LOL! I have to say, the "misunderestimated", "orientate" crowd drive me nuts. I've given up correcting them and just ramp up my disgust at the world, and go back home to shout at the newspaper.
I know what you mean about the "less is better" resonating, though. When I was at university we got marks for the "style" of our proofs in math. This basically meant that shorter was better, because it forced you to draw on connections that weren't obvious to cut out chunks of mindless proof. A two-line proof was the work of a genius - a three-page proof that of a half-hearted student. As a result, I believe inherently that simpler IS often better, but the caveat to that rule is that we live in an incredibly complex world. The drive to simplify is fine, but if we end up with a generation who spell phonetically, and won't make the effort to look for combinations of words to express an abstract thought (and will fall back to an alteration of a simple word which doesn't accurately cover it), then who is going to sit back and immerse themselves in the nuances of the 26 dimensions of string theory? Wouldn't gravity be better explained as "stuff falls"? (not that I'm a proponent of string theory) The fact is that the world is hard. It's seriously hard and complicated. Having to remember silent letters and a huge array of words people will use once a year is an OK way to prepare them for it, in my opinion. Especially during the critical IQ-forming years of a child's life, where they've got the natural plasticity to soak it all up like a sponge.
Anyway. Rant. Back to the newspaper.



Reply With Quote
