Opinions on Nooalf

lead on to the site

Nooalf. The Future of Spelling

Some of the reasons you claim spelling needs to be changed are exactly the reasons why they should not. English has become a defacto standard. As a standard it needs to remain stable over time. Just as Dutch was the language spoken by most sailors in the past, English is the common language of airline pilots. Any time you attempt to change a standard, there is confussion, conflicting loyalties, added costs, and valuable works abbandoned or lost. Look at video format wars as an example. Beta Vs. VHS, Bluray Vs. HD DVD, DVD + - RAM R RW, laser disc, S VHS, DV Pro, DVCam, HDV, 8MM, CVHS, miniDV, Imax, Omnimax, 135mm 75mm 35mm 16mm, 4x3, 16x9, cinemascope, NTSC, PAL, SECAM, interlaced, non interlaced, RGB, DVI, HDMI, HDCP, Component, Composite, S-video, and on and on.

English is more like computer standards. Backwards compatible. An early standard is established like RS 232. As technology advances it is modified, adapted, expanded, included as a subset of a new standard(USB) or reduced and stripped of some requirements, to make it simple and compact I2C SPI. There are competing standards but they are all included as part of the whole. All used where appropriate. And through all the permutations, if you look hard enough you can see links from 1 standard to the next, a history of revisions. This history helps you learn the language. It makes it meaningful. It is why computer history is taught alongside computer science.

Likewise, English has changed and evolved over time but is still based on early standard practices. It has many exceptions to rules, but they are just as important as the rules. The spelling is often the clue to the history of a word. If you examine that history, it helps you understand the language much better. It makes learning the language easier. It adds context. By changing spelling to just make the words follow strict rules to look like they sound, you remove all that history and context. And while it may make it easier for people to learn the words, it will make it harder for people to learn the meaning. And that is what is important.

That does not mean I am against creative spelling. l337 speak, H4X0R talk have their place. Like all the other languages that have made their mark on the English language, these add context. It lets you know alot about the speaker. The time of writing, often the sex of the writer, his interests, his respect for tradition, that he is writting to someone of similar demographic otherwise the meaning would be lost. slo

In regard to your final paragraph, Nooalf spelling provides more info about the writer than regular English duz. If they choose to, writerz can spell az they speak, thus revealing their dialect or accent. A knowledgable reader can deduce gender, general location, heritage, age, etc. to sum degree.

Your extensive list uv various electronic formats can also be interpreted az supporting change. Companiez dont go thru the effort and expense uv introducing a new format just for the hell uv it. A point iz reached when the old format iz holding thingz back; its the bottleneck. The new formats are alwayz more efficient and do thingz that werent possible with the old format.

The idea of deducing the history and meaning uv wordz by their spelling seemz plausible, but on closer examination iz expozed az being so unreliable that its completely useless. Plus, in order to even begin, you hav to know alot uv ancient Greek, Latin, French and the original Anglo-Saxon/Germanic roots. I woud expect anybody who had achieved such an academic level to already hav a very large English vocabulary, thus making their skillz at etymology quite superfluous.

In other wordz, the best that an English scholar can do iz take a gess at the origin or definition uv a word and even with their extensive knowledge, they are likely to get it wrong. So the tremendous effort everybody makes to learn and use our nonsystem providez no benefit to language scholarz or the average JO.

Noalf = nohope

I new sat at vunn point I vould encouter one of my true Bro's when it comes to spelling. Come sta mate.

By Speeling "adducation" the wrong Way one day I needed an exuse. I explained that I meant the "adducated" masses of the moodern world. If I would have spelt it educated I would have missed the point. With this spelling error I created a new word for the classification of a group of humans that are adducated by adds. Not educated by ed's. Advertising, not us my friend are the ones that need a translating web site. I will lock into yours though when i find the time.

It has saved me a lot of trouble in being able to understand People of any jonree or any langwich or back ground. We got to the bottom line with out being complicated. I am minimalisticly a bit tri-linguisticly chalanged and would make spelling errors in all of them. It is a beautiful thing though to see the english language performed at its best. Hard to beat in poetry and song. The german in being so bloody logic and mercy less.The italien for chatting over a martini. Scusi amishi.

I once wrote a long private email to a friend in Spain. In german. After I was finished I did the spellcheck thing and I saw red. I was typing using the english program which the ceyboard and know how can do.

That is the only time one should see red when it comes to spelling between exchanging brains. Well, I suppose if you are a lawyer you would want to keep the masses adducated and keep talking the jibberish and be paid for translating it.

Only specialised technical issues should be covered by secret languages. These can be aquiered and become the tools of the science one is involved in. A small mistake in a formular can have unforseen consequences at a later stage. Some wrong notes can kill a synfhony. One wrong paragragh in a legal document could ruin nations.(I hated to use one comb on all the legal eagles in the first place). And so on. Miss Spelling never told us nothing about the variety out there. We were only slaves to her educated correctness of spelling, and where hindered to express in writing any thing other than what we could spell properly. Now iv given away my age to the learned reader as well.

Humour is a clowns main corse. Laughter will stay his desert.

Have more fun during your brakes. Ky.

XaNKS FOR XE eNKURIJMeNT!

Spelling simplification should not be confused with increasing communication efficiency.

Alternative spellings do not enhance communications; quite the contrary. As I'm sure you know, people don't read words in a sentence letter by letter, but read using groups of letters in pattern recognition. The key letters (particularly those at the beginning and end of words) are the primary keys in this recognition activity. (Prahpes you hvae seen emaxepls werhe the ltetres of wrods are meixd up eecpxt frsit and lsat ltetres...? It's solw but reedars can srtuglge trhuogh it.)

When one creates alternative spellings, notably recasting leading consonants (phonetic > fonetic), dropping silent trailing letters (have > hav) or changing the expected letter (does > duz), pattern recognition is substantially impaired and extra work must expended in recognition before comprehension can begin.

Of course people can learn to recognize new patterns, but the effort provides only marginal benefits because you've merely submitted one pattern (albeit a slightly shorter one) for another. I doubt Americans recognize the pattern "neighbor" faster than the English recognize "neighbour". Neither would find "nayber" a meaningful improvement.

Webster's simplifications of Johnson's spellings caught on mainly because Webster's dictionary was the only reference book in a New World where references were scarce. We certainly don't have that problem today. Word invention is now more rapid than ever; spelling changes are substantially less frequent.

Regrettably, a lack of "respect for regular English spelling" merely punishes your readers. Futher, alternative spellings usually suggest that one was not exposed to the correct pattern during one's education, and this may discount the ideas contained in the words. Ironically, I suspect that it may take most people longer to create "simplified" spellings because one must make conscious decisions about alternatives rather than using previously-learned patterns.

Az explained on the site, therez not much chance uv converting literate adults to a new orthography. The change haz to be dun by future generations, but it haz to start ASAP.

Nooalf iznt just a simplified refinement uv the current spelling. Since there iz no true system, dropping extra letterz and replacing otherz works about az well az slapping paint on rotting wood. The trick wuz making it readable ( backward compatible ) without comprimizing the fonetic lojik

A real system duz increase communication efficiency. You discount the 'shorter pattern' advantage to quickly. Communication by writing iz 2 efforts; First iz the actual writing. This iz where Nooalf savez the most time since wordz average 20% less letterz. Second: True, people recognize wordz by elements uv their pattern wen they become proficient readerz, but if that pattern iz smaller, you can fit more uv them in the same space.

But more importantly, a sensible system iz way more easily learned, thus literacy in general iz increased. The current mess iz nothing but an obstacle to literacy. You may hav heard something about the poor rezults our schoolz are getting.

Ed:

Very well put: "Regrettably, a lack of "respect for regular English spelling" merely punishes your readers."

Ditto for lack of respect for all the other speaking and writing conventions.

Quite a while ago, I spent some time teaching, and the subject matter was such that, to demonstrate a thorough understanding, the student was required to explain concepts in essay form. Grading some of these papers was absolute torture. Too often, I could only guess at what the student meant, because the spelling, grammar, punctuation and overall structure was atrocious.

Many people forget that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They simply supply definitions and spellings, as used by educated people. If one has a need to shout, "I'm uneducated" then spell in unusual ways. Doing so cannot help but erode the utility and forcefulness of your message. Sure, we are cautioned not to make "ad hominem" arguments. But one cannot fail to judge a message by how it is presented. If the writing shouts "uneducated" then what compelling reason do you have for reading further? Given that we all have limited time, will we spend it attempting to learn from the uneducated?

Esperanto, etc? Sure, a universal language has some utility. But new spellings? "Uv" is only easier to spell than "of", if you have done little reading. If you've read, it's far more difficult.

(Reply to Blink's #22)

"Punishes the readers"?

Think uv it az mental flexibilty excercize.

Our brainz adapt to any mental activity we engage in alot. Our thought processez bekum more & more specialized to the task. Although it can make us more adept at performing the task, it can also make us inflexible. Reading iz possibly the most common mental task in modern society.

You can also try reading in different orientationz. Upside down, mirror image, sidewayz etc. I've read entire books upside down in a mirror!

(2nd reply to Blink's #22)

About the students. Maybe you shoud consider the possibility that there'z sumthing wrong with the system, rather than the kidz being lazy or stupid. If the the design uv hammerz wuz restricted by tradition to having a handle that went off on a funky angle that reduced grip and hurt our handz, woud you blame carpenterz for bending nailz and damaging the wood all the time?

Lexicographerz ( people who make dictionariez ) have been using the 'descriptive not prescriptive' argument for yearz, but its hogwash. They are the final authority on spelling, pronunciation and definition whether they claim the title or not. In any argument between 2 average Joez, a dictionary will provide the final word. Granted, new wordz appear all the time and old wordz get used in new wayz, and the dictionariez eventually get around to including them, but everybody still considerz a word to be slang or jargon until its 'offically recognized' by a dictionary.

Re the educational system: I do consider the possibility that there is something wrong with it. In fact, I am convinced there are many things wrong with it. The fact that people can go through 12 years of school and be unable to communicate effectively is proof of that. In the US, the fact that we are at the bottom of the heap in standardized test scores vs the industrialized world is proof. The fact that we have crime rates 10 - 20 times higher than many other countries is additional proof. I can't see that asking the products of this already overtaxed and ineffective system to learn even more spellings for words already well-known from millions of books is an answer.

I can't agree that the descriptive vs prescriptive argument is hogwash. Of course there are caveats: words take a while to come into common usage, and dictionaries are infrequently updated. In an argument between two average Joes, the dictionary only provides the final word on how most educated people use the word in question. If you want to use the word differently, there is nothing is a dictionary to say that is "wrong". Society says it is wrong. If you fail to spell in agreed upon ways, most people will consider you either a nit-wit, or so self-impressed that you believe others should take extra time to wade through your odd spellings. Sure, puzzles can be fun. I like to read upside-down at times, too. But a steady diet of odd spellings? Count me out.

If you believe in a new system of spelling then press on, I'd say. Hire spelling policemen, impose your system, and rule the world.

(re: #30)

I meant the spelling 'system', not the educational system. But I agree that our educational system iz not working very well and am saying that spelling iz wun uv the big reazonz.

I think its probable that alot uv social problemz start with the goofy spelling. Trying to foist obvious nonsense upon impatient kidz can start them off with a bad attitude concerning education in general.

I'm sure you can remember how you felt wen sumwun wuz forcing you to hear sumthing that you knew wuz wrong. You think "This iz stupid!", then its virtually impossible to pay any further attention.

Though I do not respect guest for his anonymous contribution I find I must agree with his statement of losing the richness and history of the language. As I began to learn and master Italiano (my first second language) I was awed by the many words I recognized as having contributed to the English language through assimilation of the Italian immigrants into our society during the early years of the forming of our country. I marveled at just how many words of English were brought over from Italy and other countries.

If the language indeed needs to change it will evolve on its own. If you don't like which direction it is evolving in then that is some tough luck for you. Language evolves through popularity and familiarity over time not by grabbing society by the scruff of the neck and saying my way is better.

So what if we all do those spellings including immigrants to our countries how will they affect the languages then in America did that guy just write what he said:

Halo statue. Or was he trying to convey the thought Hello is that you? So do you see where your desire for efficiency can ultimately lead to chaos?

(re: #29)

Changing to a real spelling system woudnt cause us to looze the history & richness uv the language. There are countless books on the subject and a steady stream uv them are published all the time. We dont need to be prezerving history in every little document we produce.

Although there are alot uv wordz imported frum Italian, you may be mistaking the far more common Latin roots common to both languagez az being originally Italian.

I hav no problem with the way the language iz evolving. Nooalf iz only concerned with the spelling. Having a real system that enablez everybody to spell new wordz they hear and pronounce new wordz they read only makes the evolution more efficient.

If your hypothetical immigrant coud learn 34 simple letter-sound equivelenciez, he coud quickly learn to speak without an accent just by reading a newspaper.

Italian, which haz an excellent spelling system, haz not experienced a kaotic meltdown, so why woud English?

Are you sure you are not just compensating for laziness. Why not leave out the vowels. You can actually still read it just fine but probably because the mind knows the correct spelling and fills it in. I'm not sure it would work in the long term. Besides, what if I don't like your spelling and make up my own and we all do the same. I would have to agree with one of the prior comments, hopeless.

I'm inclined to agree with rcapper on this one. It doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense to try to have even succeeding generations attempt to learn a new form of an old and established system. Most people I know didn't have any problems learning the traditional form of the English language that they wouldn't have had learning some "improved" of "simplified" form. It's not really a matter of what system so much as it is a matter of training the mind to operate within that system. The human mind is capable of being trained to learn just about anything. Look at how dissimilar English is from the Asian languages or the Slavic languages. Sure we have many words whose roots are in other languages but it is still much different, and yet there are many people who learn multiple languages from all parts of the world. Trying to change English to make it "more logical" would be the same as saying we should all sit down as citizens of the world and create one universal language that everyone will learn and then throw out all the old ones. Let's just leave it as it is and concentrate on the things that really matter. The language will continue to evolve and change in the future as it has in the past.

It duz make sense wen you consider the price we are paying to continue teaching the old spelling and that Nooalf can be taught in a month. Have a look at the 2nd, 3rd & 4th pages of the site. ( don't worry, they're fairly quick readz )

Cool, a like minded person.

Ahv bin dooin this fer a few yeerz now, and

i call mine - Albonics (like ebonics)

Ah spellz em like ah heerz em.

I wood like inglish to be more like a software language.

Lotsa logical roolz with NO exceptionz.

Some farrin languagez approach this.

Keep up da good werk!

Alzie

Index all words to numbers. The most frequently used one being 1 and so on.

So you educate kids in stages, 1-100 in grade 1, and so on

Ignore all words above 9,999 for simplicity

so instead of saying "wots up dood", I might say 76,589,3247, and be considered well spoken. Snobs would use words like 7890,8796,9876, to show their higher education

Use a prefic/suffix for past/future, all else in the now.

GuD TU HIR FRUM YU, PoRDNR! o KN SPeL LoK YU ToK WIx XIS HYAR NQaLF STUF!

SUMxN XaT JUST KANT BI DUN WIx OL FasND INGLIs.

xlnt thrd. jst the nmbr f rspnss shoz ntrst!

OK, leave out all vowels and consonants

As matured languages like English are updated naturally with time.

Mao Tse Tung suggested to bring Chinese in linewith Modern languages, like

English; where words are madeof alpha-bets [All languages except Far-Eastren lnguages like Ch, Japanese, korean etc dont havealpha-bets but "Phonetics" instead.

Advisors informed him that all the Chinese will be illiterate if tried this idea. So he dropped

the idea.

I read oncean idea to bring English in-line to EU languages & a lot of joke arised.

========

So just as a joke:

In English he / his, she /her

But in all languages having Grammer as there base like Arabic, Hebrew, Persian it should be:

HE/ HER & SHE/ SHER

Thats VERY interesting, Haj. Anybody with a tendency to believe conspiracy theoriez woud hav alot uv evidence to support the idea that children are indoctrinated with regular English spelling in order to condition them to accept nonsense.

Teddy Roosevelt, ( president of the U.S. around 1900 ) tried to impliment a spelling reform. Some factionz in Congress managed to derail the project in underhanded unofficial wayz.

If you can't write a good English then you are not an Englishman. Am I right? Most of the Hindu's can spell Hindi well and they don't become non-Hindu just like that. It is OK if can't do things well, but if you do then it is much better. It is your love for language that takes to perfection and no one actually is perfect.

To know a language does not mean that you become the native of the country of origin of the language.

It is just an additional qualification which may lead in life

It has become a fashion to use slangs or mix-up 2 languages in talking. writings by natives is seldom grammatic. Only PURISTS or Foreigners try to learn, speak & write better

Another "Hooked on phonics" grad

LOL. A thread about nothing. The phonetic system you describe here is based on your specific dialect and the way you pronounce some words. This would be way to confusing, cajun's would be totally incomprehensible if they spelled phonetically. Additionally, some of the words you spell phonetically would increase the number of words with mutiple dissimilar meanings much like 8 and ate, or, in your case, uv could mean "u v", "of" or "you've". The written language makes a better distinction in the words used in our language than the spoken language. More meaning and complexity is conveyed in written language more readily than in spoken language. There are some words which might be modified that are old residuals of the Norman French words integrated into english (particularly many silent letters). Modern Dutch relative to Belgian Dutch would be a good example of a language revision to make the language more phonetic (old traditional dutch had many silent "x" and such). However, there are many words we have just gotten lazy in recent times and do not fully pronounce properly anymore. You proposal is frought with many problems in the way you have presented it, and has the appearance of someone who maybe has performance issues with written english. This has the appearance of someone who would take the entire "C" language base and throw it out the door because he performed inadequately at using it. Language evolves, look at queens eglish circa 1590, but doesn't change radically overnight, and the evolution should not reduce the capacity of the language to make distinctions. What i think you really need to do is chang the way ppl pronounce the words to be more reflective of the spelling.

Actually, I can spell at least as well as the average PhD English major. I just choose not to. One of the biggest obstacles to overcome is our religious reverence of traditional spelling. Including some minor phonetic improvements here is just a way to loosen everybody up a little. When you realize that you can still read things that aren't faithful reproductions of the Queen's English, you may begin to relax and be a little more receptive to the idea of reform.

Have a look at nooalf.com and comment on what you read there.

I have headache reading all these @#$%.

Let switch the numbers around next. Like this 5378904612. Would be fun with accounting.

I have to agree that it appears as a Non Value Added pursuit. I understand the urge to break from regimented society and from using proper spelling. This appears as simply the same urge that all younger generations go through believing they are smarter than their parents. It is hard enough to understand the spoken English word with all the accents of the speakers. I must agree it SHOUTS ignorance to the rest of the world when a person is seen using this Nooalf type expressions in writing.

IMHO...cya l8tr

The Kings James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it is good enough for you today!!!!

I appriciate everybodyz input here, but most uv you seem to hav jumped to conclusionz without actually reading the website.

I've added a new section to the website to respond to all the objections to Nooalf and spelling reform in general.

Since the whole subject iz inherently boring, I've tried to jazz it up with sum piks and attempted humor.

http://www.nooalf.com/BaTLZON.html

Didnt want to start a whole new thred, so just rezurected this.

Ive added a comics section to the website, a few uv them hav a tek theme that sum here may find amuzing.

http://www.nooalf.com/KoMIKS.html

Started this in 2006!!!! Time flies faster and faster the older you get.

I had 10,000 really nice post card size charts printed, intending to sell them, but havent. Not even 1! I think I have a poltergiest or sum such evil adversary supressing everything I try. Me being a horrible salezman duznt explain how my stuff goez nowhere even when I hav no contact with the potential customerz.

Hey! Look up nooalf at Time.com!