Saturday, November 1, 2008
Spelling patterns
Irregardless of the fact that academic experts tout that there are patterns to English spelling, I find it frustrating and feel cheated. Somehow, the patterns seem forced to fit the words. There really isn't a real clear pattern in English. Though, thought, enough, bough, we have all heard about it and made mild jokes about it. French, on the other hand, in one little book called the Methode Boscher, has incorporated all spelling patterns and their irregularities. At 5, my son was studying it. By 7, he has a clear grasp and can make educated guesses. Yet I am persuaded again and again that really, Real Spelling has rules, and once he knows them, he will understand how spelling in English works. Perhaps I am unfair in comparing a "pure" language with a widely acknowledged "mix-bag" language. Seriously, wok, amok, and deju vu as vernacular English words?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Spelling in words that have roots in English or a fellow Germanic-base language have one set of rules, words from the Latin/Romance- based languages from which English borrows so heavily have a second set and the foreign 'loan-words' (much like the katakana-ized counterparts in Japanese) have a case-by-case rule-set. The difficulty in Englihs is figuring out which words are ruled by which set of parameters. See how simple it is? (j/k)
Post a Comment