English language and the Indian

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:04:32 +0000: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
>

Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
>
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

>
I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
>
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,

And there is the problem. In a phonetic system one learns the language
well long before it is 6.

people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,

Yes but there are two different schemes. One set of pronunciation and
spelling based on rules and the other without.
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
>
And yes, of course my fingers do type separate letters while I compose
this message, but my brain thinks in English words and expressions
while I do it. Via a built-up routine, by lots of practice every day,
something in my brain or spine translates those thoughts into finger
movements on the keyboards, in cooperation with my eyes.

Right. To learn English badly is easy but to totally master it takes a
lot of effort. You really have to work hard at it unless you love it for
its madness. In which case it grows upon you. It also helps when the
medium of instruction is English.
I don't

consciously know how that works, but it does.

Indeed.
Point with Shaw was, that English speaking was not uniform and so he
thought that an extended alphabet would help education for the masses. A
socialist approach. Elites like Daniels naturally resented it. The
snobbery necessary for exploitative feudal/capitalist growth would
vanish if social inequalities caused by language were abolished.

>
When I try to control it consciously, it is disrupted!
>
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.

Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.