To the extent that it would be stupid to have a spelling bee as a Finn knows how to spell a word if they hear it. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but it's always a pleasure to bring up good points about an otherwise crappy language. To stay more on topic, yacht is "jahti" yah-tee? You need to be a member in order to leave a comment. Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Already have an account? Sign in here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings , otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
Share More sharing options Followers 0. Recommended Posts. Posted November 19, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options JesuBungle Posted November 19, Martin Posted November 19, Probably at some point, when only rich guys had fast sailboats for pleasure sailing, the foreign word had some chic or snob appeal, which is all the more reason to keep the foreign spelling.
G "middle low german" that is essentially dutch, what they spoke in the low countriesthe nether lands " Posted November 20, In short you can spell Yacht how ever you like - Just expect to be screened for dyslexia. So, the ability to decode partly depends on the level of code knowledge a child has. I say 'partly' because decoding ability also depends on the skills a person brings to their reading. Can they segment and blend proficiently enough to be able to use their code knowledge efficently?
And then there's the question of a person's understanding of how the code works. So, do they understand that sounds can be spelled with more than one letter, that sounds can be spelled in often multiple ways, and do they also know that many spellings can represent different sounds? Given that all of these aspects of decoding have been well taught, I would fully expect some Y2 children and very many Y3 and above pupils to be able to decode 'yacht' successfully, although they may well baulk a little when it came to thinking about remembering how to spell it.
That's where the teaching come in! I am also a little surprised you patronise me by assuming I wouldn't be familiar with the word 'fleury' or be able to read it.
Of course, it goes without saying that any pupil learning French would be able to handle it after learning 'travailleur', 'meilleur', or, perhaps, the more obvious 'fleur'. I agree with you John … I like the first Y-ach-t and thought that straight away … probably because I am of the right age to be a big U2 fan. I'll tell my children about "Achtung Baby" to help them remember :.
Actually, yacht isn't a "pirate ship" word, it's a "hunter of pirate ships" word. Today's mega-yachts might be considered private pirate ships, but that too iw a whole nother story. The only stange thing about the word "yacht" is that it is considered a "strange case.
It's what makes English the most widely used language in the world. However, there are a number of words, mostly personal and place names, whose Alphabetic Code correspondences follow the loan word history. So if the name of a city or person is written as Jaeger , it could be spoken as yayger, yogger, jayger, or jogger. And the pronunciation of the "er" would vary depending upon whether it was BritSpeak, YankSpeak, or some other Speak.
The "assignment" of the correspondences is by convention, but the word is decodable whatever the convention, and once you know the convention, it's "no problem. Had history gone differently, we could be writing "yacht" as "jacht," and if we are txtg, keying the word as "yot" is OK. The Correspondences are the link between the written and spoken language, but the action is in the Correspondences, not in the sounds or the symbols per se.
Your second point: having analysed the word in the way suggested above, children are far more likely to remember how to spell it in the future is arguable. Some kids will have encountered the word in spoken or written communication and will be able to read it without any additional instruction.
For those who can't, saying, "The pronunciation here is 'yot. Kids are rarely going to have occasion to spell the word, and when they do, there are many alternative words they can use. The nautical Technical Lexicon is large, and there is much more ambiguity in the definition of the word "yacht" than there is in its Alphabetic Code correspondences.
Is a dinghy a yacht? How about a cruiser? Is a yacht a boat or a ship? These distinctions are relevant to composition instruction and to Thesaurus use, but they are unproductively redundant in reading instruction.
The broader point is that all English words are decodable. If a word isn't decodable, it's unintelligible. Fxjk is not decodable. Those conventions are no more complicated than those entailed in punctuation marks, or in contractions, abbreviations, and wingdings. But if you haven't been taught the conventions, you will encounter difficulty in reading the text.
The standard definition of "decodable" can easily be checked by googling the term. The definitions matches your definition. However, there are "non-standard" definitions of "decodable, such as Max's. When the referents for the term are clear, as in this thread, there is "no problem. Few texts that are proffered as "decodable" actually conform to the standard definition. Skip to content Menu Contact Us Free online course. This old chestnut comes up on a fairly regular basis and is cited as an example of how not all English words are decodable.
0コメント