I have read every word of “Reading, Writing and Speech” I would first like to point out that this title does not use the Oxford comma…which I am not okay with. The Oxford comma forever! This article reminds me of the conversation we had in class one time about written and spoken languages. Everyone was arguing about why spoken language and written language should be the same or it should be different. This article kind of explained to me why it is important to have both. After doing my presentation over Chikashshanompa, I have a new appreciation over language and preserving it, even if it seems ridiculous or crazy because the language, like English, is so very prominent in the present. This article pointed out how prominent the difference is between the two languages: English written and English spoken. We should write both ways. I like the idea of writing academically for school and academic publishing purposes, but I also like the idea of writing the way we speak in fiction and literature of types. This way, both the spoken and the written are preserved in writing. It may seem trivial to think that way: preserving one of the most prominent languages on the earth, but I’ve learned that languages can disappear through time without anyone ever wanting it to.
If someone was to show me something George Bernard Shaw once said that wasn’t informative, clever, or both, then I would accuse them of misquoting him. I have dysgraphia and, although I have no trouble reading, my spelling is on par with that of the average twelve-year-old. It’s like I got hooked on phonics, but then couldn’t get off of them.
After looking at the Middle English spelling chart, I was highly disappointed that we didn’t keep its system of spelling. They’re all spelled exactly as they sound, making it infinitely easier on readers and writers to remember them. They also allow people who are encountering a word for the first time to have a higher chance of pronouncing them correctly—who got island right the first time?
The discussion over the need for the same spelling was also interesting. Some of the words used to illustrate the different sound are pronounced the same in some English dialects. I mean, is there really anything wrong with pronouncing signature like sign-at-chur, or obscenity as ob-scene-at-tee? Many of these examples seem rather arbitrary.
I was also charmed by the author’s mention of the differences in pronunciation that can occur in regard to the word Salman. Personally, I tend to pronounce it like Samen when speaking of the animal and reserve Salman for the meat. I have no idea why I do this. I have been made fun of for doing it this way, but I don’t really see myself changing it anytime soon.
As I was reading this, I couldn't help but laugh at myself. The running joke within my friend group is that I am a purist. I like cheese pizza, vanilla ice-cream, and plain white bread. I also have a slight problem with change. So, as I began this article, I cringed at the idea of changing the spelling of night to nite and though to tho even thoUGH I see these spelling very frequently. After looking at the old spellings of certain words I was struck by how crazy it is that I confine myself to the spellings I am comfortable with. It’s silly really. Like Tori, I went back to the class period where we aligned ourselves in a half circle according to who believed that academic writing should stay the same and who believed it should change in regards to the spoken language. Again, like Tori, I see the benefit in preserving both languages, and as much as it pains me to say, I see the importance of these languages adapting to the times.
Every time I read an essay from our book I come across a new concept I have either never heard of before or have very little knowledge of. Today’s concept was that on contrastive stress. I really liked the example of the Garfield comic strip to show just how much meaning can come from inflection and contrastive stress. It’s amazing how much of our meaning is based off of nonverbal cues and even cues which utilize voice but don’t change particular words.
I have read every word of the Fromkin essay. I thought it was amusing how, when compiling English for study and writing the Latin spellings were reintroduced to standard spelling. The reason for the amusement is why Latin? Though obviously during the times of spoken Middle English, Latin would’ve had more favor as a language of education and standardization throughout Europe, but why hold it to such a comparative standard of another language? After all English is a Germanic language, yes it is heavily influenced by romance languages such as Latin and French (from William the Conqueror) but is not the same kind of standard taking place today with the argument to keep traditional English over phonetic spelling (etc)? Why should language be defined by another, or for that matter be defined by traditions? Whether or not they are even still used or relevant in the culture. It will be interesting to see how language is shaped in the future. In the essay it was mentioned that we can read works of English dating back to the Middle Ages without a translator because changes have been so conservative, will the same be said for our language in another 300-500 years and onward. -Leslie
I have read every word of “Reading, Writing and Speech”
ReplyDeleteI would first like to point out that this title does not use the Oxford comma…which I am not okay with. The Oxford comma forever! This article reminds me of the conversation we had in class one time about written and spoken languages. Everyone was arguing about why spoken language and written language should be the same or it should be different. This article kind of explained to me why it is important to have both. After doing my presentation over Chikashshanompa, I have a new appreciation over language and preserving it, even if it seems ridiculous or crazy because the language, like English, is so very prominent in the present. This article pointed out how prominent the difference is between the two languages: English written and English spoken. We should write both ways. I like the idea of writing academically for school and academic publishing purposes, but I also like the idea of writing the way we speak in fiction and literature of types. This way, both the spoken and the written are preserved in writing. It may seem trivial to think that way: preserving one of the most prominent languages on the earth, but I’ve learned that languages can disappear through time without anyone ever wanting it to.
-Tori
If someone was to show me something George Bernard Shaw once said that wasn’t informative, clever, or both, then I would accuse them of misquoting him. I have dysgraphia and, although I have no trouble reading, my spelling is on par with that of the average twelve-year-old. It’s like I got hooked on phonics, but then couldn’t get off of them.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the Middle English spelling chart, I was highly disappointed that we didn’t keep its system of spelling. They’re all spelled exactly as they sound, making it infinitely easier on readers and writers to remember them. They also allow people who are encountering a word for the first time to have a higher chance of pronouncing them correctly—who got island right the first time?
The discussion over the need for the same spelling was also interesting. Some of the words used to illustrate the different sound are pronounced the same in some English dialects. I mean, is there really anything wrong with pronouncing signature like sign-at-chur, or obscenity as ob-scene-at-tee? Many of these examples seem rather arbitrary.
I was also charmed by the author’s mention of the differences in pronunciation that can occur in regard to the word Salman. Personally, I tend to pronounce it like Samen when speaking of the animal and reserve Salman for the meat. I have no idea why I do this. I have been made fun of for doing it this way, but I don’t really see myself changing it anytime soon.
As I was reading this, I couldn't help but laugh at myself. The running joke within my friend group is that I am a purist. I like cheese pizza, vanilla ice-cream, and plain white bread. I also have a slight problem with change. So, as I began this article, I cringed at the idea of changing the spelling of night to nite and though to tho even thoUGH I see these spelling very frequently. After looking at the old spellings of certain words I was struck by how crazy it is that I confine myself to the spellings I am comfortable with. It’s silly really. Like Tori, I went back to the class period where we aligned ourselves in a half circle according to who believed that academic writing should stay the same and who believed it should change in regards to the spoken language. Again, like Tori, I see the benefit in preserving both languages, and as much as it pains me to say, I see the importance of these languages adapting to the times.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I read an essay from our book I come across a new concept I have either never heard of before or have very little knowledge of. Today’s concept was that on contrastive stress. I really liked the example of the Garfield comic strip to show just how much meaning can come from inflection and contrastive stress. It’s amazing how much of our meaning is based off of nonverbal cues and even cues which utilize voice but don’t change particular words.
I have read every word of the Fromkin essay.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was amusing how, when compiling English for study and writing the Latin spellings were reintroduced to standard spelling. The reason for the amusement is why Latin? Though obviously during the times of spoken Middle English, Latin would’ve had more favor as a language of education and standardization throughout Europe, but why hold it to such a comparative standard of another language? After all English is a Germanic language, yes it is heavily influenced by romance languages such as Latin and French (from William the Conqueror) but is not the same kind of standard taking place today with the argument to keep traditional English over phonetic spelling (etc)? Why should language be defined by another, or for that matter be defined by traditions? Whether or not they are even still used or relevant in the culture. It will be interesting to see how language is shaped in the future. In the essay it was mentioned that we can read works of English dating back to the Middle Ages without a translator because changes have been so conservative, will the same be said for our language in another 300-500 years and onward.
-Leslie