NationStates Jolt Archive

What... What's the point? As far as I know the letter "q" originates in Latin where it appeared only in the combination "qu", pronounced as in English. Words such as "Iraq" and "Qoran" suggest it is identical to k with the extension of sometimes being pronounced "ky". Is there any reason why the letter is still used except for tradition's sake? Same thing goes with the Latin x, though I admit it's my favorite variable designation.

To respond to your kwestion... qu = kw.

Anyway... x is slightly difference q. The replacement for x is ks. For example, ekstreme. But why use two letters when one functions just fine?

The replacement for x is ks.

As in 'ksylophone'?

The letter "q" is the devil.

Like most archaic and redundant forms in the English language, it's still used in order to prevent written English from looking like an SMS txt mssg or the liner notes on a Limp Bizkit record.

The letter "q" is the devil.

Then what does that make the letter u?A satanist?

And in English "c" and "k" can be interchangeable as well. Except when "c" can be switched with "s".

And "i" and "y".


And get rid of double letters too. "Leters" is perfectly readable.

It wod b mch simpla to ditch al unecesari leters. Inglish wod b so mch ezier.

And in English "c" and "k" can be interchangeable as well. Except when "c" can be switched with "s".


CAKE -> KAKE -> KACE

Then what does that make the letter u?A satanist?


The letter "u" means skull sex, thus it should be avoided.

And in English "c" and "k" can be interchangeable as well. Except when "c" can be switched with "s".

And "i" and "y".


And get rid of double letters too. "Leters" is perfectly readable.

Yt wod b mch sympler to dytch al unecesary leters. Inglish wod b so mch ezyer.

It might be easier but it would require incomprehensible amounts of effort and coordination.
it's like the positive and negative ends on batteries,it was discovered a while after they were invented(quite a while) that the electrons travelled from the positive end to the negative,so the so-called positive end was in fact negatice.they never bothered changing this because of all the confusion it would cause.

Qu+X=

KWECKS!!!

prevent written English from looking like an SMS txt mssg or the liner notes on a Limp Bizkit record.

I guess the Romans liked Limp Bizkit then.

I guess the Romans liked Limp Bizkit then.
Ya,and look what happened to them.

Qu+X=

KWECKS!!!


That made me laugh =D

And in English "c" and "k" can be interchangeable as well. Except when "c" can be switched with "s".
What about the 'ch' digraph?

And "i" and "y".
What about the consonantal 'y'?

And get rid of double letters too. "Leters" is perfectly readable.
What about matted and mated, batted and bated, ratted and rated, and hatted and hated?

The history of "Q" is somewhat complex. Originally, the alphabet we use was created by the Phonecians, who spoke a language related to Hebrew and Arabic. Like both of those languages, Phonecian contained a sound like "k" but further back in the mouth. This sound was written using the ancestor of "q".

Later on, the Phonecian alphabet was adapted to write Greek and Latin. The "q" was originally used to write "k" before certain vowels, eventually being reduced to before "u" when "kw" was called for. When English adopted the Latin alphabet, this usage was retained, and now today, we write "kw" as "qu" just as Latin did.

"Q" sometimes appears without "u" after it, such as in the words Qaballah and Iraq. In most of these cases, the words were borrowed from Hebrew or Arabic and the "q" is used to write the deep "k" mentioned earlier. In addition, some languages use "q" in their own, specific ways, like transliterated Chinese or Xhosa.

What... What's the point? As far as I know the letter "q" originates in Latin where it appeared only in the combination "qu", pronounced as in English. Words such as "Iraq" and "Qoran" suggest it is identical to k with the extension of sometimes being pronounced "ky". Is there any reason why the letter is still used except for tradition's sake?
Q is derived from the early Greek letter koppa, and was used in Latin with V in the way we use it with U now. Until the Norman conquest, we used CW to represent that sound. Q is used in Semitic languages instead of K or KH (sometimes), and in Pinyin to represent our CH sound.

X is medieval. Monks used it to save space when they wrote. Which, curiously enough, is the case with modern day sms-speak too.

And get rid of double letters too. "Leters" is perfectly readable.


double letters iirc indicate a short vowel. compare mated (long a) to matted (short a)

double letters iirc indicate a short vowel. compare mated (long a) to matted (short a)
Hey, that was my example on the last page! *calls grammar police* *is arrested for time-wasting*

Hey, that was my example on the last page! *calls grammar police* *is arrested for time-wasting*

yes, I took your examples because I was too lazy to think up ones.

If we were going to change the spelling of the English language, it would be better to change it to something phonemic rather than just getting rid of certain letters in words. For a start, double letters do have a function. E.g. Leters, unlike letters would be pronounced like litres (liters) under normal English pronunciation.

*hands a dunce cap to anyone who though "phonemic" was a misspelling of "phonetic" *

It might be easier but it would require incomprehensible amounts of effort and coordination.
it's like the positive and negative ends on batteries,it was discovered a while after they were invented(quite a while) that the electrons travelled from the positive end to the negative,so the so-called positive end was in fact negatice.they never bothered changing this because of all the confusion it would cause.
Actually they go from negative to positive. Electrons are negative charged and it's electrons that move.

What about matted and mated, batted and bated, ratted and rated, and hatted and hated?

Well obviously changing the English language isn't going to leave everything the same.... Then it wouldn't be changing it, would it?

Why even bother having "correct" spelling. Until the dictionary was published there was no such thing and the world got along fine. People would even spell the same word in different ways in the same letter. They even spelt their own name different at different times. All spelling does now is give snooty people something to critisize. As long as the message gets through, who needs "correct" spelling?