should chill about spelling. It doesn't matter all that much.
funkyewan 3 years ago
Being dyslexic I really woulden't mind the english language been made eaier.
Im constantly having to check my spellings.
Just like i had too three times in this one comment :P
ah33333 3 years ago
haha.. well..
i actually never use text/email language.. well i do but this only includes cos and lol..and thats only on msn. i dont think i could bring myself to write down on paper...
"i need 2 get thru..."
....it actually took me two efforts to not write to.. how sad..hahaha
emilymaezing 3 years ago
I read about this in the newspaper and the guy was like French is spelled phonetically which is not true. This is the worst idea I have ever heard how would future generations be able to read classic writings like Shakespeare if they rite lyk this its ridiculous!
xharry4ginnyx 3 years ago
Horrifying.
I like you, rhyingwithoranges, I really do, but I, for one, vaguely wish we had something like the French Academy.
Poor spelling happens, yes. But people like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis: that doesn't mean these things are okay.
We should have respect for what we write.
erikkennedy 3 years ago 2
I think we should stick to normal english spelling. Can you really imagine a book with 2 instead of to/too/two...i cant. :s
cheekychoo1995 3 years ago 2
I think it's a ridiculous idea. As a linguist yourself you are probably very aware of the structures of languages. Words aren't just random letters stuck together with a meaning. If spelling were to change, it would also make english more difficult for foreigners to learn I think, and not only that but it would make foreign languages harder for english people to learn as people wouldn't have much knowledge about their own vocabulary and where words stem from etc....I'm done now xD woop woop xxx
xxxlelxxxmooxxx 3 years ago
As someone just said
"Stupid populist fuckers shouldn't be given a platform to spew their imbecility. "
come on dont be a fool you have been intelligent so far but come on we can talk like that on the internet on phones not in real language thousands of years old because an unbelievably slow minded idiot cant do the most basic thing as spelling.
terrorlord15 3 years ago
This idea of a so called "proffesor" is, in my mind, proposterous, I find the dumbing down of a language which is spoken by the once biggest Empire the world has ever seen, Ridiculous, all this will achieve is the saving of a few letters in some words, E.g. Gr8 instead of Great, saving 2 letter's, and our future children and Grandchildren etc being horrible illegible to us in the near future. Leave it how it is in my eyes. Please reply to this comment(apologies if I have spelled something wrong)
EskViperz 3 years ago
i like how you spelled "haven't" wrong.
umm... personally, i think people who write "ur" instead of "you're" or "your" just sound like idiots, even when they are texting or emailing or whatever.
jus' mai 2 sense.
mcnivvitz 3 years ago
Evolution of language occurs naturally as far as I know and enforcing 'dumbing down' onto a language would just be... wrong. It's such a fascinating thing to study, and tearing it down to its bare essentials would confine the language dramatically, leaving it almost expression and emotionless.
I'm all for 'would have' gradually becoming 'would of' over time and the decline of the apostrophe wouldn't/wouldnt make me too sad, but overhauling an entire language just to make it 'easier' is badness.
Maxmaxz 3 years ago
The only reason English speakers let up on their language is because its quicker & more convienent, NOT to be taught. In my opinion, if we let people spell things any way they fancy, our culture will get lost in the depths some 100 years from now. I think it is hard to believe that this idea was even thought of. This will give a bad reputation to America, because we're already known as slackers by Japan and China , or at least we should be. So, if we let up on our language, disaster lies ahead..
BabyMelissaRoolz 3 years ago
naw i dnt wnt dat 2 hpne
diebunnie123 3 years ago 2
So, you're saying that we shouldn't free up our language?
BabyMelissaRoolz 3 years ago
Yes, let's dumb down the language, English is just too difficult. Why do Chinese students bother learning -proper- (yes there is such a thing) spelling so that some of them end up being better spellers that native English speakers? Let's send them the message that we have so little respect for our own language, that we don't care how anyone spells it.
Stupid populist fuckers shouldn't be given a platform to spew their imbecility.
GeeWeezzz 3 years ago 5
im sort of mixed on this matter it would cause some confussion for the likes of me on the other hand it could make my life easyier as my spelling and grammer is rubbish and to this day im still shocked how I passed my g.c.s.e english exam i do use text talk but there is still text talk that i dont understand I also do try to use corect English
bbbfire 3 years ago
I may take a part time teaching English Sapin while attending film school,this topic gives me alot to think of as I know find myself asking what defines proper English in the sense that many now believe that if you can communicate w someone effectively they are speaking properly.Thanks for this vid!
KittnKAbooDle81 3 years ago
appropos of spelling evolution - or revolution - America is celebrating this weekend the 250th birthday of Noah Webster, a native of my state of Connecticut, who in 1782 began to "reform" British spelling and usage to suit Americans - removing the "u" from colour, etc. and an extra "i" from "aluminium," and so on. Actually I enjoy British usage I hear on Youtube - "whilst" as an example - but find it odd that you pronounce weekEND and GARage thusly while we do the opposite!
pkeroack 3 years ago
evolve it!
eyebrowsthespider 3 years ago
I don't really want to be closed minded about the issue, but I think that idea is kind of crazy. Why lower our standards just to make things "easier"? Rise above the mediocrity.
vacheviolette 3 years ago 13
Phonetics is fine and all, but some of the stuff people are using these days drives me crazy. It just looks stupid and feels lazy.
cloudkicker6000 3 years ago
things change and cultures change so i think it would probably make it a lot easier for children to learn and would make it easier for dislexics like me, some things are spelt rediculously. it would change british culture but thats how history is made, if nothing changes then there would be no history and nothing of interest would ever happen
princessbedrock 3 years ago
How can someone even suggest that? That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
Everything would be changed and in a way the remaining English culture we have left today will just fade away even more. It's lowering standards and just looks ridiculous.
ROXANNEE123 3 years ago 4
that would be horrible... one step closer to newspeak... just get better teaching?
oilslug 3 years ago 2
When my sister was in school... probably first and second grade mostly, they encouraged "inventive spelling" when writing... so they were supposed to sound things out and spell them the best they could and not worry about "correct" spelling - focus on getting their ideas on paper. It stressed her out and she'd come home and want to re-write everything correctly :-)
momsheri 3 years ago 2
i am dislexic so remembering i before e except after c is hard...because for every rule there is an exception...such as weird...if following the above rule it would be spelt wierd because i is before e...it was always hard to remember all the exceptions...
fiveisno1 3 years ago
i totaly agre with fenetic speling, but it mite be hard 2 make the transfer.
johnzsinferno 3 years ago
Thats such an unromantic (in a love for english) suggestion. Imagine reading the paper or a novel....stumbling upon these words, they would stick out so profoundly. It's laughable. Although, thats my opinion as someone who was taught english in such a way. If you taught future generations this is would be acceptable because they wouldn't know any different....and this probably would help with the whole illitercy struggle. So I'm for it in that sense.
aidan90 3 years ago 2
'Your Opinion Counts'? Jez, your turning into sky news!
Haha no of course not...
Spelling, and the study of latin and other academia which has little relevance to the masses, was brought in to make the differenication between the educated and uneducated ie the rich and the poor. As a country the continues to struggle with class, allowing spelling to evolve with language could help break down some barriers.
Saying that, I hate text speak...
GrandNarrative 3 years ago
i think taht some things shoul b changed, but really i dont think alll "im" talk should b made proper, because its slang... and it doesn't really look nice to have a paper typed w/ lower case i and nubers and acranims everywhere..
eraserman1234 3 years ago
Sbell'in shud b tort da way it soundz...hahahaha
corbettripley 3 years ago
I'm fine with change, but this would take a bit of getting used to.
What I have to say though, is it really that hard to pick up a book? Just read, you'll see how things should be spelled.
That said, most people do know how to spell, but they just spell things like that for the sake of convenience, I would hope everyone knew the differences between to/two/too. But who knows....
Director705 3 years ago
I love how it seems that the only people responding are those who seem to be literate and well spoken. Anyway, I think that lowering the bar on english to get kids to learn to read easier would be like raising the speed limits to get people to drive slower. It doesn't really make sense. Most kids today aim for just enough. Students could excel if challenged. Its sad that its become cool to not study and to fail tests. That's why I'm only at a community college with zero academic scholarships.
tymedrop 3 years ago
I definitely think it would be a bad idea to let people use text speak and other shortened forms of English to become acceptable within a learning environment. What happens when the people learning English in such a way need to get jobs? I can't see many employers reading a C.V in text speak and then giving them a job.
As usual, a very thought provoking video Jazza :)
browsefly 3 years ago 2
I don't think such a shift would indeed be beneficial, as instead of truly increasing literacy (with the English language), we'd simply be lowering the bar regarding what passes for literacy.
presidentIOC 3 years ago 2
i still use thine, thee and thou in common speech, it makes life easier if there arnt words that mean two things so 2 meaning to, too and two would just make life more confusing
not everyone pronounces words the same way due to regional accents that's why we stopped spelling words phonetically and regionalised spelling
TRDPaul 3 years ago
i dont even write in text speak when i text! i can't stand it and if i had to read a book with "2dy chldrn, we r gona lrn abt spelin" i would re-write the book myself out of irritation. the only words i spell incorrectly are those with punctuation in the middle of them [or genuine mistakes] but having to write and read mostly without vowels would pretty much drive me insane.
srs013 3 years ago
if it is changed, then the dictionary will be too confusing and difficult to use.
bitemehoonk 3 years ago
as a person who cant spell even if she tryed my first thought was oh yeah toaly cool! but really i dont think that it shouled be changed for many resones but they all bowle down to the fackt that there is programs and other tools that can add in spelling and gramer. and you can learn to spell or use those tools.
i did not spell chek my comment to prove how bad a speller i am and i got 85% in my gr.12 english! beleve it or not!
inuyashaistheone 3 years ago
I don't think we should change it. It seems to me that we are lowering the standards so that it would be easier. I think that using the "phonetic language" in everyday life is fine, but children should still learn the "old way".
vampirelordlucian 3 years ago
Yay commenting!!!!!
BTW the LHC wont destroy the world yet, that will happen in october (i think don't hold me the that)
and i think to change the english language to phonetics cos it makes it more exsasable for every one and i think that it may be easyer to learn(i don't now if it is i'm just spetulating)!!!!
Aslo trhee was a sduty taht sohw taht hmunas can slitl raed wdros taht are jbuelmd up as lnog as the frsit and lsat lttrees saty the smae!!!!!
Hope you understand that!!
Abl
xxxGhostGirlxxx 3 years ago
horrible! stick to normal. if "to two and too" were made into just like... "to," crap wouldn't make sense!
intherain93 3 years ago
I am training to be a teacher, and although my spelling is awful sometimes, i do think this is a good idea, to some extent. For some children a guess at the spelling of a word is better than no try at all, and continually marking their attempts as incorrect can be disheartening, to a point where they stop trying. So i think yes allow phonetically plausable mistakes to occur.
ladydovington 3 years ago
U B 2 Cool.
scottklaw 3 years ago
I think that's a bad idea. And trust me I am an atrocious speller. I use spell check 24-7. But then again, so can they.
megzy04 3 years ago
Ew, if everyone writes how they text I will cry. Or move somewhere they don't text.
nooutwhere 3 years ago
bueno si mi opinión cuenta, no conozco lo que pueda costar a los chicos "nativos" pero la evolución del inglés es difícil de entender para idiomas como el español en el cual escribimos tal como pronunciamos, sin embargo creo que es acostubrarse, tanto los niños como el resto del mundo que intentamos aprender inglés, así que adelante con la evolución del spelling. por cierto la oreja de van gogh tiene nueva vocalista ^_^
amsimoi 3 years ago
Are you kidding me? I think if the English language changes to the form of abbreviations that we use to ease texting that will just show the rest of the world how stupid americans/ the english speaking world is. When in actuality many english speaking people are amazing intellectuals and leaders. i think the stereotype of the common english speaking person will grow to an extreme.
omgshesweirdo 3 years ago
hu ar u going to ask to change it? There's no authority for English like the Academie Francaise, which administers the language. We have the OED, who simply record the changes as they actually happen. So if everybody uses "ur", it'll go in to the next edition of OED, no questions asked. The online "Urban Dictionary" goes a stage further and encourages neologisms, most of which thankfully remain stillbirths.
Marcomanseckisax 3 years ago
I will cry if it honestly changes, really.
BloodyMystery 3 years ago
Agh. No.
i dont wana hav dis as liek normul inglish
thatenglishkid 3 years ago
I think that's a horrible idea! If kids cant learn how to write properly then that means they're really stupid! (no offence)
AwesomeEmely 3 years ago
Kids with learning disabilities are stupid?
thatenglishkid 3 years ago
if they have learning disabilities, then its different. They're not stupid. But still i know tons of people that have learning disabilities and they're perfectly capable of reading and writing english. if the system is changed, its just gonna frustrate the kids that are struggling to learn to read and write.
AwesomeEmely 3 years ago
Not at all. They're probably dyslexic, or like I said before, lazy.
But actually yes, a margin may just be stupid.
willowpuff 3 years ago
Utterly ridiculous.
If you can't spell well, you're lazy, or dyslexic.
And the latter is less likely.
willowpuff 3 years ago
...or you have a learning disability.
thatenglishkid 3 years ago
i dont think you can solve illiteracy by changing the language!
shadowwatcher93 3 years ago
dis is a gud idea mayte...i dont got no bad grammar and any1 who sez overwise is a propa dkead.
I have to disagree with you on this one jazza. The above is not english. It is fuckwit. Spoken by fucktards. I miss the kind of english you'd find in Shakespeare, it was so much more involved, romantic, educated...and even though English is apparently the hardest language to learn, there are several foreign exchange students at my school who speak better english than the underclass. Good issue though.
OrgasmandTea 3 years ago
You say evolve, to me it's devolving D:
Wells is a foolish complier to the social apathy to the English language.
I love our language, but this scares me to no end.
I mean, people don't understand most words and how to spell them now, but in then years time it's bound to get worse.
If schools are foolish enough to listen to this crackpot fool, then the education of our children will fall even more rapidly and we shall devolve into little more than retards.
Please god, let this not happen.
Eliotsthatway 3 years ago
I think it would ruin the attractiveness of the language. I'm bilingual, seeing as I live in Malta, and from a very young age, children are taught Maltese and English. When comparing the two, the English language is so much more delicate, and neither language is particularly phonetic. English words are being added to the Maltese vocab, but it's a mess: computer = kompjuter It looks horrific, and sounds terrible. Well, that's my two pence (:
xXxachiexXx 3 years ago
sound like the teacher wants an easy way out of teaching spelling like writing 25 times till you get it right or old paddling sorry i'm old school
howdoiquityou2006 3 years ago
I don't have time to do a video response so I'll stick with...
WTF?
I think it's a preposterous idea =/
that means that people who can't be bothered to spell will take over england =(
if we shorten all written prose and stuff into "txt" speech then reading english will become awkward because then there'll just be too much ambiguous context in written English. If that were to actually happen I'd cry. I hate abbreviated spelling =(
LinkaNeo 3 years ago
As a teacher of intermediate children your video was food for thought. We have to teach a second language - I have covered sign language in the past and next term my clss will be looking at txt lng. We have 2 keep up with the times!
danisnzmum 3 years ago
yeah...i really don't think changing the spelling will be a good idea... it would confuse the meanings of words...
i miss your old hair!!!! :'(
liv42daynot4tomorrow 3 years ago
Hi lovely!
I think it's important to teach correct spelling and punctuation as it can have such a significant impact on the actual meaning of a sentence. Let's not be lazy! :)
bekkynixon 3 years ago
if children r having a hard time learning how to read then it should be targeted by finding better ways that suit a broader range of childrens learning style. The language shouldn't be changed because some teachers can't unlock a childs brain power.
MySoCalledMemory 3 years ago
I'm not sure that's a goos idea. The more you read, the more you realise that the differences between words like your/you're, their/there/they're and to/too/two are really important to understanding what a sentence means. English isn't that hard, if anyone doesn't know these simple rules then that's the fault of the teacher or the student, not the language.
waori 3 years ago
compared to many languages english spelling is not that hard. In spanish, for example, we have several ways of writting words and conjugating verbs.I agree that in text messages when you talk with people your age you are able to use 2 instead of to/too/two without problems but if you are trying to talk with a foreigner or someone who is not your age it would be really confusing.
Aks4191 3 years ago
I... completely disagree. Not everything has to be simplified and made easier. Honestly, how difficult is it to write "to" instead of "2"? I think it's awful that the idea even came up. How lazy can a person get? o.o
RememberTheTrees 3 years ago
I think that teaching kids the 'easy' way to spell words as opposed to the correct way to spell words is a very bad idea. Sure spelling is hard, but so is life. In this case, I think the French have it right. Their 'L'Académie française' is in charge of maintaining the French language at its purest form. Perhaps my view is different because I'm American, but I really don't that the American school system's standards need to drop any lower or be ridiculed any more.
madeleinelovespandas 3 years ago
People only use 'Text Talk' to save space on their texts because of money. I don't i use full spellings because that's just how i am. We all know it's informal and it shouldn't be taught to children. We want to advance in our education not decline. It wouldn't be an improvement at all.
Our world has already become lazy through the centuries with food, transport, household equipment. If we became lazy over our language and how we comunicate then we're doomed
ffgerty 3 years ago
i suggest normal english than those texty shortcut ones.
cardboarda 3 years ago
Why do we use a more-or-less Roman alphabet for a language that uses 44 sounds? Historical reasons, and it would be harder to change than to live with things the way they are. There have been many proposals to simplify and regularize English spelling. I'm fond of Mark Twain's "A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling."
All the while, some object to spellings such as tho, thru, and color. Maybe we don't have enuf ghoti. ;)
maniacalmike 3 years ago
yehhhh blud, the foundations of 'english' is all bollocks anyway, french/spanish is far more... logical... so.. yehhh man
fishfoodandfatcats 3 years ago
I think that by changing the English language this way we'll just be enabling laziness. Even when I send text messages or use instant messenger I always type full sentences because it isn't that hard. Other than that a lot of people have difficulty reading those short messages if they don't know what the symbol or short hand stands for.
Cadisawi 3 years ago
I don't know, i'm open to change (even though i dislike it somewhat) but with words like too/to/two and your/you're we can't afford to alter all homophones to have the same spelling, as this would probably confuse children even more grammar wise. Also, if to/two/too were changed to '2' there would be less indication of how to pronounce the word. It's a good idea and we sould stay open-minded but with those particular examples it's probably best to stick with the spellings we have now :)
holliebadollie 3 years ago
haha awesomeness
I don't know if I necessarily agree, but you brought up an interesting point :)
ANTHONYRAPPISAGOD 3 years ago
I disagree. I think that English is fine as it is right now. This isn't to say that I'm not open to the change; I just think that it would be too much, too soon. I mean, haven't you ever read Shakespeare and loved the phrasing and wished just a little bit that we still spoke like that? Let's enjoy our English properly!
shutupandsmile18 3 years ago
That is not right at all. Even now, when I send an email, I always check for spelling errors. Why dumb down the english language because people don't want to bother with learning it?
piealamode007 3 years ago
HelenInMinorland 3 years ago
and when i said "i'll fall into a sate of deep depression"
I was being overdramatic.
But you should know how HORRIFIED my mum was to hear this..
eeek!
HelenInMinorland 3 years ago
I think we should stick with 'normal' English. Yes, it may be hard for other language speaking countries to learn to write English, but I just think that it would be more benificial for them to learn to write it the standard way.
emilymorgan31 3 years ago
It did make me think when you pointed out that we spoke withe extrae e's and 'thee' not that long ago.However if language continues to 'evolve' as you say, how long will it be before we speak in grunts? Personally I think we should really keep our current spelling system and not succumb to laziness and immaturity (because thats what it is.Friends tht spke lke diz whn dey woz twelve,now type in full english).
BeanStovi 3 years ago
there's a spelling society? lol
I like normal english, I try not to over-abbreviate or anything. I don't think they should CHANGE rules to incompass this, because if someone wants to use it, they can, and if they don't, it's still within 'the rules' to spell properly.
TayBee11 3 years ago
Thyne videos are so thoughtful and interesting. I dont think language should be "dumbed down" just because of textual communication. Although this topic would make for an interesting class or lecture in a college or secondary school setting.
missdivinestalls 3 years ago
I personally think we should stay with our current way of writing and learning the english language. :D
Aklkitty 3 years ago 2
I read this in the paper and thought 'are you for real' what a douche!! I realise language evolves, but i think its a natural progression, not something brought in by the government
Katiethecloud 3 years ago
i think we should just stick with the launge we have now...
urbanoxoangel 3 years ago
I think that if children learn this new speech at an early age then they will never learnt to spell and speak properly, which is a bit ridiculous. And lets be honest...who wants their children to speak text?! I have a four year old sister and if the first thing she wrote was "2 Jen. I love u" i will be a little disappointed. I just dont think its right im afriad
Jeniscool693 3 years ago
we should definitely stick to normal english. this "AOL english" should just stay on the internet and texting. I feel that it would dumb down the language.
and yeah, if I'd see the words "ur" and "2" every single time I read something, I would become incredibly annoyed.
milkaannddhoney 3 years ago 2
I can see why it would be a good idea, but I am kind of against it. here's why: You mentioned about how it wasn't long ago since words like "thee" and "thy" were used. Well, imagine if we used them to speak now? people would look at us as if we were weird! So, therefore, if this new method was introduced, how long will it be before people think spellings like "too" and "through" ridiculous also? and I just don't think it right for that to happen.
Interesting opinion though!
HuffleThisPuffle 3 years ago
spelling is overrated! but i think changing the language to meet kids needs is a bit lazy. instead of chaning the language, i think changing the method of teaching would be more effective. besides, spelling only really counts when your writing a paper or something of that sort. spellcheck anyone?
nyera12 3 years ago
well, with those little words, I dont understand why there should be a change because they are used so often
but with nouns verbs and adjectives that are longer and used less often, I wouldnt mind a change in the dictionary. But before that, im still wondering which words were subject to change, I think thats a crutail piece you left out, Jazza
LosersandHippies445 3 years ago
I Think a Hybrid of the two would work well but it would take some getting used to reading ur and 2 on every page, I think u did a great job explaining both sides and making this video interesting!
Sk8RcHiCk1227 3 years ago
Changing the English language by force would be like making a whole other artificial language, like Esperanto. It's (Esperanto) really easy to learn, all the verbs are pretty much regular, etc. No, they're not exactly similar, but it's the same concept.
EctInc 3 years ago
Jazzza!!!!!!!!!!!!
I missed your videos I had no bloody internet for weeks.
The impressions in this is awesome
and its a brilliant video :D
xxxx
allaboutjadiie 3 years ago
You don't write like you talk, but you've learned to write it this way, so you should be used by now... Why simplify a language? It's only all the more fun when it's an itty-bitty difficult and challenging! But that's only my opinion... ;)
WorldCitizen89 3 years ago
True, languages evolve, but let's not copy the Portuguese example, because it's ridiculous, the way in which the language evolved (I'm Portuguese :S)...!!! And, personally, I find the English spelling somehow incoherent as to the pronunciation, but I've learnt to write this way, so I wouldn't say that the adjective to apply here is "confusing" or whatever...
WorldCitizen89 3 years ago
Oy. I was about to bring this point up. xD
Assuming you mean the 'Acordo Ortográfico', the spelling reforms of the Portuguese language. My first reaction was also of absolute horror, in every possible way, and then I wondered if I wasn't just being lazy and conformist. Languages evolve, useless letters disappear, but because it's change, we automatically oppose it, while alleging "historical pride" and "respect to our roots".
KitKat126 3 years ago
Of course it feels weird, and like we're writing in 'brazilian' and stuff. But we, as a people, have adapted to numerous changes in language, laws, currency: I suppose I can learn to write differently if it will serve a greater good.
(But mind you, just because I'm not opposed to changes in language, doesn't mean I oppose hard work or proper spelling. --')
So, yeah, I'm not British, but because of these reform thingies, I can relate, I guess.
KitKat126 3 years ago
I say DON'T change any of the English spellings!!! For as difficult and confusing as the English spelling may be, it's like that that it was stipulated.
WorldCitizen89 3 years ago
It is annoting when people use "2" instead of "to, two or too," but even more annoying when they use "to" as in aswell, or "too" and in "I am going TOO do that," so i'm torn :S
cdbuxtc 3 years ago
no. no changing, there's no need to confuse people with ur having 2 different meanings and 2 and all that.
nicendangerous 3 years ago
I'm Dyslexic and I had a horrible time learning to read and spell, but changing the English language is ridiculous.I know the idea is to make it easier to teach children but I can't help thinking its just being lazy, not bothering to teach kids to read and write properly.
ellyisntcool 3 years ago
I like new English thing to be honest. I think it is a brillant thing. It does make it easier for people to use. The only disadvantage is people who dont know text language would fall behind.
BarryAldridge 3 years ago
I agree with the evolution for the english language, but I think it should just happen on its own. It will happen whether we force it, or agree with it or not. Language is always changing.
toastburntbread 3 years ago
Please to be keeping the English Proper. It makes us look stupid and suddenly a lot of words can start sounding the same and meaning the same thing but spelled completely differently.
dorkboi267 3 years ago
i agree with that nick guy.
there is a time and a place for improper spelling and chatspeak.. on the internet, and in text messages.
kids have to learn the way things in this language are spelled.
english is evolving.. we're adding new words! but that doesn't mean we have to spell 'through' as 'thru' in school. it's actually really annoying. my math teacher does that.
(yes i know i have no capitalization)
pennygoo 3 years ago
also it's HORRIBLE that people mix up 'you're' and 'your'.
horrible. horrible. horrible!
i mean, it's not even that hard. you're = you are. your = pertaining to something that you have
pennygoo 3 years ago 2
NO.
Proper English, please.
littletoyprecincts 3 years ago
WOW. i know it won't go away.. but i'd rather keep to/too/two because how would you know the difference if you use 2. i mean other words like through being changed to thru can be changed i guess but your/you're should be kept the same too cause one is you are and ones ownership..
withallmylove999 3 years ago
It sounds to me like this is basically an excuse for people to be even more lazy. Also, if we did go to this phonetic spelling system, reading will be complicated by the fact that there are suddenly more words that are spelled the same and are difficult to differentiate for children who are also learning grammar at the same time. If we become lazy with writing, what is next?
agentschmoo 3 years ago
you made my day
you should be a reporter!!
brillianceeeee
jiveturkies 3 years ago
Although there are many aspects to this debate, I think it all comes down to communication. One of the reasons we have standardized spelling and grammar is to help us all get the clearest, most accurate message possible from the other person. So, where ever English as a language is going, it just needs to fulfill its purpose as a tool to effectively communicate. (And sorry if there were any spelling errors there!)
ladykatethewise 3 years ago
I know this isnt a simple story... but how bout covering a bit of the obama vs. mccaine election, even though that is going on the in US.
As always, you are fantastic
zo
ZFroggirl 3 years ago
I have always agreed to a more intuition based written representation of English, but c'mon.. l33t speak? No way!
For example, I think the "s" in "island" should be removed.
Raphaelus13 3 years ago
While I agree that it would be nice to be able to hear and write it. That could cause problems in the understanding of some things. Words like read and live, which change with sentence structure would be very confusing. I can read this sentence:
It's been red 2 Xs.
But, with that rule, was it read twice, or was it painted twice?
Thee and thine took a awhile (comparatively) to filter out, text speak is so new I think it will evolve (is evolving?) as another "language" and not as English.
paisleypower30 3 years ago
I think that learning to spell helps us in many other aspects of life as well. I myself strive to use proper grammar at all times, though I often find myself irritated that I can't spell as well as I like. I believe this is because my school taught me short-hand when I was younger, so I never learned how to truly spell. If I had learned, I may have learned to read faster. Not saying that I don't read fast now, but I could have been better. I believe that it would just give kids and easy way out.
KT04x 3 years ago
I do see where making the spelling easier would help, however, I don't believe that numbers should be used to replace a word. The point of a word, is that you read it. Also, by changing the spelling of words to make it easier, you are just making the way of life easier. I know that that is mostly the point of learning anything is to make life easier -to work smarter not harder as my mother would say- but I think that as humans, we are lazy enough as it is. To Be Continued...
KT04x 3 years ago
I love the way you say your quotes.
ofarevolution441 3 years ago
idk m8 but u r gr8 & i h8 2 c u n pane ovr spelin - c u L8er
DoubleDareLike 3 years ago
If the english language is going that way then what is there to stop it? And if is in fact just a "fad" then it won't catch on anyway. I don't think anyone can really alter the natural progression of a language. I'm sure it will happen gradually right under our noses and no one will even care.
MoopsTheCrusher 3 years ago
I think simplification could be accomplished. In Africaans, for example, the verb "to be" has just one conjugation. You is or you ain't ;) In English, "there" and "their" of course mean different things but not much is achieved by spelling them differently. However, the meanings of "to" and "too" vs. "two" are really different, so I'd favor narrowing that to two spellings.
Most importantly, however, will be to create a new word. Something that rhymes with "orange".
ehvee1 3 years ago
Amazing, I subscribe to rhymingwithoranges and I read Well's blog daily and now they've come together. The internet is a small place.
mhausen77 3 years ago
I think that it's better to keep English and spelling as it is. Honestly, it's not all that difficult to spell correctly and use correct grammar/punctuation on the internet.
I disagree that textual internet communication is just a "fad", but I also disagree with the idea of replacing correct grammar with such shortening of words, using chat speak. I think shortening words is fine, but replacing to/two/too with "2" sounds absurd to me.
mediocritylurks 3 years ago 3
I would really be annoyed if they changed the spelling. I spent twelve years of my life learning how to write properly in English.
Somebody wanted to do the same thing to French and get rid of silent letters which would be even worse because, then, the "liaisons" from one word to the next wouldn't make sense anymore.
unclesaboin 3 years ago 2
i think that we should stick to normal english spelling, because it is more eloquent, and also, if we change this, the cognants that the english language has with other languages will be completely thrown off, making languages harder to learn.
awesomelypossom666 3 years ago
I know that the English language 'evolves', but changing 'to 'too' 'two' into '2' or 'through' into 'thru' makes people lazy! People should be taught great spelling skills and I only think using abbreviation is only right when you text. Phones aren't spacey!
Heartze 3 years ago
I think we should stick to normal english spelling because it might be kind of difficult to get some people to accept the abbreviated spellings, and it would definetly piss off like 4th/5th graders who want to be in the national spelling bee! XD
Spiffysaurus 3 years ago
I like this idea, but I think homophones could be a problem.
Kaleigh728 3 years ago
Honestly, I think the language being replaced by a more phonetic system would be terrible, it would ruin our language.
I hate the idea of sitting down to a good book that reads "I may nt b mch, Mr Finch, bt im stl sherif of maycm cwnty"
It would also pave the way for a dumbing down of our language into a simple and inarticulate one, completely getting rid of the vibrant and powerful language we have that is the most common spoken in the world. Changing our language changes the worlds language
imoldjosh 3 years ago
i think we should stick to normal speaking spelling.
but, i guess, as long as books and magazine articles and newspapers don't start spelling things like '2' and 'ur' then i'm alright.
i'd hate to have to read a book with words spelled like that... >_>
BathtubWanderer 3 years ago
Personally, I would hate having the spellings done away with. Yes, languages evolve, but this would be a bit ridiculous, in my humble opinion. For one, not everyone on the internet/text spells things the same way, so you'd have the argument of which spelling to accept. Secondly, if you have one word with one spelling that means five things... how does that make English easier to learn?
crazyhpchick 3 years ago
I think that rapid textual communication is good for the computer and Phones. But teaching it as a normal thing would just be dumbing it down. Saying hey your not smart enough to learn the regular way I did so here's the easy way.
reggie017 3 years ago
Just because a whole lot of people can't be bothered to include all the vowels in a word does not mean the rest of us should have to stoop down as well. Personally, I just get headaches when I try to read people's text massages you use constant abbreviations and zeros instead of the letter 'O'. And really, if we go this direction, what's to stop us from putting emoticons in our English papers?
meggyeggy89 3 years ago
"A large part of what makes the English language beautiful is the spelling. If people find it hard, maybe they ought to create another language like Simple English or something, leaving ours as it is."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
amozoness6 3 years ago
i'm all for using abrv (ah the irony!) in text on the internet or on phones but i'm not sure about it being taught like that. Using thru and 2 is basically just shortening the word but i don't think that would make it easier. i would expect not everyone would teach and write like that so there would be a lot of confusion.
YAY FOR MY OPINION!
hyperbunnyninja 3 years ago
I think we should stick to normal Englilsh spelling. :]
HeelsOverHeadx3 3 years ago
well im in school..and i think it is fine the way it is. i use proper english in class and use my shortcut talking on the streets. haha...i use it all and it is deff.that this is not hard. for us kids..un less we r stupid or something
zpensive 3 years ago
I don't think this is a very good idea. Yes, languages evolve. I personally think its sad that we stopped using thee/thine to denote familiarity rather than the more formal you/your set, but such things happen. However, this speech pattern disappeared along with the idea of a class system when the world began pushing for equality. It's a far cry from merging words like two, too, and to, which have very differnt meanings. There are two. There are, too! Same sound. Different meaning. Point made.
mysticladyrachel 3 years ago
A large part of what makes the English language beautiful is the spelling. If people find it hard, maybe they ought to create another language like Simple English or something, leaving ours as it is.
0King2Of0Yesterday 3 years ago
ooohh i like this idea
specifically id like to change:
through to thru
though to tho
and similar words like that
way too many letters haha
I think the two/to/too to 2 is...too much (lol)
spectrem 3 years ago
the evolushun of the english language is ok with me, cant spell anyway
ecseaweed 3 years ago
Jazza you as always are so intelligent and amazing. I guess I agree with this but I think it'd be a little odd at first. Sort of like we're diminishing the english language but yes it would be easier i've thought about this.
Love You Jazza
JBluver994 3 years ago
The english language is beautiful because of its' intricacy. If we give into using "chatspeak" as common language, I don't think it would help the problem at all. If anything, this act of laziness would just send the message to people that it's ok to take shortcuts when something gets too hard.
I can see where you're coming from, Jazza, but I think it would be a terrible waste of a beautiful, if complex language if we eliminated what makes it somewhat unique.
good video though. I like this topic
christheperson 3 years ago
Language changing is essential i agree. We don't want english to turn out like latin. And I'm pretty sure that none of us could read an old english book and understand it. Are you saying that spelling should have some kind of rule set so they can understand spelling error? Also i can see how the to, too, and two could be integrated. Many other languages use the same word, in many different situations. You just have to look at it in context to the words around it.
mrjohnnylipps 3 years ago
NONONONONO! This is a terrible idea! The reason people are so effing stupid is because we have made it socially acceptable to spell like that. It's ridiculous and the guy who suggested that should be hit in the face with a shovel.
fangirlrant 3 years ago
interesting issue.and,though I think that spelling in English is overly complicated.I don't think changing it drastically really is the way to go.I mean, how could a sudden change be brought about, and would that change only effect UK english?-This actually reminds me of how in America they tried to convert us to the metric system.Which though it's way easier and used by the rest of the world..just didn't catch on. I guess, people like what they are used to...even if there is a better method.
Phobophobia7 3 years ago
I agree its a good thing and bad thing.
Im Dyslexic and I think it will make english a million times easier to learn because those with a learning disablilty go through life not being able to spell well at all and never able to use more complex words.
But also its nice to keep a formal style of writing when needed. I like how it is at the moment, but when learning it was a huge issue for me personally.
PrivatePersonalPlace 3 years ago
I'm dyslexic too so I completely empathise
-Jaz
rhymingwithoranges 3 years ago
oh you are? I wouldnt ever have known that.
Are you mildly dyslexic?
PrivatePersonalPlace 3 years ago
I think they told me i was 'moderate'
and thanks
:)
rhymingwithoranges 3 years ago