Many are scared of abbreviations used in text messages, such as "U R L8", or "late". Is there any justification in the belief that our literary tradition is damaged and young people are disadvantaged because of their ignorance of spelling?
Although we have no intention of making this type of script replace our system today, let me explain why I think this phenomenon is not overly affected. There may be some positive pages as well!
First, the English language is a big mess when spelling. There is little rule, and even the existent contains too many exceptions. The education of children can read only a few words for reading through the phonetic method, the majority being studied in mind. The same is true for foreign students in English. Few students, including intermediate and advanced levels, can say the word "women".
Another good example would be words that contain the "ough" letters, but the rough, and thorough all speak differently.
Writer George Bernard Shaw wanted the English alphabet to be revised so that each voice had its own character. He admittedly claimed that "ghoti" in today's English is "fish", "gh" as "enough", "o" as "women" and "you" as at "station". It is not surprising, however, that the "shavian" alphabet proposed by forty or more letters has never been taken seriously.
Second, the simplification of spelling has already begun in the United States, largely by the great lexicographer, Noah Webster. He argued that unnecessary (ie unpublished) letters can be deleted as "u" through "colors", "in" and "through", which is now "written" through.
Is it so scandalous to use the symbols for words? We struggle with complex hieroglyphs in the Egyptians and Chinese languages, such as Chinese, characters with words or ideas that are not a phonetic alphabet like ours. Furthermore, the vowels are not new. There are languages that have only a matching alphabet, the reader knows how to pronounce the verbal word of the word. Let's face it as some vowels are very different to the road, for example, a New Zealand would say, why not let them go away completely?
If we were serious about preserving the written tradition of our language, instead of complaining about the pitiful state of teens, we should seriously consider the ridiculous method as we spelled our words so that spells reflect more accurately the pronunciation. This will keep the text in place where it is useful and will not be transferred to other areas of the writing language.
Supported by sbobet