"How to weather an 'N'gauge diesel"
This is the title of an interesting article by Dave Lowery in the latest edition of Model Rail.
I go into a local primary school as a volunteer for two days each week and help Year One children. It is a constant struggle to teach written English because of the poor examples they see all around them.
Am I alone to be concerned about the 2 errors of English in that one title?
I think the use of 'an' in front of 'En Gauge' sic, is appropriate as that is how one should say it in spoken English.
I suppose the other error could be if you're worried about the use of 'diesel' as a noun rather than as an adjective.
I assume that you would prefer,
"How to weather a N Gauge Diesel Locomotive"
Let battle commence :D
John P
Quote from: terrysoham on August 26, 2016, 09:34:54 PM
Am I alone to be concerned about the 2 errors of English in that one title?
Probably not, but if it bothers you that much in the grand scheme of things then maybe you should be? ;)
Paul
There shouldn't be quotation marks round N, after all
you would not say
U wurry 2 much, m8.
I'd be hard-pressed to find two blatant errors, at most the 'quotation' marks would 'annoy' me.
As a retired high school teacher (Physics, not English, mind you), it doesn't really bother me.... in fact what bothers me most is the lack of a space between N and gauge, which is probably a typo which we all make from time to time. The quotation marks are annoying, though.
So what are the two errors? I'm reasonably well educated but I can't see a problem.
now I'm wondering how many 3 to 5 year olds model N scale/gauge ???
In this internet age we are exposed to all sorts of spelling and grammar errors on a daily basis. I read an amusing message a few days back:- " My dog Mollie has black all round her mouth. She must of eaten some lickrish".
(E&OE just in case.)
Firstly, I agree the article was an interesting one - well worth a read if you haven't!
I also groan when I see spelling and grammar errors, particularly in anything published. Although in these days of spellcheck spelling errors are much less frequent than in the fabled times of the Grauniad!
Headlines of course are not complete sentences and thus are not subject to quite as strict rules as the paragraphs that follow. So if you view the actual headline as a sentence you could also criticize the use of capitals and the unecessary ellipsis! In the context of a headline though, both are fine, particularly as the article is one of several in a 'How to...' series.
"HOW TO... WEATHER AN 'N' GAUGE DIESEL"
I am guessing though that the grammatical errors are the use of 'an' before a word beginning with a consonant and the use of the quotation marks. I agree the latter is unnecessary, especially in the context of its use to bring attention to the term "N" - this is a model railway magazine so I think the author can assume that all the readers will be familiar with the term! The use of a or an is an interesting one. I actually adhere to the rule that the author has used in that it doesn't actually matter whether the next word begins with a vowel or a consonant, what matters is whether the next word begins with a vowel sound or not. So 'an hour' and 'a unique fact' would both be correct as would 'an N gauge diesel'.
I am more than happy to be corrected, both on the use of a or an, or if I have missed another error!
I just observe them, and ignore them
People go on about the English language evolving, and certain words and phrases can be interpreted and written in different manners
So long as message gets through, and is understood as originally intended, then the language element has worked
The latest one is of for have
Kids today don't talk proper like wat we duze ;)
I gave up on English as it is wrote (thank you Ernie Wise) long ago as, basically, the language has gone to the dogs in my opinion. I had to laugh at the TV the other morning when they were talking about GCSE results and one girl was yelling "I got a A in English!" She obviously bribed someone.
@Chetcombe (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=817)
Now to get really serious, and I apologise for using Chetcombe as an example here but consider taking a little extra time to read anything written and spot all the unnecessary 'that' words used.
Quote from: Chetcombe on August 27, 2016, 05:57:52 PM
I am guessing though that the grammatical errors are the use of 'an' before a word beginning with a consonant and the use of the quotation marks.
Removal of that 'that' changes nothing but reduces the sentence by a word. I have to say I have read some paperback fiction where the book could actually have been several pages shorter if all the surplus 'thats' had been edited out.
I have a saying, if you don't understand my English I am more than happy to explain in Dutch.
internet is one thing, but professional publications should be correct
Quote from: newportnobby on August 27, 2016, 08:35:16 PM
I gave up on English as it is wrote (thank you Ernie Wise) long ago as, basically, the language has gone to the dogs in my opinion. I had to laugh at the TV the other morning when they were talking about GCSE results and one girl was yelling "I got a A in English!" She obviously bribed someone.
@Chetcombe (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=817)
Now to get really serious, and I apologise for using Chetcombe as an example here but consider taking a little extra time to read anything written and spot all the unnecessary 'that' words used.
Quote from: Chetcombe on August 27, 2016, 05:57:52 PM
I am guessing though that the grammatical errors are the use of 'an' before a word beginning with a consonant and the use of the quotation marks.
Removal of that 'that' changes nothing but reduces the sentence by a word. I have to say I have read some paperback fiction where the book could actually have been several pages shorter if all the surplus 'thats' had been edited out.
I knew I had set myself up with this post :D
Quote from: Chetcombe on August 27, 2016, 09:12:08 PM
Quote from: newportnobby on August 27, 2016, 08:35:16 PM
I gave up on English as it is wrote (thank you Ernie Wise) long ago as, basically, the language has gone to the dogs in my opinion. I had to laugh at the TV the other morning when they were talking about GCSE results and one girl was yelling "I got a A in English!" She obviously bribed someone.
@Chetcombe (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=817)
Now to get really serious, and I apologise for using Chetcombe as an example here but consider taking a little extra time to read anything written and spot all the unnecessary 'that' words used.
Quote from: Chetcombe on August 27, 2016, 05:57:52 PM
I am guessing though that the grammatical errors are the use of 'an' before a word beginning with a consonant and the use of the quotation marks.
Removal of that 'that' changes nothing but reduces the sentence by a word. I have to say I have read some paperback fiction where the book could actually have been several pages shorter if all the surplus 'thats' had been edited out.
I knew I had set myself up with this post :D
At least you didn't type "I knew
that I had set myself up......." :)
Quote from: jpendle on August 26, 2016, 10:11:27 PM
I think the use of 'an' in front of 'En Gauge' sic, is appropriate as that is how one should say it in spoken English.
I suppose the other error could be if you're worried about the use of 'diesel' as a noun rather than as an adjective.
I assume that you would prefer,
"How to weather a N Gauge Diesel Locomotive"
Let battle commence :D
John P
No reason to capitalise "Gauge", "Diesel" or "Locomotive" ;)
I also have no issues with that headline, as someone who's as much of a grammar Nazi as anyone!
I am still reeling from the fact that 'figuratively' is now an accepted use of "literally" though. "I literally died of embarrassment" is now deemed correct. God help us.
Quote from: njee20 on August 28, 2016, 09:40:19 AM
I am still reeling from the fact that 'figuratively' is now an accepted use of "literally" though. "I literally died of embarrassment" is now deemed correct. God help us.
When did that occur? The two are polar opposites! :censored:
Quote from: njee20 on August 28, 2016, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: jpendle on August 26, 2016, 10:11:27 PM
I assume that you would prefer,
"How to weather a N Gauge Diesel Locomotive"
No reason to capitalise "Gauge", "Diesel" or "Locomotive" ;)
Actually, if you're titling something, then title case is most likely to be used. This capitalises all words except certain short words (things like it, of, etc.). In addition, since the letter 'N' is pronounced with a vowel at the front, like "en", you'd use 'an' rather than 'a'. It's the pronunciation rather than the spelling that determines an or a, contrary to the superficial rule we're all told in school. Hence "an hotel" being correct, as is "a UFO", despite the one beginning with a consonant and the other a vowel.
So in this case, the correct version would be:
How to Weather an N Gauge Diesel Locomotive
Cheers, NeMo
PS. There are no hard-and-fast rules for titling case, and it depends a bit on the editor of the publication in question.
I did think of suggesting that "weathering" also needed a capital, was wrong either way! :)
Quote from: mr bachmann on August 27, 2016, 03:03:40 PM
now I'm wondering how many 3 to 5 year olds model N scale/gauge ???
The OP said he volunteered helping Year One children. Year One for children in England, where the OP volunteers, is for children who are five and have their sixth birthday in that academic year.
Having said that, worrying about grammatical inconsistencies is in my opinion a subject for discussion at a much later stage in schooling. Learning to love words, in whatever form is much more important and arguing about these kinds of debatable points is a sure turn off for most young children.
The setting in which I teach is geared towards celebrating communication at whatever level the children can achieve.
Cheers
Kirky
Quote
Actually, if you're titling something, then title case is most likely to be used. This capitalises all words except certain short words (things like it, of, etc.). In addition, since the letter 'N' is pronounced with a vowel at the front, like "en", you'd use 'an' rather than 'a'. It's the pronunciation rather than the spelling that determines an or a, contrary to the superficial rule we're all told in school. Hence "an hotel" being correct, as is "a UFO", despite the one beginning with a consonant and the other a vowel.
So in this case, the correct version would be:
How to Weather an N Gauge Diesel Locomotive
Cheers, NeMo
PS. There are no hard-and-fast rules for titling case, and it depends a bit on the editor of the publication in question.
Go to the top of the class, sir! :claphappy:
Quote from: oscar on August 28, 2016, 12:06:38 PM
Go to the top of the class, sir! :claphappy:
I'm a teacher -- though not an English teacher -- so get to stand at the front of the class anyway!!!
Cheers, NeMo (but yes, you can call me Sir!)
Quote from: NeMo on August 28, 2016, 12:55:29 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 28, 2016, 12:06:38 PM
Go to the top of the class, sir! :claphappy:
I'm a teacher -- though not an English teacher -- so get to stand at the front of the class anyway!!!
Cheers, NeMo (but yes, you can call me Sir!)
I am also a teacher, and I'm English, but not an English teacher. :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:
cheers
Kirky
Quote from: NeMo on August 28, 2016, 10:28:08 AM
...It's the pronunciation rather than the spelling that determines an or a, contrary to the superficial rule we're all told in school. Hence "an hotel" being correct, as is "a UFO", despite the one beginning with a consonant and the other a vowel.
Yikes...when did "hotel" come to be pronounced "otel" thus justifying the use of the article "an"? Has the demise of Received Pronunciation of Standard English now become so complete that the letter "h" has disappeared from the spoken word? I've seen it become common to use "an historic" in a misguided/inverted attempt to sound "posh" on this side of the Atlantic, but "an hotel" is still mercifully rare even here in the former colonies.
Remember the scene in the musical adaptation of Shaw's Pygmalion where Eliza Doolittle is urged to say "In Hertfordshire, Herefordshire and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen" instead of her native "In ertfordshire, erefordshire and ampshire, urricanes ardly hever appen".
Probably a clearer example of the use of "an" instead of "a" before a word that starts with "h" would be to say that something was "an honest effort to explain the issue" since I doubt anyone would pronounce the "h" in that word.
Jon
P.S. I'm still trying to shake the RP so that I'm understood over here... I also suffer daily from being married to a proofreader/copyeditor; proofreading menus continues, but I think I've finally got her to admit that changing "bleu cheese" to "blue cheese" is a lost cause.
Correct pronunciation of "hotel" used to drop the h somewhat, so it sounded more like the French word. So yes, you would properly say something like, "We need to find an hotel before it gets too late". I would bet money on words like "honest" and "honour" having been pronounced with the hard aitch sound in the Early modern era. But I don't know for sure.
This is completely separate from the tendency to drop the h in some dialects of English. So if you can channel your internal Dick Van Dyke and say something along the lines of "'Ere you go luv" then you're dropping the h for a completely different reason. The example with 'hotel' is probably an affectation, rather like the British English spelling of 'colour' and 'honour' compared to the older versions of those words as preserved in American English. But dropping aitches is something else entirely, and predominantly a class-based phenomenon rather than an attempt to sound sophisticated.
This is absolutely the point Shaw is making in your example, and he further argues, via Prof. Higgins, that as soon as an Englishman starts talking, his listeners start pigeonholing him in terms of class. Contrast that with American English which is much more regional than class-based. Obviously we have regional accents and dialects too, but they're transcended by class. So within the lowland Scots accents, you get a whole range, including the rather affected Morningside (a sort of middle class Edinburgh) accent that's the butt of so many jokes there.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Jon898 on August 28, 2016, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: NeMo on August 28, 2016, 10:28:08 AM
...It's the pronunciation rather than the spelling that determines an or a, contrary to the superficial rule we're all told in school. Hence "an hotel" being correct, as is "a UFO", despite the one beginning with a consonant and the other a vowel.
Yikes...when did "hotel" come to be pronounced "otel" thus justifying the use of the article "an"? Has the demise of Received Pronunciation of Standard English now become so complete that the letter "h" has disappeared from the spoken word? I've seen it become common to use "an historic" in a misguided/inverted attempt to sound "posh" on this side of the Atlantic, but "an hotel" is still mercifully rare even here in the former colonies.
Remember the scene in the musical adaptation of Shaw's Pygmalion where Eliza Doolittle is urged to say "In Hertfordshire, Herefordshire and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen" instead of her native "In ertfordshire, erefordshire and ampshire, urricanes ardly hever appen".
Probably a clearer example of the use of "an" instead of "a" before a word that starts with "h" would be to say that something was "an honest effort to explain the issue" since I doubt anyone would pronounce the "h" in that word.
Jon
P.S. I'm still trying to shake the RP so that I'm understood over here... I also suffer daily from being married to a proofreader/copyeditor; proofreading menus continues, but I think I've finally got her to admit that changing "bleu cheese" to "blue cheese" is a lost cause.
In Glasgow we have the equivalent of Morningside in Kelvinside also the but of much local humour.
[admin]Fixed your link as .be links dont work as direct clicks...[/admin]
The aitch was always silent in hotel, thus demanding an an, not an a, before it! :bounce:
A quirk of our beautiful language. :)
Quote from: oscar on August 31, 2016, 09:23:50 AM
The aitch was always silent in hotel, thus demanding an an, not an a, before it! :bounce:
A quirk of our beautiful language. :)
Actually it used to be a silent "h" back in the 19th century when the word was imported into general use in its current meaning from the French. The French (as did many latin-based languages) in turn had taken the word from the Latin hospes, dropping the "s" and replacing it with the circumflex accent. It has since migrated to a sounded "h" as can be heard here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/hotel (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/hotel) , hence my surprise that there is an implication that the "h" is not sounded now.
Jon
Quote from: oscar on August 31, 2016, 09:23:50 AM
The aitch was always silent in hotel, thus demanding an an, not an a, before it! :bounce:
A quirk of our beautiful language. :)
Quote from: newportnobby on August 27, 2016, 08:35:16 PM
I gave up on English as it is wrote (thank you Ernie Wise) long ago as, basically, the language has gone to the dogs in my opinion. I had to laugh at the TV the other morning when they were talking about GCSE results and one girl was yelling "I got a A in English!" She obviously bribed someone.
Yet so often you see quite prominent people on TV mangling their vocabulary because they try put an 'a' in front of a word beginning with a vowel such as to say I boiled a egg. It's pathetic to see.
'To' is not used anymore it seems - it's now tuh, and gunna has replaced going to.
I find myself listening to the yoof of today and just trying to count the number of 'likes' spoken rather than what they are trying to get across. Those last two words are being abused now "I'm gonna get across this" ::)
@newportnobby (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=264)
The problem is drawing a line between poor English and evolving English. That's a very subjective distinction.
Some things we can agree are wrong, like "alot" for "a lot" or "should of" where the speaker means "should have".*
Other things seem to be genuine changes, along the lines of how "gay" has come to mean something quite different to what it meant a century ago.
So the word "impact" for example should be a noun, as in a force acting upon something else. But much as it annoys me, in commonly spoken English, especially in business and the professions, it's become a verb, as in, "your delays impact on us all". According to the BBC this transition from noun to verb has actually been going on for literally hundreds of years, giving an example from 1601!
The big issue in the UK, compared with the US, is that spoken English is inextricably linked to class (or by proxy, the intelligence and education level). Listening to Radio 4, I'm always struck by the number of broadcasters and academics who pronounce the word "homosexual" as if the first syllable was rhymed with "Tom", so it sounds more like "hommosexual". Technically, that's correct, given the Greek roots of the word, but I've never met anyone pronounce the word that way in real life!
The explanation is of course social class, the Radio 4 broadcasters coming primarily from upper middle class, privately educated backgrounds -- or if they didn't, emulating that sort of speech as a way of fixing their own (I'd say rather self-important!) status in society.
I could go, finding this a fascinating topic.
Cheers, NeMo
*Teachers do try their best here, but the reality is that if good written and spoken English aren't reinforced at home and in the workplace, English at schools amounts to about as much good as GCSE French -- enough to pass exams, but that's about it.
Ok then this has been educational, I do think that I may have learnt more on this thread about the correct use of grammar and spelling than I managed at school.
Although that could be as I am northern and not on of them posh southern folk! :P
( Now time to find some hard cover for the incoming! )
Quote from: NeMo on August 31, 2016, 03:52:59 PM
@newportnobby (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=264)
Other things seem to be genuine changes, along the lines of how "gay" has come to mean something quite different to what it meant a century ago.
Yes indeed, a couple of years ago I was reading a railway magazine from the late fifties. The author described a train as "running at a gay old pace".
Didn't the Flintstones have a "Gay old time" ?
Quote from: newportnobby on August 31, 2016, 08:12:31 PM
It strikes me that Europeans who have English as a language have been taught better than our children are being taught. Certainly that is my experience of travelling in Europe on business.
I don't think it's about how well English is taught in schools. But there's a huge difference in how important English is perceived to be.
For the average white working class person, there's a perception they already speak and read English just fine, and anything done at school is merely icing on the cake. It's because of this perception that literacy rates in the UK are quite startling once you drill down into them; the commonest stat quoted is a 16% functional illiteracy rate (http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england) in the UK (which means a reading age of about 11). Such a person could read
The Sun newspaper or send a text message, but would be hard put to understand a legal contract or anything else written at that level.
The contrast is in Europe (and most of the rest of the world) where being able to access English gives you access to all sorts of goodies, from enjoying pop culture to doing business. It's the silver bullet. If you only speak Italian or German or Japanese, you're either stuck working within your home market or else reliant on an interpreter. Of everything taught in school, English as a second language is by far the most valuable, almost regardless of what your personal interests might be. So even for youngsters, being able to follow a pop song or watch an English-language sports commentary gives you something useful. As you get older, it becomes financially valuable in terms of getting a job, working in the US or UK, travelling abroad for medical or scientific jobs, or working in international settings like hotels and airlines in your own country.
But selling 'better' English as something worthwhile is extremely difficult in some sections of British society. One of my colleagues is a retired naval officer but now an English teacher. He's able to give the students examples of front-line situations where what you say, and how you say it, can be a matter of life and death. But for the average teacher without that depth of experience it can be a really tough sell.
Good teachers inspire, of course; but without support from home, it's hard to do anything other than train the kids to pass exams.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: newportnobby on August 31, 2016, 08:12:31 PM
It strikes me that Europeans who have English as a language have been taught better than our children are being taught. Certainly that is my experience of travelling in Europe on business.
I fear @railsquid (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3832) may be able to confirm this but the Japanese youth appear to have learnt American which, as we all know, is a different language to English ;)
I shall, no doubt, have to spend much time disbunking the assertion that e.g. there is an "e" in "hat" ;)
Quote from: NeMo on August 28, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
"'Ere you go luv"
I had been in my first job for ten days when it was my birthday, so, as was the tradition, I had to buy cream buns for the office staff. I passed the box to one rather prim and proper lady and, in my best Yorkshire accent said, "'Ere you go luv". She gave me such a withering look and said in a rather posh accent, "I am not your love"
"But dropping aitches"
- should that be "But dropping haitches" :) :sorrysign:
Quote from: NeMo on August 31, 2016, 08:40:29 PM
The contrast is in Europe (and most of the rest of the world) where being able to access English gives you access to all sorts of goodies, from enjoying pop culture to doing business. It's the silver bullet. If you only speak Italian or German or Japanese, you're either stuck working within your home market or else reliant on an interpreter.
And those are G7 countries with substantial economies and a wide range of media in the respective local language. I don't have much experience with Italy, but English is by no means universally spoken in Germany, and even less than Japan (though in both countries the level of English is way better than the level of any foreign language in the UK). However if you come from a smaller country, English is pretty much imperative.
Quote from: NeMo on August 31, 2016, 08:40:29 PM
Of everything taught in school, English as a second language is by far the most valuable, almost regardless of what your personal interests might be. So even for youngsters, being able to follow a pop song or watch an English-language sports commentary gives you something useful. As you get older, it becomes financially valuable in terms of getting a job, working in the US or UK, travelling abroad for medical or scientific jobs, or working in international settings like hotels and airlines in your own country.
Or working in any kind of international environment, the company I work for has a majority of non-native English speakers based in various locations around the world, company language is of course English, and the majority speak/write it at a very high level.
I also assert that speaking at least one foreign language makes you a better speaker of your native one. Unfortunately, to effectively learn and use it, you need exposure and an imperative to use it which is very difficult to obtain in a largely English-speaking country.
There is a debate in another place (OK RMweb) about a country where the government has changed from using "Ministry of ...." to "Ministry for,,,". The latter is the literal translation of the expression used in the country's other official language.
In America the present and past tense of several verbs in English has changed since the 15th century. One example I have to remember when writing to Americans is "fit" used as a verb, where English English would have used the word "fitted". Fitted in American English refers to having fits, in the medical sense of the word.
In English, people who commented were commentators, but they no longer comment. Today they "commentate". We used to prime our models before extra coats of paint were applied but in the past week I have seen several references to "primering" for "priming", and I am going to "primer" it, where "prime" it would have been perfectly OK.
Our language is dynamic, but I do not have to like some of the directions in which it is moving.
With prior apologies to anyone who sees offence in what I have written.
So, when did I replace OO as in GID for GOOD?
Also, it's I'm well or I'm fine, not I'm gid when asked how you are.
I'll decide whether you're good! :scowl:
What annoys me is when people put an aspirant on the single letter H. It is spelt and pronounced aitch. As a northerner, I often drop my aitches, so when people add them when the shouldn't it stands out.
Rant over, I'll get me coat and tin 'at.
I notice that Terry, the OP, has been conspicuous by his absence from this thread. :D
John P
Probably enjoying the English lesson! :sleep:
Quote from: Jerry Howlett on August 31, 2016, 05:39:57 PM
Didn't the Flintstones have a "Gay old time" ?
That was due to the Yaba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya_ba)-daba do.
You might need to explain what yaba is RS, for those less widely-travelled than yourself.
Best regards,
Joe
Quote from: joe cassidy on September 03, 2016, 06:27:35 PM
You might need to explain what yaba is RS, for those less widely-travelled than yourself.
Or have them click the link? Just sayin'
Jon
Quote from: joe cassidy on September 03, 2016, 06:27:35 PM
You might need to explain what yaba is RS, for those less widely-travelled than yourself.
Best regards,
Joe
See http://youtu.be/2s13X66BFd8 (http://youtu.be/2s13X66BFd8)
So that was a link ? I thought that yaba was just underlined to indicate that it was the mot clef in "Yaba dabba do".
Sorry for being a bit thick.
Joe
Quote from: Malc on September 01, 2016, 06:15:57 PM
What annoys me is when people put an aspirant on the single letter H. It is spelt and pronounced aitch. As a northerner, I often drop my aitches, so when people add them when the shouldn't it stands out.
One problem here is phonics (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/phonics). Without opening a GIGANTIC can o' worms, phonics is meant to make language and writing skills easier to learn. Instead of learning the letters, the child is taught sounds (phonemes). So "cat" is a k-sound, an ah-sound, and a tah-sound. According to the experts, this works better than teaching the spelling as "c", "a", "t" because all too often in English the letter of the alphabet has no obvious connection to the sound.*
So if you were spelling "hat", you'd have a huh-sound, an ah-sound, and a tah-sound. For children brought up on phonics, the letter H should logically be pronounced 'haitch' to match the "huh-sound", and I think that carries over from primary school into adult life.
The parenting problem for me is that I learned to read before going to school, and my daughter, though not even two, has books she looks at with us. There is a HUGE link between children reading at home with their parents and then going on to do well at school. But primary schools would prefer parents to either use phonics to teach their children before school, or else not to teach their children any reading of any kind. Supposedly, if I teach the ABCs as I learned them in the early 70s, that'll only confuse my little darling when she has to learn a whole new way of reading!
I teach in a secondary school, and let me tell you, there kids there DO NOT like phonics at all. Smart teenagers find this approach demeaning, and insist you spell words out properly. But there is good evidence it helps the weaker kids access literacy in primary schools especially, and for that reason, phonics is likely here to stay, even though some English teachers don't think it works (https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2014/mar/04/reading-lessons-phonics-world-book-day) when you look at the big picture of literacy across all ages.
Cheers, NeMo
*The famous example is "ghoti", a made-up word that is pronounced as "fish", the "gh" as in "enough", the "o" as in "women", and the "ti" as in "action". Obviously this is cobblers, because all those odd alphabet uses stem from the etymology of the words enough, women, and action. In other words, there's a historical reason why they're spelled that way that makes perfect sense. But for children, especially less able children, English is notoriously difficult to learn. Phonics is meant to minimise this problem.
The conversion from phonics to reading written English must be a challenge for some children too. For example, there are many place names which are pronounced completely differently from the way they are spelt. Godmanchester was once local to me, and I always pause when reading Happisburgh.
I was brought up in Kent and had a very good knowledge of places around the county. Imagine my surprise when I was talking to a French student travelling to England to study at a language school in Kent. I could not make out where she was going to college. It was in a town called "Ee- zer". Think of it as Geezer without the G. Eventually she wrote down the name for me which turned out to be Hythe.
Quote from: joe cassidy on September 03, 2016, 06:39:27 PM
So that was a link ? I thought that yaba was just underlined to indicate that it was the mot clef in "Yaba dabba do".
Sorry for being a bit thick.
Joe
"Mot Clef"!!!!!!!!
Deviation, the title of the thread is 'English' :D :D
John P
Quote from: NeMo on September 03, 2016, 06:50:30 PM
So "cat" is a k-sound, an ah-sound, and a tah-sound.
Put like that, it sounds like catarrh, which I sometimes suffer from - or even Quatar, which is somewhere out east. As I have said before - I love the English language :)
There's no 'U' in Qatar.
You're thinking of Q8
John P
Quote from: jpendle on September 03, 2016, 08:04:51 PM
There's no 'U' in Qatar.
You're thinking of Q8
John P
Just testing - you get the prize for spotting the mistake first ;D. And no, I wasn't thinking of oil, (https://www.q8oils.com/ (https://www.q8oils.com/)). :P
This is absolutely a criticism of the phonics method. In the Guardian article I linked above, the example is given of the words like
paws,
pause,
pores and
pours that would all be 'spelled' phonically in different ways, but spoken out loud in much the same way, so there's plenty of scope for confusion right there.
But the experts in the field do insist phonics is, overall, better. It isn't perfect by any means though. The alternative is just doing what a lot native English speakers do, and that's to accept the oddities of English spelling without really understanding why they're there. Take the nightmarish -ough sequence of letters which can be pronounced at least six different ways! My generation simply learned that particular words were pronounced particular ways, and "enough" was different to "through" which was different to "nought" and so on.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: dannyboy on September 03, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: NeMo on September 03, 2016, 06:50:30 PM
So "cat" is a k-sound, an ah-sound, and a tah-sound.
Put like that, it sounds like catarrh, which I sometimes suffer from - or even Quatar, which is somewhere out east. As I have said before - I love the English language :)
Hence the link :angel:
"ghoughpteighbteau" to the lot of ya!
Quote from: Zogbert Splod on September 04, 2016, 04:54:40 AM
"ghoughpteighbteau"
That's one of the reasons I like coming back to Yorkshire :thumbsup:
I could read when I went to school however (note how I'm using however as a conjunction) when I got to school it was insisted upon that I be taught the Initial Teaching Alphabet (ITA) as a phonetic alphabet, which I duly learned.
After I had been using ITA for a couple of years we swapped back to the traditional alphabet and I had difficulty transitioning back. I had to go through the whole remedial reading rigmarole for a further year and still to this day lack confidence in reading out loud.
I have several curmudgeon like instincts. Working in IT the word I hate is Methodology. It is not a methodology, it is a method. Methodology is the study of methods. We are not studying them, we are using them (or not as the case maybe)...
Ah, you need to report that into your Senior Colleague/Leader, so that they can transition at pace to a new way of working.
Quote from: NeMo on September 03, 2016, 08:57:53 PM
But the experts in the field do insist phonics is, overall, better. It isn't perfect by any means though. The alternative is just doing what a lot native English speakers do, and that's to accept the oddities of English spelling without really understanding why they're there. Take the nightmarish -ough sequence of letters which can be pronounced at least six different ways! My generation simply learned that particular words were pronounced particular ways, and "enough" was different to "through" which was different to "nought" and so on.
Cheers, NeMo
Who made them "experts'? I think few are.... :veryangry:
Quote from: dannyboy on September 03, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: NeMo on September 03, 2016, 06:50:30 PM
So "cat" is a k-sound, an ah-sound, and a tah-sound.
Put like that, it sounds like catarrh, which I sometimes suffer from - or even Quatar, which is somewhere out east. As I have said before - I love the English language :)
Cattahar - is that the castle in Monty P and the holy grail ?
Best regards,
Joe
Quote from: oscar on September 04, 2016, 09:43:01 AM
Who made them "experts'? I think few are.... :veryangry:
Understood. But we shouldn't be anti-expertise either. That's a dangerous path to go down! Would you want your doctor to be some bloke off the street with common sense? I think not.
The big problem with education is you can't do proper scientific experiment. Suppose someone said to you that your child's school will be dividing all the students into two categories. Half would get five years of the original-style teaching, and the other half would get five years of what they think will be better teaching that delivers higher exam results and improved life outcomes.
That's the best way to do this sort of experiment. But can you imagine how the parents of the kids with the old-style teaching would feel? Knowing that the chances are that their children will be receiving a second-rate education compared to the kids getting the improved system?
Obviously you can't do this; politically it'd be impossible to propose, and how would you decide which schools were going to be guinea pigs? So what tends to happen is that new education methods are rolled out countrywide. Usually they improve things, but sometimes you could argue they don't.
Cheers, NeMo
"Would you want your doctor to be some bloke off the street with common sense?"
Yes, after a few of the 'doctors' I've come across. I wouldn't let some of them near my cat! :hmmm: