It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now I understand why teachers don't want to correct spelling.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I heard one too many times how teachers will not correct mispelled words. I thought it was all due to encouraging the students self esteem. The teachers told them that they did well even though the words were grossly mispelled.

Now I have come across a more devious plan. They are conditioning students to accept a more simplified spelling system. Instead of spelling phonetically, they want people to spell words as they sound. People who are for this idea believe it would make it easier for children to read and spell. People who oppose say that many meanings of the words come form the root, prefexes, and sufexes.

Here is the article. Let me know how easy it was for you to read the words they say have simpler spelling.

kdka.com...

It is more difficult for me to read those words. I sure wouldn't be able to spell that way either. Then again I was already trained to read and spell the written English word as it exists today.

Another reason I don't like this idea, is because it also goes along the lines of dumbing down our kids. If you are not familiar with this, you can do a google search, and check out the book "Why Johnny can't read" from the library.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
It's inevitable...

The English I learned will be about as useful to my children as Latin was to me, growing up. More of a curiosity, or a scholarly pursuit, than any kind of practical communications tool.

I love the (English) language, but it really is nonsensical sometimes.

Then again, one of the really nifty things about the language is that it's so multi-faceted and maleable. I know of no other language with as many possible sentence structures, as many slight variant synonyms - no other language that I've come across can match the sheer bulk of this beautiful monstrosity.

I couldn't write fiction in any other language, nevermind poetry - the lack of descriptive color words alone would hamstring me! I definitely couldn't form a cogent argument or present a complex idea in 133t. Jeez..shoot me now - I'm obsolete already, and only 25 years old.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
This trend has been seen here at ATS some of the spelling by younger members here at ATS has been deplorable. I for one have had trouble deciphering some of the spelling made by others here at ATS and it really is quite annoying. I'm not saying I spell perfect all the time but I at least try to correct what I find misspelled anyway, good post


P.S. I misspelled SENTINAL on purpose



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Just visit any yahoo or AOL chat room... looks like 90% in there exhibit this behavior.

At one time we were wondering if it was a new disease... Typelexia



Typelexia

(n) A typing disorder where letter signals from the brain become entangled resulting in an incorrected finder deprissing or numerous fingers spasming. Typically occurs during lengthy email, chat or typing activity, and frequently in the early hours of the morning.

SOURCE


Do a google search...
Looks like the writer has it!


[edit on 6-7-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Yesssss,

First we'll get the children to stop learning proper language skills. then we'll remove higher maths from their new literacy campaign, this will lead to whole generations of under-acheivers who will be forever beneath us, the intellectually (read Financially) elite rulers of the world!



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
From the way you all posted above I will assume I am pretty young compared to you all.
I am 20 and I can tell you when in school the teacher always told us to sound it out and spell it like it sounds. It is because of this I can't spell! Thank god for spell check though..... But it makes sense doesnt it? We are a germanic language that was attacked by French spelling. Lets take beautiful for example, clearly a french spelling, and if you can speak french you would know nothing sounds like it is written. The spelling system is flawed by this and will change over time, as all living languages do. If we went back 200 years our english would be barbaric to the men living then. I do not think it is a consperiacy to make our children be lazy and accept unsatisfactory work for credit, it doesnt make sense to spell words if it isnt how they sound.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Hooked on phonics worked for me. Had to say it.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Can anyone say "newspeak"?

This sort of regression of the english language is doubleplus ungood... (heh heh)

Call me crazy, but i'm the only person i know who refuses to use that sort of babble for IM or text messages. To me, it makes you look stupid (i'm sorry, it's true).

[edit on 6-7-2006 by negativenihil]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I cannot believe this. Please can somone shoot the guy who had this idea? I could not read that easily at all and different accents change the way we pronounce words anyway, so it will not work for this reason amongst many others. Jesus this is depressing and should be embarassing for America.




[edit on 6-7-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I do not think it is a consperiacy to make our children be lazy and accept unsatisfactory work for credit, it doesnt make sense to spell words if it isnt how they sound.


If you spell the word how it sounds, then you run into a whole other slew of problems. The richness of our language comes from having more than one sound assigned to a letter. A c can sound like a K or S depending on how the word is formed. Do we eliminate the letter c and have only K and S? If we don't eliminate it, what sound is it suppose to have? When sounding a word out such as school, it does have a K sound. Now if both K and C have the same sound, which letter is suppose to be used, and why.

Since we are trying to make everything simple, then we shouldn't have two sounds for any letters, which include the vowels. Remember each vowel has a long and short sound. Do we eliminate a sound, or create a new letter for that paticular sound?

One of the reasons the Dictionary came about was so people would have a uniform spelling for words. This would help ensure that everyone would know what a particular written word was suppose to mean. Some words could be spelled different ways depending on how it sounded, and how a person thought it should be spelled.

New dictionaries will have to be created with the new spellings. Other wise people can quickly become confused as to what the word is suppose to be. When someone spells to, because that is how it sounds. How am I suppose to know if they mean to as going to somewhere, too meaning also, or the number two? By context? Then we would be making one thing simple just to make another more complex. Which is easier to read? I'm going to the store after I grab to gloves, and I'll try not to be to late. I'm going to the store after I grab two gloves, and I'll try not to be too late.

Now to keep things simple, we will either have to A) eliminate some words form the English language, or B) replace words with new words, so that they don't sound alike.

This is really starting to sound like a whole lot of unnecessary hard work. Especially in the light that the English language is 98% phonetic. If a good phonetic program was taught in schools instead of whole language, then todays students and recent graduates would not have shuch a hard time reading and spelling.

Also, to give you something more to think about along the lines why making things more and more simple can be considered a conspiricy, read George Orwell's 1984 for free online at:

www.online-literature.com...

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Mystery_Lady]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The spelling system is flawed by this and will change over time, as all living languages do. If we went back 200 years our english would be barbaric to the men living then.


Language changing slowly over time is one thing, but what is being presented here is a total overhaul of the entire language system. Others besides myself have had trouble reading the new "improved" spelling of words based on sounds. This in itself will create many many illierates.

Just think of how many people would be made to read the "new spellings" in the newspapers, at businesses, and etc if the government forced this upon us. There would be more people would would not be able to read, or have a very difficult time than there are now in our current system.

Think of the economics of this type of language change. All street and store signs would need to be changed over. All books in libriaries would need to eventually be printed in the new language. Many web authors, and others who write including myself would have major problems trying to spell words by hearing them. How one word sounds to me may not be exactly how it sounds to you. We would tend to use two different letters. You could spell school as skool, and I could spell it scool. Which is right since both letters have the same sound. I can say the word with either a soft or hard sound.

Even if this would be done through a transistion, it would be a very difficult one to deal with. A student could write a letter to an older aunt or uncle using the new spellings. The aunt or uncle may not be able to read what was written. Not only will the student have different spellings, they are usually not grammar efficient either. What about the libraries? Do they stock books in the old or new English language? What about businesses? They have to deal with the young and old alike. Do they need signs, letters, memos, and everything else in both spellings?

The only changes I could see as reasonable is to make the rest of the language phonetically correct. To me it is not reasonable to overhaul an entire language to make it confusing to probablly the majority of the people.



[edit on 6-7-2006 by Mystery_Lady]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Hooked on phonics worked for me. Had to say it.


Actually much cheaper and some claim more efficient Phonic Pathways worked for my kids. The schools won't teach them phonics, so I had to.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Now I have come across a more devious plan. They are conditioning students to accept a more simplified spelling system. Instead of spelling phonetically, they want people to spell words as they sound.


I thought thats how most people spelled words? by sounding them out and knowing as close as humanly possible, the english equivalent of the phoenetics.

now granted that still results in some mispelling but you can get it close enough to grab a dictionary,
.

I also believe this is an attempt to make schooling on non-english speaking kids easier, this wouldnt be the first case of this.

my state has lowered the bar on the Graduation Qualification Exam (GQE - ISTEP)
to catter to inter city kids (WHO STILL CANNOT PASS IT!) its laughable. I walked in to the classroom and blew away that test by NORMAL STANDARDS after only having 3 hours of sleep the night before
.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Dont you know? Its "Newspeak" Right out of Orwells 1984. It will be the thing of the future.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Interesting that simplified english spelling was orginated as a system by Carnegie, one of those big industrialists from the old day, up there with the Rothchilds, etc.


Its "Newspeak" Right out of Orwells 1984

Either way, its definitly social engineering, members of the 'elite' determining how things should be, according to them, and then trying to re-engineer society along those lines.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Isnt America content with dumbing down and bastardising the English language as much as they do now?

You already see it with taking out "u"s in words like colour - color,

also cheque - check,
tonight - tonite,
sulphate - sulfate,
paedophile - pedofile etc

I dont see why Americans are upset with this, your educational system is already doing it.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Isnt America content with dumbing down and bastardising the English language as much as they do now?

You already see it with taking out "u"s in words like colour - color,

also cheque - check,
tonight - tonite,
sulphate - sulfate,
paedophile - pedofile etc

I dont see why Americans are upset with this, your educational system is already doing it.


We wouldnt be us if we didnt change things into our own personal image now would we? I think, Mystery Lady, that was the longest reply EVER anyone has ever given me on a post lol, thanks, but I just want to clarify I was not saying in any way pronoucing or creating a new language of anykind, I was saying we will follow a path that will turn words, like above, into newly spelled ones. like how cheque is now check. To much romance mix in the language and it adds to many letters that don't need to be there to make the sounds. Now if it gets to the point where in everyday english we spell like kids do on cell phones txting or e-mail/aim then we really have a problem. Of course this could be a generation thing, mabe the next generation will rebell against mine and begin spelling and speaking old english of the 1700's



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Call me crazy, but i'm the only person i know who refuses to use that sort of babble for IM or text messages. To me, it makes you look stupid (i'm sorry, it's true).



PSSTTTTTT Watch out for those capital "i"s



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Dont you know? Its "Newspeak" Right out of Orwells 1984. It will be the thing of the future.



Yes and give them all SOMA too... no worries then... plug them into music and video games... whereever they go ... so they can tune out the world

Then the Elite shall Rule Again! Its GOOD to be KING



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I think, Mystery Lady, that was the longest reply EVER anyone has ever given me on a post lol, thanks, but I just want to clarify I was not saying in any way pronoucing or creating a new language of anykind, I was saying we will follow a path that will turn words, like above, into newly spelled ones. like how cheque is now check. To much romance mix in the language and it adds to many letters that don't need to be there to make the sounds. Now if it gets to the point where in everyday english we spell like kids do on cell phones txting or e-mail/aim then we really have a problem. Of course this could be a generation thing, mabe the next generation will rebell against mine and begin spelling and speaking old english of the 1700's


You're welcome
Actually I have been trying to make my replies shorter. I usually end up making them longer as I try to do so.


I do have to say I agree with you. Cheque to check is more of a natural evolution of words and spelling. I remember when check use to be spelled cheque. The article, from the link I posted, was basically saying that there are people who want to overhaul the language, and have all of us writing like kids. Why? because it will be easier for the kids to learn how to read and spell. Just forget all the adults who will be confused.

That is why I started this thread. It fits so well into outcome based education, dumbing down our kids, the whole self esteem issue making them think they are smarter than they actually are, and etc. It is a part of the conditioning for the next generation to better accept the NWO when they make their move. The more igornant the masses are, the better the higher ups can control them.

Then add to the mix NAFTA, and the immigration issue. NAFTA has been called a run to the bottom. The next step in NAFTA will create a type of European Union with Mexico, US, and Canada. There would effectively be no borders between the three countries. Therefore cheap labor can flood the US and Canada. I believe that is why Bush isn't pushing the immigration issue to heavily currently. Of course the dumber the masses and more complaiant the masses are, the more they would be willing to accept such treaties and economic plight all of this would cause.

The schools are not teaching the students any longer. They are training them to be complaiant, igornant, willing to follow the leader, and trained for low sector service jobs that don't require much schooling. Mass immigration into the US will cause a shortage of those low paying jobs. Then people will start to accept lower paying jobs, and a lower lifestyle than they were use to as kids.

There has been alot of talk about raising the minimum wage, and how a single minimum wage earner can make ends meet anylonger. It will get worse in the future. This is what they want. They may say it is ok to increase the minimum wage a $1.00 when that increase will still leave us off worse than we are now. The masses will be happy to recieve that $1.00, but never be aware that their buying power is the worst it has ever been even before the $1.00 increase.

When most are way below poverty, there is sometype of war going on, there is practically a civil war between all the different "minority" and "majority" groups, there will be civil unrest between the "old-white" majority and the "new-Spanish" majority, civil unrest between which language to use, and etc.

This is when they can step in with "all the answers" to people's problems. Of course they caused all the problems in the first place. Who are they? They are the ones who want to bring in the New World Order. They are the ones who are behind the scenes controling the governments. In the US, they have set in place two parties, and may allow a major third. They control each party, but let the people think there is sometype of difference between them.

They want a one world government - UN, one world currency - started with the euro, and a one world religion - heard alot of talk about religious "tolerance" and agreements between different religions lately? The idea that all religions worship the same "God" in their own way, and therefore are actually not so different from each other even if one is Catholic and the other is hindu. Notice how eastern religious practices such as yoga has become more and more accepted? The more ignorant and compliant the masses, the better off they are in impelimenting their plan.

Oh well for the short post I was planning.


PS. I forgot to add that the more they dumb us down and train us in compliance and tolerance, the more willing we will be to accept a huge massive influx of mass immigration into the US. I wonder if Bush's proposal for amenisty was basically just to test the waters to see how the US citizens as a group would react to such an idea.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Mystery_Lady]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join