h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So much depends on a good teacher or two. I had two exquisitely fine High School English teachers but most of each class couldn't stand them. The dislike derived from the fact that these teachers demanded too much from students who had never had demands placed on them, students who had never been challenged. My first Latin professor in University was the same: half the class dropped the course because it was too hard; the ones who stayed got such a grounding in Latin language and experience of Latin literature in just their first year that the class became a legend in the University. You could say, years afterward, "Dr. Buck taught me Latin" and professors would bow before you. (I'm exagerating a little, but only a little. I did have one Ovid professor turn red and come very close to dropping to one knee before me when he heard.) I still read Latin relatively fluidly two decades later because of that one professor.
I hope that you, Daneel, challenge yourself when your teachers fall short. And try to challenge your fellow students if you can. I wish you the best.

anhaga

In US schools, at least those in Maryland, no English history and little grammer is taught. Many of the teachers don't even speak the language well.

I try to challenge myself when teachers fall short (most of the one's I've had have), but language isn't really my area of expertise. I seem to be unable to keep track of it. I still can't spell well, mostly because words like "result" look wrong to me when they aer spelled correctly. ("reasult" lookes more reasonable to me)

Spelling is not that important to me i.e I think it's not as vital as it is made out to be, rather than I can't spell so avoid it.
To me it was always obvious how words are spelled. We had compulsory lessons where you had to choose 10 words and practice them each week, and I ran out after about 3 weeks. I had better things to learn anyway so it was fortunate.
They should (I think) focus more on the interesting language issues rather than forcing you to spell a particular word by rote. Concentrate on how language can be used to your advantage and spelling will follow, otherwise you just get turned off from it due to having to constantly go over the finer points of I before E.
I would bet that most of those who complain about other folks' spelling (which is the height of rudeness, at least somewhere like this site where someone will post just to say 'Your spelling's crap.) are themselves not that good at it.
Once I had someone post just to sarcastically point out I had misspelled 'definate', just about the only word I have trouble with. It was totally irrelevent to the thread and what is more they dissed me as 'some Brit bird' as if the fact that they were American and I was not was of any importance. (I would take anyone onsite on as regards spelling, and with good reason. So I don't think they were one to talk. )

Besides, does it really matter? Your posts make perfect sense and I can't see how anyone could not understand 'reasult'. (Still sounds the same.) I have read posts by dyslexics who were still understandable *if you could be bothered* to read them. (The only person I had an issue with was someone who refused to use a spellcheck because he considered it 'how the machines are thinking for us' etc.)

Spelling is not that influential on language anyway, since any approximation will convey the same meaning as the correct form. I would be more concerned about mispunctuation since that can alter meaning (apostrophes! ); however spelling rules, and daft grammatical ones, could (educationally) be put aside in favour of more interesting language points.

"They should (I think) focus more on the interesting language issues rather than forcing you to spell a particular word by rote."

I agree, MA. I would also argue that one of the "more interesting language issues" is why are words spelled the way they are? That's part of the point I was trying to make earlier: if we learn about the whole language, including its history, we learn that in the spelling of English words is the history of those words. As a general rule, every letter in a properly spelled English word is a letter that has been pronounced at some point: learning that fact can connect us in a very real (and quite small) way to distant generations of English speakers. If we learn the spelling by rote it's meaningless. If we learn the story of the spelling, it's a story, and we remember.

I rejoice in the expansion of the English Language. Y'all should be in the dictionary. "Like" is becoming an adjective, a quantifier, and and adverb. This is all in the tradition of Shakespearean and Elizabethan English. I despair at the *dumbing down* of the language. I *hope* that the influence of things like "Eubonics" are transitory and not the shape or especially the direction of things to come.

My eldest daughter grew up being taught that spelling was an option because of spell-checking. In that I weep for the future.

People all over the world learn English whether they're literate or not. The form they learn is usually called a creole or pidgeon and is the exact same process by which English itself has been traditionally created.

In fact, unless you want English to end up as a dead language like classical Latin or Greek, you should be glad people don't worry about all the little grammatical or orthographic issues but just use it in whatever way they find practical.

It's been a great advantage in America for indian people from different tribes who previously wouldn't have been able to understand each other.

But they "corrupt" it too according to their needs.

In fact you can sometimes tell whether or not a person is an indian just by how she/he speaks English although you might not be able to tell her/his exact tribe.

This language has been a great unifier in a way then because it has been used to define the indian struggle as opposed to the myriads of struggles associated with particular tribes.

I've had conversations with educators about the teaching of computer use in schools. I've told them that in my opinion all that needs to be taught (all that was taught most people who use computers every day) is "a letter represents a sound" and "point and click". Most educators get stuck on the first part: "what do you mean a letter represents a sound?" they ask. "I mean they need to learn to read. You know, letters represent sounds." I've actually had teachers of elementary school not understand the concept that the letters on the page are actually representations of speech. If they don't even learn that letters represent sounds, how can we complain about them not learning to spell?

Well, it might be a harder concept actually than you realize, Anhaga, especially among literate people.

Among illiterates it's not such a conceptual leap I think because we're already aware than graphical representations might or might not represent speech although they frequently represent ideas that can be expressed either in speech or movement.

But literate people get conventions about things, how certain sounds go with certain symbols, but these conventions break down along with the breakdown of the consistency of symbolic representation. Consequently, the teachers probably appreciate that most things they might teach the children now will end up being contradicted later so why bother to even remember it?

I know there have been numerous occasions when I've read English words not really knowing how they were pronounced. This didn't mean I couldn't read them but if I said them, people would stare at me like I'd grown another head sometimes. Then if they finally figured out what I was trying to say, they would just giggle a lot.

This is one of the problems with written language trying to mimic spoken language. Spoken language tends to change faster than written language and sometimes even evolve independently. There are other problems too even when you're starting with a clean slate so to speak.

My roommate Rita tells me of attempts to render her language, Lakota, in writing. There have been at least five different proposes systems for how to do that preserving the actual pronunciation. Unfortunately, there's much disagreement about what's correct pronunciation in many cases. Different bands say things differently so even in the beginning of literacy there is not necessarily a consensus on how things should be written down.

There is a similar problem with writing the Shoshonean languages and it's further aggravated by the existence of sounds for which there are no accepted symbolic representations even in the international phonetic alphabet. So what do you do?

It's sort of like musical notation I think. You can notate certain sounds you can make with the instruments but others are not so easy and so you select some conventional notation that sort of conveys the sounds but not exactly and hope the musicians will still get it.

Anyways, I think it seems to be a problem that is intrinsic to trying to symbolize something in two distinct symbolic systems, one being aural and the other being graphical. I'm not sure there's workaround for that other than what we've already got.

I can read and write in German and Dutch as well as English. I spent a few years in Europe as a child and was immersed in native schools. Only on my return to America, did I have my first encounters with English as a written language. nd I must confess, the spelling drives me nuts. At least in German and Dutch things are spelled the way they sound. I find the concept of homonyms(sp?) to be baffling, and I often screw them up. Any simplification of English I hope will involve their elimination.
Analiese, what alphabet are they proposing to use when trying to save the Lakota language. I always wanted to create my own alphabet in childhood, due to a fascination with encoding and encrypting. It would be novel to see native tribes do the same, although it would probably defeat the purpose of inventing a written language. The other question I have is, when you speak do you use your existing tongue, Shoshone, to invent modern words like "computer" or do you borrow from english (or another language), creating a hybrid of the two? I know the French have wrestled with that concept for years.

Like I said, there's five different proposals which means five different alphabets, most having like 30 or 40 letters and a lot of times it's the letters not included in the standard 26 that seem to cause the disputes. I don't know a lot of the details beyond that.

As for inventing words or borrowing, with some concepts it's pretty easy to find something that says pretty much the same thing and with others they don't make much sense no matter how you say them or even if you borrow them.

As you might expect, there's not much reason yet to use the word computer since most people hardly have a phone let alone an internet connection.

So if it ever gets invented, it might be something like, "That thing people hold in their hand and punch with their thumbs," or "That thing that makes pictures out of light when you make your fingers dance."

Because "computer" doesn't really mean anything. There's no "compute" for example, so what in fact does a computer do? Is it like a calendar stick? Probably, so I guess that's what it might be called to abreviate things a little but I'm not sure how it would come out exactly and I don't usually try to write the language anyways because it just gets mispronounced or confusing.

The point is there is usually very little borrowing of words because they just don't fit and so it's just easier to use English when you're discussing stuff that requires English words.

Right. My great-grandmother taught English.

I'm a Writing Major in training, and my school does require us to take one linguistic course. I have been reading Chaucer in Olde English. It's put me off a little, but I have kept trying. It DID remind me of how much I love my language.

I have emmense problems with the U.S. education system, and one of the top complaints is in their teaching of languages. I find it very pigheaded to focus only on English until student are, on average, not given the chance to learn a romantic language until the age of 15. That's disgusting.

It's most likely my children will attend school in England. And that makes me breathe a sigh of relief.

As for teaching grammar... We should teach storytelling. We should make use of the good books we have all ready in the English language. If you develop a love of reading, you may also develop a love of writing, or at the very least, you will find writing easier.

I admit that bad spelling annoys me. NOT on h2g2, mind you... but at work. I take h2g2 differently, because it is an international site, there is no automatic spellcheck, and for the most part, it provides a chance for friends to meet and chat. So I don't care.

But out in the "real world", spelling gets my goat. Especially when managers above me (I work in Wal*Mart) don't know its from it's.

We're all products of our society and background. I STILL feel superior to others when I see them write by hand something I can edit. I also have found it disgusting that Lingerie is spelled wrong when typed up on a computer program, made into biiiig letters for a bulletin in the break room.... and no spell check was used. Stupid stupid stupid.

My mother INSISTED I get spelling right or "no one will understand you". So that's imprinted on my brain cells. I can't help it.

But I know students who are embarrassed with their understanding of our written language. We have a WRiting Center on campus (I go there every Monday), and I have suggested a class mate use it and she said, "No. I always feel like an idiot."

Sad.

I started learning French in grade 4, and that was a little late in my day. Today you might see some in High School (apart from cereal boxes, of course: this is Canada).
Here's something to frighten the younger members of the crowd: I'm in a position to decide, based on a printed resume, whether a person gets interviewed for a job. If the resume displays poor spelling and incoherent syntax it very likely will be moved to the bottom of the pile unless there are impossible qualifications demonstrated. If somebody spells perfectly it might be the spellchecker so they're riding on their qualifications. If the resume actually shows good writing, proper syntax, agreement of subject and verb, etc. then the resume indicates in a way that doesn't require calling references that the applicant is ammenable to training and that is the single most important skill a new employee needs.
People who work for me never have to write anything, but they do have to learn a whole lot of little things: if they can show me that they can do that on their resume, they've got their foot well in the door.

Can I have a job, Mr. Anhaga, pretty please, sweetie snookems?

I can learn a whole lot of little things like too like how to spell "combustable" or "nerve gas tastes like liquorice". And while I don't take dictation, I can copy and paste from computer programs that do. So what do you say, huh? Do I got the job?

Oh my gawd, I almost forgot! Maybe I don't want the job. What are you paying? I need at least 150,000 USD per year to justify having to immigrate to Canada and learn French, transfer my license plates and my tribal affiliation, and cover the time it'll take to learn how to say, "aye" appropriately, aye?

its "eh", eh?

I had something to say, but I got tired of reading about spelling, education, the history of English, etc.

"I have been reading Chaucer in Olde English"

Should I split hairs? No, I won't bother.

Hey, Two Bit etc., its funny the way the subject of a thread can change, isn't it?

*not completely through the backlog but*

Analiese: this musical thing, the kind of melody a language has... that's my way of proving being right or wrong... and it works much better than any grammar book. Just an example: "Many money" sounds kind of silly, so it can't be right; "Much money" has a melody, so it should be the right thing... It works with all languages when you got used to their specific melodies.

Yeah, don't split hairs just yet, Anhaga. I read it in Olde Englishe too until I realized it was just German misspelled. When I complained to the professor that Chaucer really wasn't an English author, he retorted that Chaucer most certainly was an English author and it's called Middle English. Okay then, whatever you say.

So does that mean Goethe is Late Middle English IIIb or New English Ia? And how does this all relate to Bob Dylan or Steven Wright?

Bable-fish for every one!
You are a wonderful bunch of people who all of you apparently are very fond of words and fond of your language, and also possess an ability for expressing yourselves elegantly. This is better english-practice for me than any old conversation-evening-group to help me keep my school english alive! to all of you!