Originally posted by Digi
Ah ok. But here's the thing. 9x9, 10x10, anything really, are all going to equal the same totals in a Base-anything system. It wouldn't rearrange math or prevent us from seeing odds or evens. It would just take us time to ingratiate ourselves to the new system. And in the process, we'd start thinking of things in terms of their relation to 9 instead of 10, which I think would be cool.I mean, really, my statement wasn't "the world would be a better place in base 9." No, math would be the friggin same, as would just about anything else. My statement was just that I liked it better, and I do.
You're correct. We wouldn't have odds or evens in a base-9 system. We'd have todds or tevens.
(Numbers divisible by 3 and numbers not divisible by 3).
For a while there, I started to memorize all properties of 3 and powers related to 3 because I thought it would be useful (as a kid). Turns out...2 is better. So I see why Marius is on about what he is.
Originally posted by Digi
Spelling phonetically, now there's an idea I can get behind.
You will lose some of the etymology of a word if you eliminate some of the spellings. The etymology helps the "speaker" know what a word means without ever having encountered it before which is an advantage of "root words" or "words of origin". Phonetic spelling would eliminate that.
Also, due to accents, phonetic spelling would vary too much even with in the same country. This makes the phonetic spelling idea a complete waste of time.
Yes, I am being a douche because you said that thing about interweb discussions. uhuh
I am a big supporter of phonetic spellings and I want to go there because I could not give a **** about etymology. We'd have to universalize pronunciation, of course. Or, we could force everyone to start speaking Latin (I prefer this along with making all of Latin phonetically spelled).
Originally posted by Digi
This has been a wonderful example of internet vs. RL discussion.RL:
"Hey, check it, if you rank things out of 9 it makes more sense sometimes and gives you more descriptive power."
"Oh, you're right, nifty."
"Yeah, cool right?"
"I'll have to try that some time for fun."
...and we go on to forget about it and continue on with our lives.Interwebz:
"Hey guys, check it...."
"Here are the 5 reasons you are wrong, and some mathematical principles that suggest your proposed changes aren't even needed."
"But guys....it helps me rank girls in a way that makes more sense to me."
"But if you use a Fibonacci sequence..."
"Sigh. Yes yes, valid points. Forget I mentioned it."
lol, not quite.
Had you said "rating something out of 9 is nifty", I wouldn't have bothered responding as I don't really have an opinion on it. You said "I think humans should use base 9", that's quite different, and I have an opinion on that 😛
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct. We wouldn't have odds or evens in a base-9 system. We'd have todds or tevens.(Numbers divisible by 3 and numbers not divisible by 3).
For a while there, I started to memorize all properties of 3 and powers related to 3 because I thought it would be useful (as a kid). Turns out...2 is better. So I see why Marius is on about what he is.
You will lose some of the etymology of a word if you eliminate some of the spellings. The etymology helps the "speaker" know what a word means without ever having encountered it before which is an advantage of "root words" or "words of origin". Phonetic spelling would eliminate that.
Also, due to accents, phonetic spelling would vary too much even with in the same country. This makes the phonetic spelling idea a complete waste of time.
Yes, I am being a douche because you said that thing about interweb discussions. uhuh
I am a big supporter of phonetic spellings and I want to go there because I could not give a **** about etymology. We'd have to universalize pronunciation, of course. Or, we could force everyone to start speaking Latin (I prefer this along with making all of Latin phonetically spelled).
Again, and amusingly, my intent is more practical than philosophical. I was a teacher for a time. And I can tell you without a doubt the largest unnecessary time sink we have in English classes in the country is teaching spelling. It's omnipresent through grade school, even into most high schools.
I had a professor in college from Italy, and he laughed at us one day, saying "I came to this country and couldn't understand your spelling bees. In Italy, we have about 25 words that aren't phonetic and everyone knows them. If we had spelling bees, they'd never end." By about 3rd grade, there's no giant emphasis on spelling and they're focused on other aspects of language use. But here, it remains a staple well through middle school, and doesn't begin to taper off until high school (and never truly goes away).
Switch to phonetic spelling and within 10 years we'd be an incomprehensibly more literate society.
I can see the problems with etymology, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the potential benefit, which I believe outweighs those considerations. And dialects could and would still exist, spoken word is different than written. But yes, phonetic spelling would, to an extent, curb some of that. But using the same spelling doesn't prevent dialects currently, so I don't think it would disappear.
Originally posted by Digi
Again, and amusingly, my intent is more practical than philosophical. I was a teacher for a time. And I can tell you without a doubt the largest unnecessary time sink we have in English classes in the country is teaching spelling. It's omnipresent through grade school, even into most high schools.I had a professor in college from Italy, and he laughed at us one day, saying "I came to this country and couldn't understand your spelling bees. In Italy, we have about 25 words that aren't phonetic and everyone knows them. If we had spelling bees, they'd never end." By about 3rd grade, there's no giant emphasis on spelling and they're focused on other aspects of language use. But here, it remains a staple well through middle school, and doesn't begin to taper off until high school (and never truly goes away).
Switch to phonetic spelling and within 10 years we'd be an incomprehensibly more literate society.
I can see the problems with etymology, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the potential benefit, which I believe outweighs those considerations. And dialects could and would still exist, spoken word is different than written. But yes, phonetic spelling would, to an extent, curb some of that. But using the same spelling doesn't prevent dialects currently, so I don't think it would disappear.
That other stuff I said was just me being a douche. Those are the common arguments given when I bring up phonetic spelling. I was making, what you called, a high level troll joke because you mentioned the interwebz difference on the previous page. It was mostly for your entertainment.
But, yes, I agree on all accounts. How would you reconcile the pronunciation problem other than using a language that has a specific way to pronounce things, universally (like Latin)?
You know, we could go to official Mandarin...but that has problems, as well.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That other stuff I said was just me being a douche. Those are the common arguments given when I bring up phonetic spelling. I was making, what you called, a high level troll joke because you mentioned the interwebz difference on the previous page. It was mostly for your entertainment.But, yes, I agree on all accounts. How would you reconcile the pronunciation problem other than using a language that has a specific way to pronounce things, universally (like Latin)?
You know, we could go to official Mandarin...but that has problems, as well.
Well, if we're being technical, a lot of words that have standardized pronunciations in our current language routinely get butchered by various dialects. I doubt it's a problem that can be corrected, if it's a problem at all. So nothing would change with pronunciation, really, but spelling would be made a ****ton easier. So like I mentioned, dialects wouldn't disappear, but I think phonetic spelling would lessen the discrepancies to an extent. Pronunciation wouldn't be universal, just closer than it is now.
Seriously though, it's every single day in most middle schools, because it needs to be taught that much. Imagine those hundreds of hours each year being put into writing and literature analysis. It makes me sad to think about it. And I've never heard an argument that outweighs this. Much like the metric system, it's mostly just institutionalized complacency and stubbornness.
or this:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So all the homophones becomes homonyms as well?
A small hiccup, which I've considered. But a drop in the bucket compared to the benefit. 99% of the time, context could disambiguate it anyway. Also, much like Italian, if we created a few dozen exceptions for the one place phonetic spelling doesn't work well, it would still be less than the thousands of exceptions (and exceptions to the exceptions) we have now.
This is a great article about spelling reform, addressing a lot of the criticisms:
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is a great article about spelling reform, addressing a lot of the criticisms:
It's nicely written. I like it.
However, I have one problem with his section #10.
We WERE taught the etymology of our words in school. It was part of our spelling classes up through 8th grade. We had to write essays on them and know the origins and meanings of the root words or related words. By the time we got to the 8th grade, each chapter was a little piece of the "English Language" puzzle. For instance, we had an entire chapter on acronyms, their origins, and what acronyms were. We had another chapter on medieval influenced french words (not the modern french, old school french.) We had another on words that are "common" but are new after 1950 (but did not include the acronyms). And so forth. I found this stuff I learned in elementary and middle school to be fundamental to my ability to understand new words that I come across in English. So, no, you don't need to take the GCSE if you are taught that. All schools should be teaching their children the etymology.
Yes, morphophonology is important to tell what sh*t means, sometimes. However, there are literally hundreds (thousands) of exceptions that we use so it makes the root word argument invalid. STILL...I like my word history just fine.
Again, I think we should use a universal language that has a single pronunciation (or an agreed upon pronunciation that everyone has to use no matter their language origins). This is why I say we use Latin. It is used quite a bit in science.
For instance, I heard a Japanese man (on an documentary) trying to speak English but his accent was so horrid that I could not make out what he was saying UNTIL...he spoke a Latin phrase to make his point. I could understand him, then. He spent more time learning how to properly pronounce that Latin phrase than he did anything in English (this is tangential to the actual point). I do not know what it is about Latin but it seems easier to understand no matter the background of the speaker.
I'm obviously bias. 😐
Back on point...
There is a way to solve all of this language problem: a way to electronically learn a language instantly (Matrix uploads). I hope i live to the day to see that. "Mom, I took French today at school. All of it. 😐 "