I found this quite interesting:

When the English tongue we speak,
Why is break not rhymed with weak?
Won't you tell me why it's true,
We say sew, but also few?
And the maker of a verse,
Cannot rhyme his horse with worse?
Beard is not the same as heard,
Cord is different from word,
Cow is cow, but low is low,
Shoe is never rhymed with foe.
Think of hose and dose and lose,
And think of goose and tomb and bomb,
Doll and roll and home and some.
And since pay is rhymed with say,
Why not paid with said I pray?
Think of blood and food and good;
Mould is not pronunced like could.
Why is it done, but gone and lone-
Is there any reason known?
To sum it up, it seems to me
That sounds and letters don't agree.

Anonymus

Not once poetic literary, but I haven't encounter yet that wonderful poem. English rhymes are very interesting especially when work it out together with different words. I am thinking how can I make my own, but it gives me a special message.

Whilst the cow may not rhyme with low, the lovely bovine does low. Which fact will further confound those trying to learn English. "The family's retainer, Daisy, stands by the barn door and lows her discontent with the delay of the evening milking." "The lowing of the herd keeps their connection as they graze the sparce pasture, and the calfs (also calves) do not stray far from their mothers."

It is well known that the French court allowed the typesetter's guild to establish the spelling conventions for what eventually became the national language. There were several competing dialects, and who but the typesetting guild could sort things out? Since they were paid by the letter and not by the word, French has lots of silent letters scattered here and there.

The English, on the other hand, were heavily into custom and precedent; together with class distinctions. Everyone who counted knew how to say the words, so who cared what the lowly clerks wrote down? Amongst themselves, the clerks learnt their trade as copyists - so what they saw most often became the standard. The typesetter's guild certainly was not bothered by "quality control" because they could point to a wide variety of precedents for any particular spelling. That allowed them to complete their work quickly and spend more time at the tavern.

Meanwhile the Germans were much more methodical and accurate. They matched the sound to the letter symbol and were not slow to create a new letter and symbol as the need arose. Both the typesetter's guild and the translators loved this because words could contain any number of letters each of which had a unique sound. Very few foreigners could read this even if they could speak it. It was almost as efficient as Chinese for copyright protection.

Who really wishes to give up the myth of the Tower of Babel? There is a lot to gained from differences.

Of what worth is a poet or musician if the art is simply making or solving a mathematical puzzle?

None-the-less, what a wonderful diversion about language. Thank you.

Of course you could explain to us the difference between "New Norse" and "Book Norse." Why is "New Norse" not the same as what they speak in Iceland; and "Book Norse" not the same as Danish?

Great
...except that mold isn't properly spelt like could either.

Regardless, definitely something I'll be sharing with my students, at least the ones it won't cause to give up on trying to understand English entirely.

For what it's worth, Chinese is also positively littered with 'misspelt' characters, whose 'sound component' no longer matches the spoken word (e.g., the discussion of homophones here.)

Another attempt to baffle us with bullshit. This guy needs to get to the point of his conversations, or stay off the line with his minuscule points, that don't broadcast any intelligence, or refer to whom he is referring to.

(14-07-2010 05:13 PM)llywelyn Wrote:  ... ...except that mold isn't properly spelt like could either. ...

I believe that mould is the British variant spelling of which they have several, e.g. colour. People in Norway (along with most of Europe) are most likely to learn British English rather than what we speak variously in the U.S.

Teaching English in China must be a 'hoot' ; you really should use the differences between American and British as comic relief. Example: In America an automobile has a "hood," but in Britain, it has a "bonnet." Why the ancient words for headcoverings are used for the cover of the motor is a wonderment. The differences between American and British in terms for parts of automobiles might even benefit the students.

Another chuckle comes from British pants = underwear; trowsers = outerwear -- while American shorts = underwear; pants = outerwear.
<Might a woman wear both a skirt and pants?> is a question which would probably be received differently by a Britisher and an American.

(14-07-2010 10:43 PM)Tropico Bob Wrote:  Another attempt to baffle us with bullshit. This guy needs to get to the point of his conversations, or stay off the line with his minuscule points, that don't broadcast any intelligence, or refer to whom he is referring to.

Stupid question:
Who are you speaking to? Just wondering.