I guess it came about from a time just before then when everyone started getting home computers and were only able to use 4 fingers to type slowly. So any kind of abbreviated spelling aided their typing.
But the "of" spelling for "uv" is a classic native mistake, going by the sounding out of the syllable.
I've seen the wud and shud contractions.
It seems you are making excuses, rather than holding out for better (IOW correct) standards.
I'm not sure what you mean by "excuses" but it is well known by linguists that this type of mistake is a native one and is due to spelling by sounds. It's not a grammatical error in the sense that people are intending for a meaning other than what is implied by the correct contraction.
My point was, those words are being spelt by "sound".Everybody knows that the English language is not spelt phonetically, hence reading English is in many respects akin to those languages whose written languages are pictographical, eg Chinese and Japanese.
I read for the longest time via recognizing the shape of the words rather than the spelling, because of poor eyesight. Hence misspelling, even if phonetically correct (though orthographically incorrect) causes hiccoughs and lack of flow.
Most readers read the same way. Ergo, incorrect spelling not only has phonetic implications (or not, as the case may be), but also comprehensive implications.
E.G. Mistakes of their, there and they're cause interruptions of flow and comprehension.
'Linguists' may document these absurd mistakes, but that does not make them any less absurd.
Of course they are. But that does not in any way condone the mistake.My point was, those words are being spelt by "sound".
Chinese is not based on anything phonetic so English is nothing like Chinese in that sense; English has a strong phonetic aspect, even with all its exceptions and orthographic legacies.
There, their, they're are all homophones so natives would tend to confuse one seplling for another but these mistakes would not affect meaning. Again, this boils down to spelling according to how something sounds.
Everybody knows that the English language is not spelt phonetically, hence reading English is in many respects akin to those languages whose written languages are pictographical, eg Chinese and Japanese.
I read for the longest time via recognizing the shape of the words rather than the spelling, because of poor eyesight. Hence misspelling, even if phonetically correct (though orthographically incorrect) causes hiccoughs and lack of flow.
Most readers read the same way. Ergo, incorrect spelling not only has phonetic implications (or not, as the case may be), but also comprehensive implications.
E.G. Mistakes of their, there and they're cause interruptions of flow and comprehension.
'Linguists' may document these absurd mistakes, but that does not make them any less absurd.
And if you are that f king boring you can be a moderator like me and spend your life here lol
Or you can just be an @sshole... The choices are endless.
I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.We spent quite a few years living in NZ and the language has evolved to have words that sound the same & one can have quite strong debates about the "true" way to pronounce these words. "Hear/Here vs. Hair/Hare" All 4 words have the same sound to many people in the south island.
I wouldn't dispute that you have observed this, but I do dispute that it's something that's progressive which is what you're implying with the suggestion that 'a couple of generations later' it is written as such.Many of these changes are learned. A couple of particular items is the replacement of "-ing" with "-ink" and "th" with "ff" (assuming it's double f). So nothing becomes nuffink and thing becomes fink. This occurs to the extent that a couple of generations later it's written as "fink", though the sentence obviously implies it is "think". This example is something I have observed first-hand.
Agree. Some of the teachers reflect their own woeful education.And it does concern me that those who have a responsibility to shape and help improve don't have the skills themselves.
I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.
It's not everyone, of course but a surprising amount who do think that. In one case at work, I got a dictionary to show how the words were pronounced differently. A couple of people were genuinely surprised. And a local hairdressing salon was called "Hair-O" - which we took to be "hero" because hair-o made no sense. Willing to be corrected if we misinterpreted that. And as WayneL says Beer & bear - first time at kindy we heard "we're going on a beer hunt" it made us chuckle. I never heard it much in the NI but they are a different breed up there (lived in both isles). Maybe it is more obvious to a foreign ear.I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.
I'm quoting from a card written by my nephew's son, & my sister says it too - so that's 3 generations & it was that the word was written by a 9 year old that really surprised me. My speech path daughter said it's more common than people think & it's learned, not pathological/medical in nature. Essentially if that's what they are exposed to most of the time then that's what they learn. And this is sort of how new dialects spring up i.e. it becomes the local patois, as you say. It's also spoken by her daughters & some of their kids - whereas the rest of us siblings & our kids don't use the ff or ink sounds.I wouldn't dispute that you have observed this, but I do dispute that it's something that's progressive which is what you're implying with the suggestion that 'a couple of generations later' it is written as such.
I have only ever heard these variations used by people who have had limited education and commonly those from some regions in the UK where it represents the local patois.
I've never actually known anyone who used either of these pretty ghastly pronunciations.
One of the most interesting comments in NZ was lady who was proud that her daughter at primary school was a "bowel monitor". Took the other half a few more sentences to get in context- she said "bell monitor". Never heard bell pronounced as differently as that so I consider that a one-off.
I doubt that the word "bell" would have sounded like "bowel". She was probably saying "bll" i.e. 'bell" without the vowel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?