Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as someone who has never had problems with english grammar or spelling (yes i enjoy small letters), and who has heard every possible argument justifying our spelling (historical, cultural, blah blah), i remain totally unconvinced.
i won't take a whole page, let's just look at an example: the word "tough".
1. in my opinion most words should be spelled exactly as they sound. in this case: TUF.
2. the use of antiquated and complex spellings wastes the time of our teachers and students.
3. i don't care if the word came from greek, latin, arabic or old english; that is not my problem.
4. when i see people online being attacked for their spelling, i believe the attacker is the one who is misguided. usually the message was quite clear.
5. back to the word "tough", supporters will say that it is a traditional spelling, a cultural, historical spelling, and that to change it to TUF would be "dumbing down our children". i will answer that one time, and directly. the word comes from old english that was written as TOH. therefore not only does the current spelling border on insanity, it is a universe away from the older spelling too.
6. any reasonable person must conclude that TUF is the better spelling.
i maintain that the above is true in most cases, and that in general, words should be spelled as they sound. our children have more important things to deal with. the ultimate extension of this premise would be that any writing that is easily understandable should not be judged as being 'wrong'.
Ideally you would have had to have been born 200 years ago or more while the dictionary was being developed .
There are a lot of mistakes in the English language, rules that are not even fallowed in most cases.
What are you going to do?
Language, especially the English language, evolves. These days, spelling is almost an art form. I truly enjoy getting it right. I grew up in a family of teachers, and college graduates,so I strive for, and appreciate correct grammar and spelling. But I do see where this is going.
You don't have to look very far back in history to see just how much the language has evolved in a very short time.
Read books written and printed in the latter 18th century, or early 19th. Spelling and style were quite different.
A hundred years from now, people were look upon our writings with humor.
Having said that, I still plan to follow the current rules of grammar, style and spelling with which I have grown familiar until I can no longer communicate with "modern humans"
I do agree with the OP in general, and especially with the GH combination. It can sound like F (as in tough), G (as in ghost), or be silent (as in through).
As for that last one, the variant thru has become the standard on highway signs (e.g. THRU TRAFFIC KEEP LEFT) and it wouldn't surprise me if it became the standard, period. Indeed, getting rid of the silent GH may well be the first change we see, as with thru and also (occasionally) lite. Maybe someday we'll have fite (fight), hite (height), mite (might), nite (night), rite (right), and site (sight, though we already have a different word spelled site) to match bite, kite, and quite.
If it is "mouse" and "mice"...
Why isn't it "House" and "Hice"?
If it is "goose" and "geese"...
Why isn't it "moose" and "meece"?
etc. (NO, not "ect"!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.