Most recent features (General discussion) Language Learning Forum

Most recent features
Tags: Neologisms \| Syntax
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : General discussion

41 messages over 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >>

ScottScheule
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
scheule.blogspot.com
Joined 5014 days ago
645 posts - 1176 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French

Message 25 of 41

27 December 2013 at 9:31pm | IP Logged

Henkkles wrote:

luke wrote:

There are of course the differences where American English has tended to simplify from British English. E.G., color instead of colour, and spelled instead of spelt.

To call this simplification is violence in my opinion. These are merely orthographical changes.

I'd call "color" simpler than "colour" (what work does that "u" do?). On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than "spelled." Generally, the closer one can get to uniform representation of phonemes, the simpler.
1 person has voted this message useful

Cabaire
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5385 days ago
725 posts - 1352 votes

Message 26 of 41

28 December 2013 at 2:05am | IP Logged

Quote:

On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than "spelled." Generally, the closer one can get to uniform representation of phonemes, the simpler

Isn't there a difference of pronunciation too: [speld] versus [spelt]? Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary asserts this.
And with the same argument you should write "bedz" and "cabz" to get a uniform representation of phonemes, but the spelling rules would certainly not become simpler. Spelling by morphems (kissed instead of kist) has its advantages, because it lends uniformity to the spelling.
1 person has voted this message useful

1e4e6
Octoglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4076 days ago
1013 posts - 1588 votes

Speaks: English*, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Italian
Studies: German, Danish, Russian, Catalan

Message 27 of 41

28 December 2013 at 3:08am | IP Logged

I find that "tyre" and "tire" are basically the same, as they both mean the same thing
and are pronounced the same with either vowel. But if shortening words is "simpler", then
French must be fairly complicated due to its silent letters and even syllables, viz.
"finissent" pronounced without the entire final "-sent", which is four out of nine
letters of the word, or 44,4% of the whole word. Then there is "[je] rends", "[je]
vends", "lettre"...
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6383 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Finnish^C1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

Message 28 of 41

28 December 2013 at 3:16am | IP Logged

ScottScheule wrote:

On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than "spelled."

But spelled follows the mainstream rule and spelt looks like an irregular exception. It's all very subjective.
3 persons have voted this message useful

montmorency
Diglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4614 days ago
2371 posts - 3676 votes

Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Danish, Welsh

Message 29 of 41

30 December 2013 at 3:27am | IP Logged

luke wrote:

montmorency wrote:

Isn't there also the (slightly humorous?) "dove" for
"dived"?

The word is "dove" which rhymes with "trove" as in "treasure trove".

I've been reading The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Constance Garnett. There are a
few tenses that she uses that sound wrong to me. Basically, she uses a regular past
tense when it seems to me as a native speaker from the U.S., that the tense should
actually be irregular. The "snuck" versus "sneaked" is a good example (though I don't
know that that is the example from the book. I know Constance Garnett has a good
command of the English language. Perhaps some of these differences are simply
regionalisms. E.G., in the U.K., perhaps one would say "dived". In the U.S., one
might sound a bit uncouth to say "dived" instead of "dove". (or maybe not).

Dictionary.com wrote:

Usage note
Both dived and dove are standard as the past tense of dive. Dived, historically the
older form, is somewhat more common in edited writing, but dove occurs there so
frequently that it also must be considered standard: The rescuer dove into 20 feet of
icy water. Dove is an Americanism that probably developed by analogy with
alternations like drive, drove and ride, rode.

There are of course the differences where American English has tended to simplify from
British English. E.G., color instead of colour, and spelled instead of spelt.

In my 1992 reprint of the Concise OED, for headword "dive", "dived" is given first,
with "dove" as a US variant.

...

More modern British dictionaries may vary.

1 person has voted this message useful

montmorency
Diglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4614 days ago
2371 posts - 3676 votes

Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Danish, Welsh

Message 30 of 41

30 December 2013 at 3:28am | IP Logged

Serpent wrote:

ScottScheule wrote:

On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than
"spelled."

But spelled follows the mainstream rule and spelt looks like an
irregular exception. It's all very subjective.

I agree with you. But see my posting about Jane Austen, which I haven't made yet.
1 person has voted this message useful

montmorency
Diglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4614 days ago
2371 posts - 3676 votes

Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Danish, Welsh

Message 31 of 41

30 December 2013 at 3:32am | IP Logged

Cabaire wrote:

Quote:

On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than "spelled."
Generally, the closer one can get to uniform representation of phonemes, the
simpler

Isn't there a difference of pronunciation too: [speld] versus [spelt]? Longman's
Pronunciation Dictionary asserts this.
And with the same argument you should write "bedz" and "cabz" to get a uniform
representation of phonemes, but the spelling rules would certainly not become simpler.
Spelling by morphems (kissed instead of kist) has its advantages, because it lends
uniformity to the spelling.

I believe I could differentiate in pronunciation between "spelt" and "spelled" (and
would prefer "spelled". I would have more difficulty with "bedz" vs "beds". (the single
"s" implying a soft "s" to me).
1 person has voted this message useful

ScottScheule
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
scheule.blogspot.com
Joined 5014 days ago
645 posts - 1176 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French

Message 32 of 41

30 December 2013 at 8:18pm | IP Logged

Cabaire wrote:

Quote:

On the other hand, "spelt" is simpler than "spelled." Generally, the closer one can get to uniform representation of phonemes, the simpler

You're right, there often is a difference of pronunciation. I'd prefer speld and spelt in that case.

I'd say bedz and cabz is simpler. You've got two choices for rules to be applied here:

1. The plural marker for words ending in a voiced consonant is -z.
2. The plural marker is -s, but it's pronounced [z] when following a voiced consonant.

Now, those both strike me as being of equivalent simplicity. To break the tie, I'd pick the one that allows -z to have a consistent value, which is to say, cabz and bedz.

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 41 messages over 6 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.3633 seconds.