Re: Knowing when to use "it's" and "its"

On Jul 3, 8:34 am, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:41 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 3, 2:53 am, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 11:05 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 6:39 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 1:29 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 1, 11:05 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:05 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:46 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:04 am, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 10:47 am, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 5:13 am, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT): Iain
<iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
What would you do with English spelling, given Academy-Francais
powers?

Keep it as it is.

Throw out the mistakenly introduced "etymological letters" like the b
in debt and the s in island.

Why not, by the same token, also throw out false phonetical letters,
such as by changing "tear" to "teer"?

Because (to take your example of <ea> vs. <ee>) they represent
historically different vowels that happened to merge in what came to
be the standard language, but there are to this day varieties of
English in which the words that are spelled differently are pronounced
differently.

As a Scotsman I can certainly sympathise -- many words here which are
normally considered to be pronounced the same worldwide are pronounced
differently in Scotland. For example, Or and Oar.

So you knew the answer to your own question!

Nope. Because the point I made does not apply everywhere. For example,
I cannot think of any justification at all for the E at the end of
"medicine". Nor can I think of a reason why

You really shouldn't set yourself up for rude comments about your
thinking ability!

Haven't. If you make such comments, they are non sequiturs not worthy
of subsequiturs.

Just because _you_ "cannot think of" a reason for this or that doesn't
mean there aren't very good reasons for this or that.

It's not like these questions have never been
discussed over the past 400 years or so.

So?

You could _read_ the discussions in books.

V cannot be doubled and
must always be followed by an E if it would otherwise be last. To
remove these rules would not interfere with morphemic clarity, and if
anything would almost unilaterally improve phonemic accuracy. We could
have Liv, Alive, Live, Livving, etc, not to mention Hav. It would be
nice to kill the E in Were also. Just tidy the commonplace words a
little, so that it's not a total shambles.

English spelling is not and has never been surface-phonemic (let alone
phonetic). English spelling maintains the visual integrity of
_morphemes_.

Point?

The V E -- an example I chose for a good reason -- maintains neither
morphemic integrity nor phonemic integrity. You really shouldn't set
yourself up for rude comments about your ability to think pertinently.

 > > You described English spelling as being nice, for this and that

reason. I'm asking -- why not make it even nicer, in the same respects
that you already think are nice?

You have a very short-sighted view of "nice."

What on Earth are you talking about?

Like all spelling tamperers (my new name for spelling "reformers"),
you are operating with the simplistic notion that a one-to-one letter-
to-phoneme equivalence is the ideal orthographic system in all
circumstances.

How does your mind function?

I said, earlier in this thread, that it might be nicer if Search was
spelled Circh.

Later, you said...

" you are operating with the simplistic notion that a one-to-one
letter-to-phoneme equivalence is the ideal orthographic system in all
circumstances. "

...even though my "Circh" suggestion shatters any 1-to1 relationship,
by using "c" and "ir"  where "s" and "er" would suffice for morphemic
pruposes.  It is obviously a way of keeping a nice morphemic
integrity, with "circ-".

Then you accuse me of being unclear?

What's "circ-"? As in "circle"? What does "search" have to do with
"circle"?

[Origin: 1300-50; (v.) ME serchen, cerchen (< AF sercher) < OF
cerchier < LL circâre to go around, deriv. of L circus circle; (n.) ME
serche < AF serche, OF cerche, deriv. of cerchier]

Certainly in my mind "search" seems to link up with ideas like "look
aROUND" and "circulate".

If you want to have "phonemic integrity," why wouldn't you alter
"serkle" instead?

How do you manage it?

I said:
It would be nice if Search was spelled Circh.
So I'm considering morphemes.

Then why in your next posting did you correct it to "phonemic"?

I also said:
Maybe we ought to get rid of the V E, because it had neither phonemic
NOR morphemic value.
So I'm considering morphemes.

Then why in your next posting did you correct it to "phonemic"?

I also:
Made an argument **against** purely phonemic\phonetic spelling,
pointing out "or" and "ore" and the irreconcilable diversity even of
prestigious dialects.
So I'm considering morphemes.

Then why in your next posting did you correct it to "phonemic"?

Then, after ALL that, you say:
" you are operating with the simplistic notion that a one-to-one
letter-
to-phoneme equivalence is the ideal orthographic system in all
circumstances. It isn't. "

No, I said that _before_ all that.

Eh? Surely I gave the precise opposite impression.

Are you talking to yourself? Are you ill?

Then, in response to that, I say "nope".

And yet still you respond with:

" If you want to have "phonemic integrity," why wouldn't you alter
serkle" instead? "

I despair. You've never managed to maintain a cogent discussion on any
occasion when I've spoken to you, and each time you always go out of
your way to accuse me of baffling talk. Think before you type before
you accuse others of not thinking before they type.

What other occasions?

Is it possible that your contributions are _so_ off-the-wall that,
while _you_ may know what you mean, no one else can figure it out?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Knowing when to use "its" and "its"
    ... morphemic integrity nor phonemic integrity. ... letter-to-phoneme equivalence is the ideal orthographic system in all ... So I'm considering morphemes. ... " If you want to have "phonemic integrity," why wouldn't you alter ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Knowing when to use "its" and "its"
    ... morphemic integrity nor phonemic integrity. ... letter-to-phoneme equivalence is the ideal orthographic system in all ... So I'm considering morphemes. ... Then why in your next posting did you correct it to "phonemic"? ...
    (sci.lang)