PDA

View Full Version : Rouges Sux!



Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-05, 09:00 PM
Now that I've got your attention, I'll get right to it: many of us find it hard to spell 'rogue' correctly, and I've found a solution. If you're not sure how to spell it 'properly,' spell it as ROGE. Heck, spell it as ROGE even if you do remember the 'proper' spelling! 'Cause let's be honest; a U has no place in that word, unless we're creating a slang term for a small elemental man who acts outside the social norms of his people.

Collin152
2009-05-05, 09:05 PM
But that looks like it should be pronounced "Roje"...

Mauve Shirt
2009-05-05, 09:09 PM
Yeah, that looks like it'd be pronounced with a soft G, like in rage.

Fawkes
2009-05-05, 09:11 PM
So, wait, your solution for spelling words improperly is... spelling words improperly?

Deathslayer7
2009-05-05, 09:16 PM
and here i was about to correct him on how to spell rogue. :smallbiggrin:

Innis Cabal
2009-05-05, 09:24 PM
So, wait, your solution for spelling words improperly is... spelling words improperly?

Brilliant!

Phase
2009-05-05, 09:39 PM
Brilliant!

The recursion factor will nullify his enemies! Remarkable!

Collin152
2009-05-05, 09:45 PM
Brilliant!

Suddenly inspiration strikes me like a falling iron.
I need a catchphrase!

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-05, 09:48 PM
But that looks like it should be pronounced "Roje"...
I really don't intend to sound patronizing when I say this but...G makes a very different sound than J. If I were spelling 'roje,' I'd, well, use a J. [Whatever a roje is ;)] If I'm writing about the character class, I think a G is much more intuitive.


Yeah, that looks like it'd be pronounced with a soft G, like in rage.["...
Ah, that's a J, not a soft G.


So, wait, your solution for spelling words improperly is... spelling words improperly?
In reality, there is no 'proper' English. At least in the USA; just a mess of conventions layered haphardly atop each other. I think 'roge' is better than 'rogue,' even if I'm not used to seeing it written that way.

Metal Head
2009-05-05, 09:55 PM
I really don't intend to sound patronizing when I say this but...G makes a very different sound than J. If I were spelling 'roje,' I'd, well, use a J. [Whatever a roje is ;)] If I'm writing about the character class, I think a G is much more intuitive.

G sounds like J when followed by an E. And anyways, remembering ROGUE isn't hard. At all. You'd have to have the intelligence of a piece of dog crap to not be able re remember a simple sequence of 5 letters. After all, you can write the word different (bolded in the quote), so why not rogue?

Rutskarn
2009-05-05, 10:17 PM
In reality, there is no 'proper' English. At least in the USA; just a mess of conventions layered haphardly atop each other. I think 'roge' is better than 'rogue,' even if I'm not used to seeing it written that way.

And what language--what practice of any kind--is divorced of conventions?

This isn't math, here--it's language. It goes through a wringer of informal use, popularized misspelling, improvisational simplification and cultural drift. If a language follows a certain set of conventions, then it's because people naturally do that sort of thing.

PhoeKun
2009-05-05, 10:23 PM
In reality, there is no 'proper' English. At least in the USA; just a mess of conventions layered haphardly atop each other. I think 'roge' is better than 'rogue,' even if I'm not used to seeing it written that way.

No, there very much is a proper English. You can mock the "haphazard construction" or what have you, but that's being ignorant of what a language is. There is no board of people carefully designing and setting the rules of spelling and grammar. What we call English (and US English is, believe it or not, the purest form of modern English alive today). We're speaking a product of thousands of years of cultural development.

A living language is, of course, fluid. Things can and have changed, and will continue to change in the future. This will be the result of intuitive tweaks and changing needs, not the whim of this or that person on the street. The reason for following convention is ease of understanding. The more you push to be different, the more you drift away from the language everyone else is speaking. Once you stop speaking (or at least writing) in English, you will have no one to hold accountable but yourself when English speakers don't understand you.

The clear consensus seems to be that "roge" does not intuitively produce a hard g sound. You can't change this. You're more than welcome to ignore that consensus, and you're more than welcome to make your own rules for language as you go along. The more you do it, the less likely anyone is to be able to effectively communicate with you. Anarchic language produces nothing but crippling ambiguity.

Sneak
2009-05-05, 10:36 PM
I dunno, guys, I completely agree with Tequila Sunrise.

Also, the word "applications" shall henceforth be spelled as "aplikayshuns," because it makes more sense to me that way.

Problem solved.

Haruki-kun
2009-05-05, 10:40 PM
....a U has no place in that word.....

According to Webster's Online dictionary (just checked), the origins of the word "rogue" are unknown. However, it is mostly likely derived from another language, unless English speakers actually invented it. Here, I will have to point out that in some languages (READ: Romance languages (READ: Specifically my own (READ: Spanish))) the u is placed between the g and the e (or between the g and the i) to keep it sounding like the G in "got", instead of like the G in "genius".

The U, in said cases, is silent, much like in the word Rogue. The E is there in the first place to make the O sound long, and the U is there to keep the G's sound. Even spelling it "ROG" would be closer to sounding right than "ROGE". In other words, the word is basically constructed to help the reader understand how it's read.

Phase
2009-05-05, 10:41 PM
I dunno, guys, I completely agree with Tequila Sunrise.

Also, the word "applications" shall henceforth be spelled as "aplikayshuns," because it makes more sense to me that way.

Problem solved.

The word "awesome" shall hence be spelled P-h-a-s-e.

Good?

Sneak
2009-05-05, 10:43 PM
The word "awesome" shall hence be spelled P-h-a-s-e.

Good?

Dude, that's such a Phase idea.

Icewalker
2009-05-05, 10:46 PM
Reminds me George Orwell's 'Newspeak' in 1984, except not useful or interesting, and attempted to fit into common vernacular instead of its own full system, making it not at all applicable to common use.

So...no. I disagree with your suggestion.

Haruki-kun
2009-05-05, 10:47 PM
The word "awesome" shall hence be spelled P-h-a-s-e.

Good?

Perfect! It fits in with Angelic Slayer! :smallbiggrin:

Rutskarn
2009-05-05, 10:50 PM
Guys, guys, let's not compete over whose name gets attached to what words.

After all: fame is a gift that fate grants, not a prize that one can lose or Rutskarn.

Phase
2009-05-05, 10:50 PM
Perfect! It fits in with Angelic Slayer! :smallbiggrin:

Exactly my thought process! :smallsmile:

I will now refrain from dwelling on the now Phase thread. With any luck, Sunday will see every word in every language replaced by the word Phase...

Collin152
2009-05-05, 10:55 PM
Henceforth shall "fear" be spelled 1-5-2.
Used in a sentence,
"This book fills me with feelings equal parts 152 and joy."

golentan
2009-05-05, 11:08 PM
Guys, this reorganization of spelling is golentan. This is GOLENTAN!

Golentan? THIS IS SPARTA!!!!

Trizap
2009-05-05, 11:20 PM
I reserve the right for "the" to be spelled "Trizap"

so now whenever you say one of Trizap most common words in Trizap world, you will be saying my name! I HAVE OUTWITTED YOU ALL WITH MY EGOMANIA!

Innis Cabal
2009-05-05, 11:22 PM
Since I used it...Innis will forever be used for brilliant

I'd use it in a sentence, but I think we all get the point

Collin152
2009-05-05, 11:23 PM
I reserve the right for "the" to be spelled "Trizap"

so now whenever you say one of Trizap most common words in Trizap world, you will be saying my name! I HAVE OUTWITTED YOU ALL WITH MY EGOMANIA!

Ah, but one can go rather far in life without using that particular word. One must only refer to things slightly more indirectly and formally, and pluralise things unecesarily, and processing of our beloved language will go swimmingly! Let us take a victory drink! To bars!

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-05, 11:25 PM
G sounds like J when followed by an E. And anyways, remembering ROGUE isn't hard. At all. You'd have to have the intelligence of a piece of dog crap to not be able re remember a simple sequence of 5 letters. After all, you can write the word different (bolded in the quote), so why not rogue?
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you didn't get my thread locked because you just had to insult the intelligence of everyone who happens to not be obsessed with the oddities of written English.

Second, just because a person can do something doesn't mean that s/he should. I can use my martial training to beat the pulp out of everyone that looks at me sideways, but I don't. A person with OCD can walk for entire city blocks without stepping on a crack, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should worry about doing it too.


No, there very much is a proper English. You can mock the "haphazard construction" or what have you, but that's being ignorant of what a language is. There is no board of people carefully designing and setting the rules of spelling and grammar. What we call English (and US English is, believe it or not, the purest form of modern English alive today). We're speaking a product of thousands of years of cultural development.

A living language is, of course, fluid. Things can and have changed, and will continue to change in the future. This will be the result of intuitive tweaks and changing needs, not the whim of this or that person on the street. The reason for following convention is ease of understanding. The more you push to be different, the more you drift away from the language everyone else is speaking. Once you stop speaking (or at least writing) in English, you will have no one to hold accountable but yourself when English speakers don't understand you.
Yes, spoken English is a fluid, growing, living thing. Written English is not; written English is, if anything, artificial. Which is the problem; spoken English changes much faster than written English does, which is how we wind up with words that are spelled nothing like the way they're pronounced.


The clear consensus seems to be that "roge" does not intuitively produce a hard g sound. You can't change this. You're more than welcome to ignore that consensus, and you're more than welcome to make your own rules for language as you go along. The more you do it, the less likely anyone is to be able to effectively communicate with you. Anarchic language produces nothing but crippling ambiguity.
The clear consensus I'm seeing is that we've forgotten an even more basic and intuitive rule than silent Us: J makes the J sound, and G makes the G sound [whether soft or hard]. The G in 'genius' is not a G sound at all, it's a J sound. The G in 'rage' is actually a J sound. I understand this is confusing for some people, because we're typing these words rather than speaking them. So sound them out like you did in grade school, one sound (not letter) at a time. Then write the sounds that you hear; R, hard O, and G.

Trizap
2009-05-05, 11:26 PM
Ah, but one can go rather far in life without using that particular word. One must only refer to things slightly more indirectly and formally, and pluralise things unecesarily, and processing of our beloved language will go swimmingly! Let us take a victory drink! To bars!

I also declare that the words "it", "and", "I" are also replaced with Trizap.

now Trizap's perfectly impossible to not to say Trizap.

Icewalker
2009-05-05, 11:31 PM
Whether you want to call it a G sound or a J sound, 'roge' implies a soft pronunciation like 'massage' by common spelling conventions in the English language, and a number of others. To argue that there are no conventions is completely untrue. Many words may break them in English, but they are certainly there.

Haruki-kun
2009-05-05, 11:35 PM
Exactly my thought process! :smallsmile:

I will now refrain from dwelling on the now Phase thread. With any luck, Sunday will see every word in every language replaced by the word Phase...

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. :smallbiggrin:

SDF
2009-05-05, 11:43 PM
I will never forget how to spell rogue. The problem, like many can be solved with beer.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-10/43077283.jpg

golentan
2009-05-06, 01:05 AM
Smile for trizap Tequila Sunrise: He has Tequila Sunrise'd us, and lives under a bridge. I am expanding Golentan to include all forms of what was formerly known as "Madness," including trizap former words "Crazy(ed)," "Insane," "Angry(ered)," and many more.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-06, 01:33 AM
Whether you want to call it a G sound or a J sound, 'roge' implies a soft pronunciation like 'massage' by common spelling conventions in the English language, and a number of others. To argue that there are no conventions is completely untrue. Many words may break them in English, but they are certainly there.
Funny, I don't remember ever arguing that there are no English conventions. The consonant that ends 'massage', 'barrage' and other imported words is neither a G nor a J. You just think of it as a G/J because English doesn't have a letter for that sound, though many other languages do.


I will never forget how to spell rogue. The problem, like many can be solved with beer.
I dunno man, with all these rouge gamers, what are the chances that there isn't an equal [or greater] percentage of rouge drinkers? ;)

Eldan
2009-05-06, 01:39 AM
We should spell it "Roach" and solve the entire problem forever. You also don't need to explain what the class does that way.

Alleine
2009-05-06, 01:57 AM
You also don't need to explain what the class does that way.

Infest your walls and generally be unsavory? :smallconfused:

Sholos
2009-05-06, 02:13 AM
Tequila Sunrise, you seem to be operating under the assumption that English is not, in fact, English. In the English language, the letter 'g' has TWO sounds. One is hard, one is soft. The soft sound happens to sound like a 'j'. This is seen in such words as "giraffe" and "general" and "gene". The hard sound is exhibited by such words as "goat" and "tug" and "hanger". It is the way it is, and no amount of insistence on your part will change that. Either accept it, or start writing in another language that makes more sense to you.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-06, 07:46 PM
Wow, folks, this was intended to be a lighthearted topic. I can't believe how uptight and protective some of you are getting over a word that, even if spelled 'incorrectly', is still instantly recognizable on any D&D forum. So if you want to be nasty and snide about it, I can do that too.


Tequila Sunrise, you seem to be operating under the assumption that English is not, in fact, English. In the English language, the letter 'g' has TWO sounds. One is hard, one is soft. The soft sound happens to sound like a 'j'. This is seen in such words as "giraffe" and "general" and "gene". The hard sound is exhibited by such words as "goat" and "tug" and "hanger". It is the way it is, and no amount of insistence on your part will change that. Either accept it, or start writing in another language that makes more sense to you.
I don't know where you learned English, but in the upstate New York school that I learned at, my teachers taught me that G makes ONE sound. After that, they taught me that Gs are sometimes inexplicably substituted in for Js and the rolling J sound that English has no letter for. Just like X sometimes stands in for Z (xylophone), C often stands in for S (success) and PH sometimes stands in for F (phone), so too does G often stand in for J/JJ. This 'soft G' sound that you mention is in fact the J sound. I don't have to insist on anything, because that's the way it is. If you took a moment to think about how the words are pronounced, you'd realize that.

Oh and btw, 'hanger' has no G sound either. It has the NG sound, which is completely distinct from the G sound. Unless you actually say 'hang-ger,' in which case it has both the NG and the G sound.

Icewalker
2009-05-06, 07:59 PM
I'm sorry and had no intent to offend, and still do not, but I must directly agree with others in the thread to say that you are just incorrect: there are some objective rules about pronunciation of the English language, at least as objective as rules about language can be, and they are different from your explanations.

The letter G can make multiple sounds. Some of them overlap with some of the sounds of the letter J, which also has many pronunciations given lexical context. Neither of them is the 'correct' letter for the sound: Gs are not pointlessly replacing Js any more than the other way around, they just overlap in pronunciation in a few spots. A lot of this is due to the extensive borrowing English makes of other languages.

Tarmikos
2009-05-06, 08:05 PM
Just curious, because the topic of sounding things out was mentioned, but if you are unsure if the word rogue is spelled "rogue" or "rouge", couldn't you simply try pronouncing both? They sound very different, at least to me, all based on the placement of the U and the G. Sorry if I'm off topic from where things currently are, but I believe in the original post it was mentioned for some people trying to decide if "rogue" or rouge" was the correct spelling of the word.

Sneak
2009-05-06, 08:08 PM
G never "stands in" for J. It just can be used to make the same sound (soft G).

If you want to be technical, the sound itself is actually neither a soft G nor a J sound, but rather a voiced postalveolar affricate sound. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_postalveolar_affricate)

See the usage section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G#Usage) on the Wikipedia article for the letter G.

Serpentine
2009-05-07, 02:15 AM
I don't know where you learned English, but in the upstate New York school that I learned at, my teachers taught me that G makes ONE sound... This 'soft G' sound that you mention is in fact the J sound. I don't have to insist on anything, because that's the way it is. If you took a moment to think about how the words are pronounced, you'd realize that.Your teacher was wrong. Letters are symbols for sounds. "G" represents the hard "guh" sound, such as "garden", and the soft "gee" sound, such as in "George". The latter sounds similar, to the point of interchangability, to "J", such as in "James". There are even places, I think, where "George" is spelled "Jorj" or something similar. Theoretically, there could be people who spell "James" as "Games", but there's already a word spelled like that but with the harg "G" (not that that's ever stopped English...). If you took a moment to see how words are spelled and correspondingly pronounced, you'd realise that.
In your example, people would be inclined to pronounce "Roge" as "Roje" (which is actually more similar to the maligned "Rouge") because of ENGLISH CONVENTIONS - which may or may not be consistent. "Roag" would work better.

Zeb The Troll
2009-05-07, 02:27 AM
I don't know where you learned English, but in the upstate New York school that I learned at, my teachers taught me that G makes ONE sound. After that, they taught me that Gs are sometimes inexplicably substituted in for Js and the rolling J sound that English has no letter for. Just like X sometimes stands in for Z (xylophone), C often stands in for S (success) and PH sometimes stands in for F (phone), so too does G often stand in for J/JJ. This 'soft G' sound that you mention is in fact the J sound.With no offense to your teachers, doing the best they can with the information available to them, I have my doubts that anyone who told you this did any study of linguistics. My teachers certainly never told me this, not even as a dodge for not actually knowing what the rules and conventions of phonics and spelling are. This explanation is tantamount to explaining that storks deliver babies and is unfair to you, the student.

I don't have to insist on anything, because that's the way it is. If you took a moment to think about how the words are pronounced, you'd realize that.Except that it's not true. If you write down the letters and ask people how it's pronounced, you will get some very predictable results.

r-o-g will rhyme with dog (dawg)
r-o-g-e will rhyme with loge (lohzh)

And in circles where "rogue" is not in common parlance...

r-o-u-g-e will rhyme with luge* (loozh)

It stands to reason, then, that there must be a way to indicate a long 'o' followed by a hard 'g' for words like rogue and vogue. Turns out there's a long standing practice, in many languages (because English is not the only language <look, two 'g' sounds!> that has two possible vocalizations of this letter), of adding the 'u' as a silent separator. Most readers of English will inherently recognize this, whether they realize it or not.

r-o-g-u-e will be pronounced (rohg)

Likewise, spinning the task around and asking people to spell the word will typically result in either a correct spelling or a spelling that "doesn't look right" to the speller.

*[which is yet another example of a long vowel sound followed by the letters 'ge' where the 'g' is soft]

Black_Pants_Guy
2009-05-07, 04:20 AM
I don't know where you learned English, but in the upstate New York school that I learned at, my teachers taught me that G makes ONE sound. After that, they taught me that Gs are sometimes inexplicably substituted in for Js and the rolling J sound that English has no letter for. Just like X sometimes stands in for Z (xylophone), C often stands in for S (success) and PH sometimes stands in for F (phone), so too does G often stand in for J/JJ. This 'soft G' sound that you mention is in fact the J sound. I don't have to insist on anything, because that's the way it is. If you took a moment to think about how the words are pronounced, you'd realize that.


Yes, I like how your Everybody gets left behind act works, This is why I hope to become a teacher so I can teach people language and not the implausible scrawl that we see in your poorly written movies everyday.

Prepare for a visit from me and my metre-length ruler and an introductory course to the metric system and medium level coarse language.

If I were an evil world-Dictator Britannic English would be the only dialect taught in schools, I'm very partial to my English Language and I will not have it spoiled by a country that solves all of its problems with and glorifies violence.:smallmad:

Oh and yes; Sarcasm is my speciality.

KuReshtin
2009-05-07, 05:13 AM
I like these kinds of discussions, where someone holds a very firm belief that s/he is right, while there is an overwhelming majority that time and time again shows, in various different terms and ease of understanding, that the preconception of the original poster is incorrect, but s/he still refuses to be swayed.

The firmly held belief that the letter G only makes one distinct sound (the 'guh'-sound) falls at the first mention of the actual letter.

My question is this: Reading the alphabet, does the OP say 'guh' when he reaches the letter G, or does he pronounce it the way the rest of the English speaking world does, as 'jee'?
If using the second, very popular and generally accepted way of pronouncing the letter to let people know what letter it is, he has proved himself wrong.


Then again, if we wud start typing words the same way we pronowns them, wed end up with txt spik, wich aj think most pipl on thes bords fraon upon.
Nao, ples form a q to start hurling abus at me for bringing that up.

Then again, the correct spelling of 'Rogue' should be W-E-A-L-T-H-SPACE-R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-O-R.

Iain
2009-05-07, 05:41 AM
What a load of nonsense.
It's perfectly clear it should be spelt "roag".

horngeek
2009-05-07, 06:40 AM
(and US English is, believe it or not, the purest form of modern English alive today)

...
...
...
Not.

I'm sorry, but speaking as an Australian, I'm pretty sure the purest form of English is the one they speak in Britan.

Since, you know, they invented the language.

If you can define any form of a language as 'pure'.

English has so many loanwords from other languages that it's not funny.

And other languages have many, many loanwords from english as well.

Icewalker
2009-05-07, 10:05 AM
I'm not sure 'invented' is the word I'd use. But yes, the English spoken in America was drawn from the English spoken in Britain, when it was colonized, obviously. I'm no linguist, so I can't say anything particularly academic towards the purity of language, but PhoeKun, do elaborate! I'm interested in how American English might be more 'pure' than British English.

banjo1985
2009-05-07, 10:23 AM
...
I'm sorry, but speaking as an Australian, I'm pretty sure the purest form of English is the one they speak in Britan.

Ar. Yaw'm right yaw bin. We spake the best English ere in Brumland. We ay messed up the language at all...

I find it entertaining but difficult to write out the Brummie accent. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2009-05-07, 10:23 AM
So, how exactly can a language be pure when it started as a german dialect spoken by people who thought they needed more french loanwords?
Which is, actually, not meant to be derogative towards the english language, but I find the concept of "purity" when applied to language pretty laughable.

Telonius
2009-05-07, 10:38 AM
Guys, guys, guys. There's an easier way. From now on, just spell it :haley:

Narmoth
2009-05-07, 10:58 AM
Yeah, this is a fun thread.
Still, face the truth:
ROGUE will be spelled that way by any published source, as it's the proper spelling.
How you spell it wrong isn't really an issue as long as people can guess what you are trying to say. It's still wrong, but we can live with it.


Just curious, because the topic of sounding things out was mentioned, but if you are unsure if the word rogue is spelled "rogue" or "rouge", couldn't you simply try pronouncing both? They sound very different, at least to me, all based on the placement of the U and the G. Sorry if I'm off topic from where things currently are, but I believe in the original post it was mentioned for some people trying to decide if "rogue" or rouge" was the correct spelling of the word.

For non-native english speakers this can be a problem. I think that's the origin of the problem. Taking into account the fact that you read the first and last letter of a word, and then arrange the letters in-between (which is what enables us to understand what the word is supposed to be when a typo occurs), you often get rogUe substituted with roUge.


Then again, the correct spelling of 'Rogue' should be W-E-A-L-T-H-SPACE-R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-O-R.

Indeed


I'm sorry, but speaking as an Australian, I'm pretty sure the purest form of English is the one they speak in Britan.

Since, you know, they invented the language.

Nah, the purest form of English is the one spoken in the middle east.
You see, English is an indo-european language, and modern science believes that all indo-europeans originated there somewhere (probably a a bit east of Turkey or something).

Aedilred
2009-05-07, 11:13 AM
But yes, the English spoken in America was drawn from the English spoken in Britain, when it was colonized, obviously. I'm no linguist, so I can't say anything particularly academic towards the purity of language, but PhoeKun, do elaborate! I'm interested in how American English might be more 'pure' than British English.
Actually, this is something of a common misconception. American spellings were intentionally changed by Webster as part of the "Americanisation" of the US. At the same point there was a move to make the accent less British too. Of course English hadn't had a standardized spelling for very long, and the o/ou difference in words like "colour" was still common even in British English. But the "ou" was demarcated as "correct" by Johnson, so Webster deliberately chose the "o" for the Americans. It's true then that US English does preserve some older spellings that Commonwealth English has dropped, but they're not older than the Commonwealth English spellings in and of themselves, they're just different.

There are, or at least were, some isolated communities in New England who spoke a dialect believed to be closest to Elizabethan English, but that's an anomaly and doesn't indicate anything about the archaism of the American dialect in general. The West Country dialect in England is believed to be the closest to Anglo-Saxon, and the Yorkshire dialect is closest to Old English with the Norse loanwords. It depends how far back you want to go. Ironically the most "pure" version of proto-Old English anywhere in the world is probably Scots, which is a different language altogether. But language isn't about "purity", so it doesn't really matter.

There is of course no "correct" version of English. Commonwealth English and US English are both equally valid dialects, or rather collections of equally valid dialects.

Mr. Moon
2009-05-07, 11:35 AM
Whut is dis spealing yu spake off? :smallconfused:

'Nyways, I still don't undestand what you Americans have against "u"s. They're, like, totally Phase. *nodnod*

Serpentine
2009-05-07, 12:27 PM
So, how exactly can a language be pure when it started as a german dialect spoken by people who thought they needed more french loanwords?Don't forget old Norwegian, which has had more impact on basic, everyday language, at least, than French - you couldn't be born, live or die in England without it. Or eat eggs.

Eldan
2009-05-07, 12:35 PM
I was exaggerating. I mean, "a mixture of a variety of early germanic languages with some early france thrown in" doesn't sound as good in an argument :smalltongue:

Occasional Sage
2009-05-07, 12:38 PM
Perhaps the easiest solution to this problem is to simply all begin using the clear, unambiguous phonetic spelling of the word, "rəʊɡ", so that there cannot possibly be any confusion. Second, anyone?


Don't forget old Norwegian, which has had more impact on basic, everyday language, at least, than French - you couldn't be born, live or die in England without it. Or eat eggs.

No eggs without Norwegian? What? (http://www.carrieisgett.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/pancake-bunny.jpg)

Serpentine
2009-05-07, 12:43 PM
Mmmm, bunny pancake...
The word "egg" has Norse origins. It came with Cnut and his a-viking buddies.

Eldan
2009-05-07, 12:44 PM
I've had an egg pancake with a bunny meat filling once... tasty.

Supagoof
2009-05-07, 12:46 PM
Can't we just spell "rogue" or "roge" as it truly is.

T-H-I-E-F

Wouldn't that be the Phase way to go?

Eldan
2009-05-07, 12:47 PM
Teef? Nah. Not all roachs steal. :smallbiggrin:

And yes, I have seen that spelling in school.

Totally Guy
2009-05-07, 03:25 PM
Ok, I'll spell Rogue as Roge from now on.

But the only difference it'll make is people will now tell me I'm wrong.

I don't like this change. Can we please go back to the old way now?

Please tell me I can go back to the old way. I don't want to get stuck being told I'm wrong whenever it comes up. What if I get it in a spelling bee type contest?

Edit: I was recently surprised to find that the first name of Jorge Garcia, Hurley in LOST, is pronounced "Hor-hey". The idea that it was not pronunced George had never even entered my head.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-07, 05:12 PM
Just curious, because the topic of sounding things out was mentioned, but if you are unsure if the word rogue is spelled "rogue" or "rouge", couldn't you simply try pronouncing both? They sound very different, at least to me, all based on the placement of the U and the G. Sorry if I'm off topic from where things currently are, but I believe in the original post it was mentioned for some people trying to decide if "rogue" or rouge" was the correct spelling of the word.
Neither word is clearly linked to its spelling, unless you remember all these grammar rules from elementary school. If you don't know this 'G + U = J' rule, both are nonsensical.


Your teacher was wrong.
Ah, the 'nahnahnah you're wrong I'm right!' argument. How compelling. I feel my opinion shifting as we speak. Oh, no, wait, that was my chair.


With no offense to your teachers, doing the best they can with the information available to them, I have my doubts that anyone who told you this did any study of linguistics. My teachers certainly never told me this, not even as a dodge for not actually knowing what the rules and conventions of phonics and spelling are. This explanation is tantamount to explaining that storks deliver babies and is unfair to you, the student.
*shrug* I learned English well enough to get a BA in it. And my high school was one of the state's top schools, so I only blame [some] of my teachers for being boring gits. But still good teachers. Personally I think this 'soft consonant' talk sounds like a dodge for teachers who don't want to just say 'It's English kids, get used to BS.' But maybe that's just my lack of faith in authority coming out.


Except that it's not true. If you write down the letters and ask people how it's pronounced, you will get some very predictable results.
Posters on this thread have certainly shown a surprising zealotry, but who's to say they're an accurate cross section of English speakers? How many lurkers have decided not to chime in for my OP because a bunch of grammar fanatics jumped down my throat for daring to suggest an alternate spelling? Not to mention that this forum is not by any means represenative of English speakers in general.

And before someone challenges me to get an accurate poll of English speakers, don't bother because I won't. I don't care. I don't care how you spell it. That's not the point of this thread. The point is, rouge, roge and rogue are all instantly recognizable to anyone reading this forum so it doesn't make a difference which you use.


Not.

I'm sorry, but speaking as an Australian, I'm pretty sure the purest form of English is the one they speak in Britan.

Since, you know, they invented the language.

If you can define any form of a language as 'pure'.
Thank you, I meant to say exactly that.


Reading the alphabet, does the OP say 'guh' when he reaches the letter G, or does he pronounce it the way the rest of the English speaking world does, as 'jee'?

Ah, you mean like the way we say 'ache' to describe H? Or 'double-u' to describe W? A letter's name doesn't necessarily have any relationship with its sound.


Then again, if we wud start typing words the same way we pronowns them, wed end up with txt spik, wich aj think most pipl on thes bords fraon upon.
Nao, ples form a q to start hurling abus at me for bringing that up.
It's hard to take your angst seriously when you clearly have no grasp of pronunciation.


Can't we just spell "rogue" or "roge" as it truly is.

T-H-I-E-F

Wouldn't that be the Phase way to go?
Theif is never misspelled. ;)

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-07, 05:19 PM
Oh, and out of curiousity, if 'roge' looks like 'roje', what does 'roje' look like?

Eldan
2009-05-07, 05:35 PM
Well, seeing roje makes me want to pronounce it like a spanish word. Which is strange, since I've never spoken a word of spanish in my life.

Frogpop
2009-05-07, 10:56 PM
According to Webster's Online dictionary (just checked), the origins of the word "rogue" are unknown. However, it is mostly likely derived from another language, unless English speakers actually invented it. Here, I will have to point out that in some languages (READ: Romance languages (READ: Specifically my own (READ: Spanish))) the u is placed between the g and the e (or between the g and the i) to keep it sounding like the G in "got", instead of like the G in "genius".

The U, in said cases, is silent, much like in the word Rogue. The E is there in the first place to make the O sound long, and the U is there to keep the G's sound. Even spelling it "ROG" would be closer to sounding right than "ROGE". In other words, the word is basically constructed to help the reader understand how it's read.

So Rogue works on the same basis as "The Hague". Good enough for me!

"Roge" just plain stinks. Age, Page, Sage, Rage, etc... ge = j

EDIT: Now "Roag" has some real potential. OP would've gotten more traction if he'd gone with that.

Icewalker
2009-05-07, 11:05 PM
That is an extremely phase bunny sage.

Yeah, there's some really interesting stuff in etymology. Interesting to learn that egg is Norse in origin. I know electricity is based on the ancient Greek word for amber, actually I statted up a homebrew creature (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107910) inspired by that...

Zeb The Troll
2009-05-08, 12:48 AM
I had a post crafted to address some of the responses. It has been pre-empted by this...


I just fail to see the purpose in continuing the discussion. You'll go around in circles indefinitely until it does cross a line and gets locked. Why bother?

Also...

EDIT: Now "Roag" has some real potential. OP would've gotten more traction if he'd gone with that.Agreed.

Serpentine
2009-05-08, 01:07 AM
Neither word is clearly linked to its spelling, unless you remember all these grammar rules from elementary school. If you don't know this 'G + U = J' rule, both are nonsensical.That goes for the entirety of all languages, everywhere. If you don't understand the symbolism, it's all useless.

Ah, the 'nahnahnah you're wrong I'm right!' argument. How compelling. I feel my opinion shifting as we speak. Oh, no, wait, that was my chair.If I recall correctly, I wrote more than just that one, single line. But your teacher was still mistaken.

Personally I think this 'soft consonant' talk sounds like a dodge for teachers who don't want to just say 'It's English kids, get used to BS.' But maybe that's just my lack of faith in authority coming out.Go look in a good dictionary, one that has detailed pronunciations. I guarantee it will have "soft" versions of almost all of them. Also, why is it that what all our teachers say are "dodges", but when your teacher says it, it's Gospel truth?

That's not the point of this thread. The point is, rouge, roge and rogue are all instantly recognizable to anyone reading this forum so it doesn't make a difference which you use.This thread has comprehensively demonstrated that this is not so. If it was "instantly recognizable to anyone reading this forum", everyone who has responded - who are all people reading this forum - would have agreed immediately. They haven't, therefore your above statement is in error.

Ah, you mean like the way we say 'ache' to describe H? Or 'double-u' to describe W? A letter's name doesn't necessarily have any relationship with its sound.Actually, I say "haich". In any case, there is still a "g" in the "word" "gee", which is pronounced "softly", so it still works.

It's hard to take your angst seriously when you clearly have no grasp of pronunciation.The ironing is delicious.

Am I the only one who's finding it absurd that someone just isn't even acknowledging the existance of a fundamental and undeniable aspect of the English (and many other) language? :confused:

edit:
In English, the letter represents a voiced postalveolar affricate /dʒ/) ("soft G"), as in: giant, ginger, and geology; or a voiced velar plosive /ɡ/ ("hard G"), as in: goose, gargoyle, and game. In some words of French origin, the "soft G" is pronounced as a fricative (/ʒ/), as in rouge, beige, and genre. Generally, G is soft before E, I, and Y, and hard otherwise, but there are many English words of non-Romance origin where G is soft or hard regardless of position (e.g. "get"), and two (gaol, margarine) in which it is soft even before an A.Oh look, more than one pronunciation of the letter "G"!

Icewalker
2009-05-08, 01:31 AM
Actually Serpentine, I think somebody else has already linked to the Wikipedia article on G pronunciation, in the context of simplifying it down into 'voiced postalveolar affricate', etc, so as to clearly show the multiple pronunciations for different letters.

Also, the ironing is indeed quite delicious.

Eldan
2009-05-08, 02:43 AM
You pronounce "geology" with a "soft g"? As in, the one "g" at the beginning of the word? Huh. Learned something new.

Serpentine
2009-05-08, 02:54 AM
Yeah, I saw that. I suspect the link wasn't clicked, though.

KuReshtin
2009-05-08, 03:33 AM
It's hard to take your angst seriously when you clearly have no grasp of pronunciation.


I do apologise (or apologize, depending on whether you prefer the American spelling) for not being able to fluently type in something resembling txt spk.
This is mainly because I was taught how to spell words properly in the first place, and generally find it a bit difficult to misspell words on demand.

Then again, since you've never met me, I fail to see how you can make an assumption that I have no grasp of pronunciation based on something I write on a forum.
Not to say that my pronunciation of certain words isn't a bit weird in one way or another, being that it tends to be a mix of 'English English', 'Scottish English' and 'American English'.

Jimor
2009-05-08, 04:35 AM
English has so many loanwords from other languages that it's not funny.


I'm just gonna point at my sig and whistle softly to myself in the corner. :smallamused:

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-08, 08:25 PM
Go look in a good dictionary, one that has detailed pronunciations. I guarantee it will have "soft" versions of almost all of them. Also, why is it that what all our teachers say are "dodges", but when your teacher says it, it's Gospel truth?
The fact remains that this soft G sound sounds, and is made, excatly the same as the J sound. I already have a letter for the J sound, so I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Funny, you're the only one talking about Gospel truth. My teachers were far from preachers; they taught me how to spell but they also told me BS like "any book with magic and dragons is just juvenile fiction." The way you'd have me think, spelling 'rogue' is some kind of divine mandate. Get over youself, and your Gospel teachers.


This thread has comprehensively demonstrated that this is not so. If it was "instantly recognizable to anyone reading this forum", everyone who has responded - who are all people reading this forum - would have agreed immediately. They haven't, therefore your above statement is in error.
"I'm playing a roge." "My rouge has a 17 Dex." "My party's roag is causing party conflict." Don't play stupid, you get it.


The ironing is delicious.
Which ones? The freshly pleated pants, or the newly starched shirt?

Seriously, nothing anyone has typed on this thread has been phonetically spelled including 'rogue' and 'roge.' The only ones who claim phonetic spelling are a couple posters who are arguing with me. That you assume phonetic spelling is my goal is a little funny, but mostly just sad.

Anyway, some people need to get over this obsession with written English. It's just a bunch of lines and squiggles, an artificial construct of mortals, totally unworthy of this fanatical devotion.

golentan
2009-05-08, 08:49 PM
The fact remains that this soft G sound sounds, and is made, excatly the same as the J sound. I already have a letter for the J sound, so I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Funny, you're the only one talking about Gospel truth. My teachers were far from preachers; they taught me how to spell but they also told me BS like "any book with magic and dragons is just juvenile fiction." The way you'd have me think, spelling 'rogue' is some kind of divine mandate. Get over youself, and your Gospel teachers.


"I'm playing a roge." "My rouge has a 17 Dex." "My party's roag is causing party conflict." Don't play stupid, you get it.


Which ones? The freshly pleated pants, or the newly starched shirt?

Seriously, nothing anyone has typed on this thread has been phonetically spelled including 'rogue' and 'roge.' The only ones who claim phonetic spelling are a couple posters who are arguing with me. That you assume phonetic spelling is my goal is a little funny, but mostly just sad.

Anyway, some people need to get over this obsession with written English. It's just a bunch of lines and squiggles, an artificial construct of mortals, totally unworthy of this fanatical devotion.

Wow, more condescending insults. You're not convincing us to spell it your way. Pretty much everyone else seems to agree your way fails. You're not going to make more headway by insulting our education (which overall seems to have been referencing more advanced concepts than the ones you've used, which have been straight out of kindergarten's 1st week alphabet portion), our "Gospel" (which I don't have: Ooh, Swing and a Miss!), or human civilization (Science is a construct of mortals, as are it's products. Let's stop using them).

If you like your way, spell it your way from now on. But people will still point out you mispelled it, and may make fun of you. Actually, they'll probably make fun of you more know that you've made a big hairy deal out of it.

And with that, I'm done with this thread. Not returning, no comments, no checking. I'm sick of it.

Golentan out!

Icewalker
2009-05-08, 08:51 PM
"I'm playing a roge." "My rouge has a 17 Dex." "My party's roag is causing party conflict." Don't play stupid, you get it.

Yes, but just because you can be understood doesn't mean you are correct. Understanding is easy, typos and all that don't render holes of confusion in a text, they are noted and passed over, understood: but they're still mistakes.


Anyway, some people need to get over this obsession with written English. It's just a bunch of lines and squiggles, an artificial construct of mortals, totally unworthy of this fanatical devotion.

Indeed it is. However, some standards and consistencies must be held, or else for ALL intents and purposes it will be meaningless lines and squiggles. As long as conventions, spelling, and grammar are followed accurately, they are lines and squiggles with meaning which can be used for a consistent written language, spread to a large scale.

If you want to say that this spelling is more phonetically accurate, even if others disagree, alright, however if you take it further, and begin replacing more spellings, eventually it stops working: lacking context and to some extent similarity to correctly spelled words, people will stop understanding, because you aren't using correct English as it is widely known.

Actually, this is one point we've been overlooking. Even if you were right, and your spelling was more phonetically correct and accurate, rogue would still be the correct spelling, because it is what people understand and what people use. And small scale opinion can't change common usage, even if the common usage needs changing.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-08, 09:08 PM
Indeed it is. However, some standards and consistencies must be held, or else for ALL intents and purposes it will be meaningless lines and squiggles. As long as conventions, spelling, and grammar are followed accurately, they are lines and squiggles with meaning which can be used for a consistent written language, spread to a large scale.

Dear, poor, pitiful citizens of colony and ex-colony states, I fear that you have QUITE missed the entire point of the English language. Our beautiful mother tongue (spoken as a natural born citizen of the British Empire) works just like the class system - rules exist so that we can divide people up neatly. On one hand, you have persons who are unable to spell correctly, use the word 'serviette'. And on the other, you have those who know the rules from birth or private education, and use the word 'napkin'.
The rules are there for a reason - they trap the commoners so bluebloods know to avoid them.

Besides, if we were going to spell words based purely on their pronouciation, we would use the IPA. And most people would still get it wrong, since they haven't been practicing their received pronouciation and have all sorts of ghastly regional accents.

Icewalker
2009-05-08, 09:36 PM
The point is that languages evolve, that was the intent of my last comment about common usage. So, languages spread apart, but one can't just go and change them, they change by themselves. Unless you're somebody like Shakespeare, then you might be able to pull it off, but you know.

The point is, without common ground in language it would be useless entirely. So, even if one was correct, one can't go and change what is commonly accepted.

shadzar
2009-05-08, 10:00 PM
WOW! Same thread at least 6 forums. You sure get around.

Frank Mentzer had a phonetic alphabet that spelled things the way they sounded. Have you tried writing with it and see how many people it helped to better read what you wrote?

Ascension
2009-05-08, 10:10 PM
Dear, poor, pitiful citizens of colony and ex-colony states, I fear that you have QUITE missed the entire point of the English language. Our beautiful mother tongue (spoken as a natural born citizen of the British Empire) works just like the class system - rules exist so that we can divide people up neatly. [...] The rules are there for a reason - they trap the commoners so bluebloods know to avoid them.

What the heck? I'm assuming you're joking, but still, what the heck? The rules exist so that we can comprehend each other. If language were purely subjective everyone would end up speaking a personal (or, at best, severely localized) dialect and people couldn't successfully communicate at with people outside their own sphere of influence.

Social status can impact our use of the language, as can regional origin and any number of other factors, but because of the rules our various dialects remain close enough to each other that we can, for the most part, communicate successfully.


Besides, if we were going to spell words based purely on their pronouciation, we would use the IPA.

...which we can't be blamed for not using, since the English language is far older than the IPA. Any widespread switch now would necessitate the reeducation of all English speakers and the translation of the entire body of English literature up until this point, which would be inefficient at best.


And most people would still get it wrong, since they haven't been practicing their received pronouciation and have all sorts of ghastly regional accents.

Ghastly regional accents? Why are they ghastly? Our accents are an integral part of our cultural identities. I wouldn't have an English without regional accents. It'd be an English without personality.

Totally Guy
2009-05-09, 02:17 AM
I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Watch yourself there, I said that phrase in the wrong company before I knew about the racist connotations. We all chalked it up as a misunderstanding. But it's never fun to have to explain to a racial group that you don't hold a prejudice.

Can I stop using Roge yet? People keep telling me I'm wrong which is something I hate.

Quincunx
2009-05-09, 05:17 AM
WOW! Same thread at least 6 forums. You sure get around. . .

Ha! You're kidding! Tell me you're kidding. Provide links; I want to see this gluttony.

unstattedCommoner
2009-05-09, 08:20 AM
I have a spilling chequer,
It came with my pea see,
It clearly marks four my revue
Miss steaks I cannot sea.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-09, 09:22 AM
Ghastly regional accents? Why are they ghastly? Our accents are an integral part of our cultural identities. I wouldn't have an English without regional accents. It'd be an English without personality.

Indeed, this is true. Language is indeed an ever-changing phenomena, and that includes written English as well as spoken English (if you disagree, please read Medieval literature). The problem with instituting a new spelling for rogue based on "a more logical representation of pronouciation" is that the English language, quite frankly, has far less symbols than sounds.
If you want phonetic spelling, IPA is the only way to go. It would take the reeducation of every literate English speaker in the world and thus is a huge waste of time when the current standard is more than adequate, but at least we'd have a logical standard. Although, if you want a logical standard one might question why you were using English as a language in the first place?

Spelling via IPA would also have the unfortunate effect of showing people how to correctly (at least, according to recieved pronouciation) pronounce their words, destoying regional accents. Sans sarcasm, accents are lovely things really. Excepting Estuary English and whatever painful drawl the people on The Hills speak with.

Totally Guy
2009-05-09, 09:26 AM
Ha! You're kidding! Tell me you're kidding. Provide links; I want to see this gluttony.

Maybe it's like a game of chess.

On one forum he posts the best of the pro-debate answers.
Then on the other forum he posts the best of the anti-debate.

Effectively he could be the middle man in an argument he's engineered between GitP and any other public forum.

And if that's not what he's doing... I think I try it out myself.

FoE
2009-05-09, 12:31 PM
If we have to amend the language because people can't spell particular words properly, we'll have about a dozen books of revisions before the night is through.

Rutskarn
2009-05-09, 12:51 PM
Yes, I like how your Everybody gets left behind act works, This is why I hope to become a teacher so I can teach people language and not the implausible scrawl that we see in your poorly written movies everyday.

Prepare for a visit from me and my metre-length ruler and an introductory course to the metric system and medium level coarse language.

If I were an evil world-Dictator Britannic English would be the only dialect taught in schools, I'm very partial to my English Language and I will not have it spoiled by a country that solves all of its problems with and glorifies violence.:smallmad:

Oh and yes; Sarcasm is my speciality.

A summary of this post:

American education sucks, American art sucks, standardized systems of measurement that are used in America suck, American dialect sucks, American foreign policy sucks.

Thank you very much for your well-thought-out contribution to this thread about linguistics.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-09, 02:10 PM
A summary of this post:

American education sucks, American art sucks, standardized systems of measurement that are used in America suck, American dialect sucks, American foreign policy sucks.

Thank you very much for your well-thought-out contribution to this thread about linguistics.

The irony being that the imperial system is more British than the metric system anyway, having been around for longer. Speaking of which, decimalisation of currency is another nasty foreign invention. As is democracy. Long live Her Majesty!

Ascension
2009-05-09, 07:37 PM
Spelling via IPA would also have the unfortunate effect of showing people how to correctly (at least, according to recieved pronouciation) pronounce their words, destoying regional accents. Sans sarcasm, accents are lovely things really. Excepting Estuary English and whatever painful drawl the people on The Hills speak with.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood the sarcasm somewhat.

I do wish written English could convey tone of voice, it'd make things like this a whole lot clearer.

Anywho, seems we're agreed. I guess I'll have to go find some other thread to argue with people in.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-09, 07:45 PM
Ah, sorry, misunderstood the sarcasm somewhat.


Well, it could've been genuine. Thar's plenty o' crazies on the interblag.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2009-05-10, 05:21 PM
Speaking as a budding linguist...

:smallsigh:

Chas the mage
2009-05-11, 08:24 PM
Roge? better yet: rog

Recaiden
2009-05-11, 09:20 PM
Roge? better yet: rog

How about Roeguh?

Salvonus
2009-05-11, 10:18 PM
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1186203

It never fails to surprise me how people post opinions and then start insulting everyone who disagrees with them. Furthermore, why would you do that on multiple sites? :smallconfused: Seems rather like OP is trolling, to be honest...

Serpentine
2009-05-11, 10:29 PM
Oh look! People are saying the same thing there as here, who'da thunk it?
Also, I don't think I've seen you before. Nice to meet you?

Icewalker
2009-05-11, 10:48 PM
Yeah, I love that every single point and alternate spelling proposal, joke or not, has been brought up on that thread as well.