The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Page:
having just had my first spelling test in about 12 years on day one of the BVC, im thinkin thats not the best idea. far too reliant on Mr Spellcheck we is.
Lauerd, noght chaunge to Engles, heretik!
Ahha that's a shame, no letters for me, I can't display some characters
That was my attempt to write in Middle English
Ahha that's a shame, no letters for me, I can't display some characters
That was my attempt to write in Middle English
Thats just crap. If they intend to dumb down english, the nation will look like chavs and we become the monsters that we dispise being.
I blame hip hop and stupid parents!
I blame hip hop and stupid parents!
Pfft, ridiculous. You cant give concessions on the basics of the language because some are finding it hard. If we could learn it then so can they.
tnc wrote:
> Especially when what's being proposed deteriorates from saying
> spelling and grammar hold children back to why do we need an
> apostrophe? Because it makes language easier to understand?!
> Surely with the "we ll" proposed things become twice as
> difficult as working out the difference between its, it's and
> belonging to?
I am with you on this. Proposing something should be removed because people don't understand it is an absurd concept. What's next, trigonometry, medicine or life itself! Back to reality now, spelling tests where an ordeal at school, because when you know you're shiny and bright at something it's really hard to generate enthusiasm for it. It wasn't until secondary education that a problem was highlighted, yet even then it took until GCSE stage for something to be done about it, in the form of help from a busty teacher (happy days).
> Especially when what's being proposed deteriorates from saying
> spelling and grammar hold children back to why do we need an
> apostrophe? Because it makes language easier to understand?!
> Surely with the "we ll" proposed things become twice as
> difficult as working out the difference between its, it's and
> belonging to?
I am with you on this. Proposing something should be removed because people don't understand it is an absurd concept. What's next, trigonometry, medicine or life itself! Back to reality now, spelling tests where an ordeal at school, because when you know you're shiny and bright at something it's really hard to generate enthusiasm for it. It wasn't until secondary education that a problem was highlighted, yet even then it took until GCSE stage for something to be done about it, in the form of help from a busty teacher (happy days).
El Viking wrote:
> I don't think this is such a good idea. Standardised spelling
> makes things so much easier to understand, as everyone spells
> things in the same way; otherwise it takes a lot of deciphering
> to read things at times. Like anything from, say, the seventeenth
> century. And I think I once read that by the 1660s, attempts to
> standardise spelling hadn't caught up with language evolving, or
> vice versa. Phonetics are one thing, but words largely look at
> least similar to their pronounciation.
>
> And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are,
> will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same
> goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
>
> -Stops before this becomes some rant about the terminally thick-
> :^)
Indeed people who make spelling and grammatical mistakes really do look utterly idiotic. ;)
> I don't think this is such a good idea. Standardised spelling
> makes things so much easier to understand, as everyone spells
> things in the same way; otherwise it takes a lot of deciphering
> to read things at times. Like anything from, say, the seventeenth
> century. And I think I once read that by the 1660s, attempts to
> standardise spelling hadn't caught up with language evolving, or
> vice versa. Phonetics are one thing, but words largely look at
> least similar to their pronounciation.
>
> And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are,
> will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same
> goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
>
> -Stops before this becomes some rant about the terminally thick-
> :^)
Indeed people who make spelling and grammatical mistakes really do look utterly idiotic. ;)
Dyselxia... good point. Whoops.
I just don't personally see the problem though as it can take time to decipher things, and it's handy if everything's standardised. I've no problem with things being changed (Hell, the Germans had a swing at it), I personally don't see the problem with the current order of things. Hell, French is confusing enough, but that's probably because I barely use it and can't pronounce it too well.
I just don't personally see the problem though as it can take time to decipher things, and it's handy if everything's standardised. I've no problem with things being changed (Hell, the Germans had a swing at it), I personally don't see the problem with the current order of things. Hell, French is confusing enough, but that's probably because I barely use it and can't pronounce it too well.
I love this. Pupils in England are held back because they spend time learning to spell, so we should just make everything phonetic. Genius
Except for the fact that this "pressure" of spelling with spelling tests happened about once a week for an hour. Hardly a huge difference. I'm sure the suggestion would be to fill the time learning a foreign language etc but without learning English constructions that sounds fairly difficult.
Especially when what's being proposed deteriorates from saying spelling and grammar hold children back to why do we need an apostrophe? Because it makes language easier to understand?! Surely with the "we ll" proposed things become twice as difficult as working out the difference between its, it's and belonging to?
Except for the fact that this "pressure" of spelling with spelling tests happened about once a week for an hour. Hardly a huge difference. I'm sure the suggestion would be to fill the time learning a foreign language etc but without learning English constructions that sounds fairly difficult.
Especially when what's being proposed deteriorates from saying spelling and grammar hold children back to why do we need an apostrophe? Because it makes language easier to understand?! Surely with the "we ll" proposed things become twice as difficult as working out the difference between its, it's and belonging to?
El Viking wrote:
> And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are,
> will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same
> goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
What about those of us who are dyslexic? There was something (or fing as that article rather patronisingly pointed out) a while back about how employers couldn’t believe the amount of young people that couldn’t use grammar properly. Phonetic spelling would make more sense though, as Brainiac; science abuse pointed out, why isn’t phonetic spelled the way it sounds?
> And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are,
> will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same
> goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
What about those of us who are dyslexic? There was something (or fing as that article rather patronisingly pointed out) a while back about how employers couldn’t believe the amount of young people that couldn’t use grammar properly. Phonetic spelling would make more sense though, as Brainiac; science abuse pointed out, why isn’t phonetic spelled the way it sounds?
I don't think this is such a good idea. Standardised spelling makes things so much easier to understand, as everyone spells things in the same way; otherwise it takes a lot of deciphering to read things at times. Like anything from, say, the seventeenth century. And I think I once read that by the 1660s, attempts to standardise spelling hadn't caught up with language evolving, or vice versa. Phonetics are one thing, but words largely look at least similar to their pronounciation.
And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are, will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
-Stops before this becomes some rant about the terminally thick- :^)
And people who can't spell, no matter how intelligent they are, will never fail to make themselves look utterly idiotic. Same goes for people with sod all understanding of grammar.
-Stops before this becomes some rant about the terminally thick- :^)
Page: