Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is the most likely explanation that I can come up with, even though I am not confident that it explains everything.
I'm not really, either. And I know my younger self was wrong when I used to get frustrated with people who couldn't spell things. I would think, "Well, if you ever read the word, you can just call it up on that little screen inside your forehead and see how it's spelled. DUH." But then I came to realize that not everyone knows about the little screen inside your forehead and never learned to use it. Or that it doesn't work in some people's foreheads.
I still think lack of reading contributes, but there's got to be more to it. I know that some people have learning disabilities and what not, but it can't be THAT many people. I think some just do not care, but I'm not sure why they don't care. Was it not emphasized in school? Was it because their parents didn't value reading/writing? My own daughter writes very well. Hell, she can write in Chinese characters, too!
I've just noticed that the ability to use written language is getting worse and worse. I find it embarrassing for our country, since we have so many educational opportunities and so much more wealth than so many other place, which in part allows our children to spend their childhood getting educated, and it's taken for granted.
Let me just say this regarding your theory. I graded tests, quizzes, reports, essays, and term papers for close to 45 years, beginning by helping my mother to grade/correct elementary school papers while I was a high school student, and eventually grading/correcting high school papers when I myself became a secondary school teacher.
And yet, I never had occasion to see the substitution of, "lead", for, "led", until just a few years ago.
If your theory had validity, wouldn't I have seen 5th & 6th graders making that mistake, circa 1965? If your theory was valid, wouldn't I have seen that same type of error on high school papers during the '70s, '80s, '90s, and beyond?
The lead/led conundrum is not the only new trend that I have observed. Another one that comes to mind is the new non-word, "alot". This error is something that I never observed until a few years ago.
As I stated, I never witnessed these errors (or most of the other types of gaffes posted in this thread) until just a few years ago. Somehow, elementary & high school students managed to get these words correct during the decades when I was grading their papers.
You're missing my point. It's certainly true that the "flash card" approach was far more prevalent in decades gone by. That's one of the best ways to learn inconsistent/non-patterned type material. And it's certainly true that drilling and having contests and going over and over and over it is going to prompt recollection -- and of course, regular usage. And it's also true that it doesn't happen in schools anymore. Yes, that's sad. I agree. I could give you some real horror stories from my math classrooms as well -- pretty much every semester for the past 20 years. (but that's another story)
What I'm getting at is a basic questioning of the grammar system itself. Let me ask you this: if I told you that the infinitive verb in my new language for "to eat" was, say, veret, and I told you that to make it simple present tense, you add an "a" on the end (vereta), and to make it simple past, you add an "o" on the end (vereto), and to make it simple future, you add an "i" in the end (vereti), AND then I told you that every verb in my language followed that pattern without exception, would you have any problem at all with using (or spelling) my new verbs boset (to kiss), vet (to talk), and set (to be)?
I will talk ---> I veti.
I kissed her ---> I boseto her.
Now, if I gave you the same verbs, but told you that for boset, you actually had to put "ia" for for past, "ai" for future, and "aa" for present. Then for vet, you need to put "eia" for for past, "eai" for future, and "eaa" for present. And so on... which system will you have a better chance of getting correct as you use it? Which would be easier to use? To remember? Which would be easier to predict the tenses of a new and unfamiliar verb?
If our grammar were consistent, we would immediately be able to conjugate verbs we've never used or even heard before, or even knew the meaning of. And the same applies to most of the rest of our grammar system. There is a lot to be said for consistency. I guess that's one thing that appeals to me about math. 2 + 2 is never going to equal 5 in our real number system. It's 100% consistent, and once you get the "rules" down, you can expect them to always be the same.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you on your points. I'm simply saying that there is a lot to be said for having a consistent, logical underlying system. Half the time, mistakes are made in English by simply trying to apply the standard grammar patterns to an exception. Rote memorization will, in the end, fix the problem -- yes, you are right. I'm just introducing the idea that perhaps the underlying system of grammar (actually, I should say lack of adherence for half the language to the underlying system of grammar) might be a factor.
As for me, my IQ measures between 135 and 140. I'm not that great of a speller. But it's certainly not because I'm stupid. My fault when it comes to spelling is that I expect a consistent system based in logic -- and that's not what I get when I'm speaking or writing in English.
Again, please understand, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. This is simply my perspective and my experience with language. I was really big into linguistics for quite a number of years. I've studied (and can write/speak at various levels) Spanish, Norwegian, French, Esperanto, Irish Gaelic, and some Romanian. Unfortunately, every language has its drawbacks. But if I were learning English as a second or third language, I'd pull my hair out. It's horribly inconsistent, which is sad because the basic Grammar patterns are among the easiest of all languages -- it's just that we don't follow those patterns very well (for many, many reasons). I guess you could say that I'm just lamenting the fact that we don't. There's not much to be done about it at this point, besides getting out the flashcards and dictionary.
Anyway... carry on! Back to what we can't take anymore...
If our grammar were consistent, we would immediately be able to conjugate verbs we've never used or even heard before, or even knew the meaning of. And the same applies to most of the rest of our grammar system. There is a lot to be said for consistency.
I doubt if there has ever been a language spoken on earth that had consistent conjugation and declension, except maybe Esperanto. Although Mandarin is virtually free of inflections, so conjugation and declension are irrelevant. It was much worse in the past, with nearly all languages now experiencing some modernizing moderation of grammar. English actually has very simple grammar, with only one conjugation and declension, but with lots of irregulars, and very few cases and tense inflections.
I doubt if there has ever been a language spoken on earth that had consistent conjugation and declension, except maybe Esperanto. Although Mandarin is virtually free of inflections, so conjugation and declension are irrelevant. It was much worse in the past, with nearly all languages now experiencing some modernizing moderation of grammar. English actually has very simple grammar, with only one conjugation and declension, but with lots of irregulars, and very few cases and tense inflections.
Learn something everyday, that one sent me to the dictinary, ah, dictoary, you know, the book with all them words in it.
I counted over a dozen spelling and punctuation errors in a post about schools and education.
A former roommate that was a PE/World History teacher at a high school wanted me to help him compose or just look over an exam he had prepared for his students. It was replete with grammatical and spelling errors. He did appreciate my corrections.
The house has several hughclose closets.
How big are the cloths that you want to store in the close closets?
But, if she fills it with cloths, what will she do with her clothes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
