No No No No No No NO

July 10th, 2007 § 3

What the flying FUCK?

Jesus Fucking Christ. Hang on, I must have read that wrong. Let me look again.

No, I was right. There are actually learned (pronounced “lern-ed”, by the way – two distinct syllables)  people out there who recommend “that the spelling of English needs simplifying so children’s literacy can improve.”

Example phrase: If u hav a por memmory yor chances of becumming a good speller ar lo.

Fuck. That. Noise.

If that’s what you think, move to the USA* and get down with “thru” and “donut”. I’ll stay here and speak English.

–c.
* Apologies to any USAnian readers out there – I’m not anti-American at all, I’m just a bit anti-”American English”.

§ 3 Responses to “No No No No No No NO”

  • galetea says:

    Speaking as someone for whom the spell check function in Word is a blessing, I STILL couldn’t believe that anyone would advocate a “dumbing down” of spelling. I’ve spent to many damned years trying to get the hang of the word “phenomenon” to let some asshat tell me it’s actually spelled “fennominon”.

  • adrian says:

    Yeah, silly sods.

    I’m sure I remember reading something (back when I was doing linguistics at Uni) that kids who are brought up bilingual tend to develop much better language and literacy skills. Which kind of makes a nonsense of the “simplified spelling” argument.

  • Nige says:

    While on the BBC News site, go here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6290302.stm and read from the 11th paragraph. You would think they would check their acronym before maning themselves. Imagine trying to find their web site …

  • § Leave a Reply

What's this?

You are currently reading No No No No No No NO at clivemurray.com.

meta