NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?
No. It would look silly. Besides, it's funny when people pronounce words incorrectly.

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

A phonetic system would basically turn every regional accent into a different, unique language. It's pointless.

Can someone tell me where it all started? Just about any language I can think of except for the Latin-based European ones has a much simpler spelling system. So did Latin. Who's the guy who came up with the idea?

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

Cos it ripped off almost every european language for a few words and threw them all together and called it a language.

Can someone tell me where it all started? Just about any language I can think of except for the Latin-based European ones has a much simpler spelling system. So did Latin. Who's the guy who came up with the idea?
well you have the <i dont remember who> invaded by the romans, you have the norman invasion bringing in a bunch of french, you have the global conquest by the british bringing in all sorts of new words from the various lands they conquered.

all have a different linguistic base and thus different spellings. we keep the history of the language by keeping much of the original spellings.

Can someone tell me where it all started?
I can't. That's part of the reason I started the thread. :)

Just about any language I can think of except for the Latin-based European ones has a much simpler spelling system. So did Latin. Who's the guy who came up with the idea?
Even the French spelling is easier than the English one. I mean, 'ou' is always pronounced the same, and the same goes for most of the other letters/letter groups. And the other Romanic languages have phonetic systems, with a few exceptions.

English is probably the stupidest language ever. It's so weird... and it's basically a mixture of every other language out there.

I'm personally for creating a universal world language that the whole world could learn, so we could all understand each other without translation.

It would be so much easier, and plus whoever invents this new language could make it not as stupid as English was.

the humble begininnings of english as we know it came about when William the Conqueror took over.... and he was from Normandy (a.k.a. france), so english became kinda french+anglo saxon... so either blame it on the french or the anglos

Even the French spelling is easier than the English one. I mean, 'ou' is always pronounced the same, and the same goes for most of the other letters/letter groups. And the other Romanic languages have phonetic systems, with a few exceptions.

"ou" is always pronounced the same in French?

vous and oui sound the same, do they?

the humble begininnings of english as we know it came about when William the Conqueror took over.... and he was from Normandy (a.k.a. france), so english became kinda french+anglo saxon... so either blame it on the french or the anglos

French. every time.

English is probably the stupidest language ever. It's so weird... and it's basically a mixture of every other language out there.

I'm personally for creating a universal world language that the whole world could learn, so we could all understand each other without translation.

It would be so much easier, and plus whoever invents this new language could make it not as stupid as English was.

I suggest Latin. It's a fancy language.

I suggest Latin. It's a fancy language.

Yes. Latin would be perfect. It's fun, it's probably the oldest/most used language , and it's dead. Therefore, it wouldn't create any controversy because the whole world would have to learn it at the same time, and no country would be ahead of any other.

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

Se achasse que o ingles tem pronunciações e ortografia confusas, deve tentar o português! Após dois anos de estudá-lo, me deixa ainda louco.

English isn't that bad in comparison.

Don't even get me started on French! Grr.. *shakes fist at French*

Why the hell do you have verb conjugations if they're all pronounced the same anyway, for the love of God!? Why does the plural ending matter? Why do you use two letter combinations and even archaic Latin characters ("soeur") where others have been content with even an apostrophe?

By the way, I think Old French was fairly close to Latin spelling-wise. Whatever happened must have happened in the late Middle Ages.

Can someone tell me where it all started? Just about any language I can think of except for the Latin-based European ones has a much simpler spelling system. So did Latin. Who's the guy who came up with the idea?

Well, that's just it. There isn't a consistent paradigm that governs spelling and grammar in English. Because it has drawn from so many other languages, it has taken the paradigms of all the other languages with it, scrambled them around, and we're left with a large series of compromises.

Besides, how a word is spelled can add layers of meaning to it. At least to me, it would make sense to have a french poodle named Phydaeux.

"ou" is always pronounced the same in French?

vous and oui sound the same, do they?
Vous and oui sound different, of course, 'cause they're different words. But the 'ou' group in both words is pronounced like 'oo' in food. In the first case it's v + 'oo'. In the second, 'oo' + 'e' as in 'extreme'.

Don't even get me started on French! Grr.. *shakes fist at French*

Why the hell do you have verb conjugations if they're all pronounced the same anyway, for the love of God!? Why does the plural ending matter? Why do you use two letter combinations and even archaic Latin characters ("soeur") where others have been content with even an apostrophe?
Je suis, tu es, il est, nous sommes, vous etes, ils sont; j'ai, tu as, ila, nous avons, vous avez, ils ont. They're not always pronounced the same. And that's more a grammar problem anyway.
By the way, I think Old French was fairly close to Latin spelling-wise. Whatever happened must have happened in the late Middle Ages.
I think so too.

Vous and oui sound different, of course, 'cause they're different words. But the 'ou' group in both words is pronounced like 'oo' in food. In the first case it's v + 'oo'. In the second, 'oo' + 'e' as in 'extreme'.

maybe my french pronunciation is just crap, but I've always said "oui" as closer to we than oohee

Je suis, tu es, il est, nous sommes, vous etes, ils sont; j'ai, tu as, ila, nous avons, vous avez, ils ont. They're not always pronounced the same. And that's more a grammar problem anyway.

I thought it would be obvious enough that I was referring to the ones that did.

maybe my french pronunciation is just crap, but I've always said "oui" as closer to we than oohee
And what's the big difference between 'w' in we and 'ou' in vous - or the 'oo' in oohee? In Romanian at least, both sounds are spelled with the letter 'u', pronounced as the 'u' in rude. I think that's also the case in Spanish and Italian. If there are any Spanish or Italians around here, don't be shy. Come out and tell us how do you pronounce 'u'. :)

It's because all our English teachers want us to fail....like mine English class. Everybody average is between a D and a C. but then again (as we're reminded everyday in English) we're the stupid class.

It's because all our English teachers want us to fail....like mine English class. Everybody average is between a D and a C. but then again (as we're reminded everyday in English) we're the stupid class.

Actually, English is my third language and has been that way for a while now, I'm sort of getting used to it. The wastefulness of it never ceases to annoy me, but then, the "impracticality" of the Gregorian calendar never ceases to annoy me.

English is a Germanic language. That considered, it's actually better than it could have been.

A phonetic system would basically turn every regional accent into a different, unique language. It's pointless.
Not if you did it the right way, and weren't overly specific. Most of the differences between accents are regular - that's why impressionists can do so many impressions without needing to spend months studying each individual subject. Consonants barely change between accents anyway (generally the differents are things like whether there is an audible release or not - for example the Cockney 't'). For vowels you can just take the accent with the most separate vowels (possibly Southern British) and give them a character each, and people with accents with fewer vowels (such as those in the Deep South) will just have to cope with the fact that there may be three different letters that they pronounce in the same way. There will only then be a few spelling differences between accents then - for example, Americans will use the same vowel in 'route' as in 'rout', whereas the British will use the same vowel in 'route' as in 'root'.

Don't even get me started on French! Grr.. *shakes fist at French*

Why the hell do you have verb conjugations if they're all pronounced the same anyway, for the love of God!? Why does the plural ending matter? Why do you use two letter combinations and even archaic Latin characters ("soeur") where others have been content with even an apostrophe?

By the way, I think Old French was fairly close to Latin spelling-wise. Whatever happened must have happened in the late Middle Ages.

The problem with French came in the two waves of national standardistion.

1450 AD onwards, the main northern dialect (langue d'oil (sp?)) became used as the new language for the new nation of France, as a unifying agent.

Another radical change was the revolution when the aristocratic language was given the blade and the people's French was touted to be the true language. It would be the same if the English were to kill anyone who spoke the Queen's English and cockney rhyme became the accepted standard... (shudder...)

English is a Germanic language. That considered, it's actually better than it could have been.


Little-known fact:
Had the Normans (who, it should be noted, were not French but rather French-speaking vikings) not trounced Harold at Semlac Hill :mp5: , English today would most likely be very similar, linguistically, to Dutch or Flemmish.:eek:

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

Here's a crazier idea... why not respect the phonetic guidelines that already exist.

rough, bough, though, through, I can deal with.
Root, Boot, soot, I have issues, but I can deal with.

Where I lose it, though, is when certain people (cough*English* Cough) (cough*especially from the South, ie. Sussex, Kent, etc.. *cough) pronounce things like:

all and ore

as the same sound.

Ponder this:

Last night was a real bore.
Last nigth was a real ball.

Well, which one was it?

Where I lose it, though, is when certain people (cough*English* Cough) (cough*especially from the South, ie. Sussex, Kent, etc.. *cough) pronounce things like:

all and ore

as the same sound.
I knew a man from Kent (this sounds like a limerick), and he didn't do that. Maybe it's a social class thing.

There are a lot of factors, really. The main one is that English is decidedly conservative in spelling. It reflects how it used to pronounced, but things have since changed. Then there is the fact that English is spoken over such a wide area with so many dialects that a coherent spelling reform would be quite difficult, requiring international coöperation and organization, not to mention rewriting thousands of books, all of which would be very expensive.

If it helps, though, English is hardly the worse language in this regard. French has entire syllables that aren't pronounced and Japanese has no less than three writing systems, one for writing words (kanji) and two for writing syllables (hiragana and katakana). To make matters worse, the kanji can have as many as a dozen pronounciations each and multiple, often unrelated meanings.

I knew a man from Kent (this sounds like a limerick), and he didn't do that. Maybe it's a social class thing.

Could very well be. This was overheard in an English lesson (Year 2?) in a C of E school.

As for the limerick, let me add a second line.

I knew a man from Kent
Who's something or other was bent


Takers?

rough, bough, though, through, I can deal with.
Well, it looks to me like the 'ou' group is pronounced differently in each of these words. That's a bit strange, not to say illogical. :)

Here's a crazier idea... why not respect the phonetic guidelines that already exist.

rough, bough, though, through, I can deal with.
Root, Boot, soot, I have issues, but I can deal with.

Where I lose it, though, is when certain people (cough*English* Cough) (cough*especially from the South, ie. Sussex, Kent, etc.. *cough) pronounce things like:

all and ore

as the same sound.

Ponder this:

Last night was a real bore.
Last nigth was a real ball.

Well, which one was it?

maybe last night was a real ball,but last nigth wasnt

I knew a man from Kent
Who's something or other was bent


Takers?
... and all his energy was spent
earning money to pay the rent. :)

Well, it looks to me like the 'ou' group is pronounced differently in each of these words. That's a bit strange, not to say illogical. :)
There are fourteen ways to pronounce OUGH in English. Observe:

Rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman John Gough strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough on Coughlin road near the lough (dry due to drought), he coughed and hiccoughed, then checked his horse's houghs and washed up in a trough.

maybe last night was a real ball,but last nigth wasnt

Touché!:headbang:

I didn't realize how screwed up English was until I learned some Spanish, I don't know how I ever learned to read.

There are so many words that are spelled the same but sound different depending on context.

I am going to read the paper/ I read the paper yesterday
I like to go to live concerts/ I live in Oklahoma

... and all his energy was spent
earning money to pay the rent. :)
Erm... I'm afraid that's not a limerick - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick%28_poetry%29

Honestly, engligh is one of the hardest to learn. Tone is everything in english.

Honestly, engligh is one of the hardest to learn. Tone is everything in english.
I think the tonality of the Far Eastern languages is far more difficult than that in English.

Erm... I'm afraid that's not a limerick - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick%28_poetry%29
Ah, but why was his something bent and his energy spent? What was he doing to pay the rent? :)

I didn't realize how screwed up English was until I learned some Spanish, I don't know how I ever learned to read.

There are so many words that are spelled the same but sound different depending on context.

I am going to read the paper/ I read the paper yesterday
I like to go to live concerts/ I live in Oklahoma


YOu can thank incest for Spanish being so easy to read and write. One of their kings (Carlos IVish) was so in-bred that he never reached an intellectual capacity beyond that of a 12 year-old. Because it was embarassing to have a King incapable of spelling, there was a massive overhaul of the written language so that it would correspond to the phonetics of the spoken language.

If only Henry VIII hadn't had so many wives, maybee wee wood awll rite lyke thiss.

YOu can thank incest for Spanish being so easy to read and write. One of their kings (Carlos IVish) was so in-bred that he never reached an intellectual capacity beyond that of a 12 year-old. Because it was embarassing to have a King incapable of spelling, there was a massive overhaul of the written language so that it would correspond to the phonetics of the spoken language.
I wouldn't quite agree with that...

I wouldn't quite agree with that...
If not that, what?

Meh, I find spelling in English easy. I can spell most things with a little thought about how it sounds and what arrangements of letters make what sounds. Not difficult.

Ok, here's one to throw out there...

Does anyone know how Finnish, Hungarian and Korean are related languages?

Did some stubborn nomads take a very wrong turn and nevver go back?

If not that, what?
I meant I don't think the spelling was changed because the king was an idiot.

I meant I don't think the spelling was changed because the king was an idiot.
I might not have been the sole reason, but....

I mean he wasn't even able to close his jaw...

but people who say things wrong are my entertainment;)

Does anyone know how Finnish, Hungarian and Korean are related languages?
Finnish and Hungarian are Uralic. Korean may be Altaic, or an isolate. Some linguists used to argue that Hungarian was Altaic, but that's a rare view.

I feel very sorry for anyone who has to learn English as a second language. It really is a bloody awful language in many ways, yet it's the only one I know. :) The thing that really kills me is the way the Americans have taken the traditional spellings that most of us are used to and bastardised them to further complicate matters.

They've removed a bunch of 'u's from words, such as colour, neighbour and harbour (though I have seen them spell harbour both with and without a 'u', God knows why). They've swapped SOME of the 'ise' endings to make them 'ize' - but not all of them. They still use 'ise' for words such as excerise and advertise. And for some words the Americans have completely altered the spelling.

For instance, in English English you would curb your tendency to park your tyre on the kerb even if you were tired. But in American English you would have to curb your tendency to park your tire on the curb even if you were tired. Great - let's just make all the words that SOUND the same LOOK the same as well, to make it even harder for people to work out what you mean.

Ok, now that I've got the "I hate American English" rant off my chest, here's a little tidbit for everyone to try out. I defy even native English speakers to get this one correct on the first try. Or even on the second or third... Try saying it out loud and you'll see what I mean.

http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/stuff/english-pronunciation.html

I feel very sorry for anyone who has to learn English as a second language. It really is a bloody awful language in many ways, yet it's the only one I know. :) The thing that really kills me is the way the Americans have taken the traditional spellings that most of us are used to and bastardised them to further complicate matters.

They've removed a bunch of 'u's from words, such as colour, neighbour and harbour (though I have seen them spell harbour both with and without a 'u', God knows why). They've swapped SOME of the 'ise' endings to make them 'ize' - but not all of them. They still use 'ise' for words such as excerise and advertise. And for some words the Americans have completely altered the spelling.

For instance, in English English you would curb your tendency to park your tyre on the kerb even if you were tired. But in American English you would have to curb your tendency to park your tire on the curb even if you were tired. Great - let's just make all the words that SOUND the same LOOK the same as well, to make it even harder for people to work out what you mean.

Ok, now that I've got the "I hate American English" rant off my chest, here's a little tidbit for everyone to try out. I defy even native English speakers to get this one correct on the first try. Or even on the second or third... Try saying it out loud and you'll see what I mean.

http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/stuff/english-pronunciation.html

American English (written) is different for a simple reason: business.

After the revolution, Webster came out with a new dictionary; an American dictionary. Trouble is, English ones were fine. Same language, right? Well, in the new and free Republic, that just didn't cut it.

Under the pretense that it was a popular English, an American one, a linguistic emancipation from the tyranny of Jolly Ol', he changed the spelling of many words.

Now, he could sell it and people would buy it. Cha. And might I add, ching.

As for Tyre, etc...

See the great Canadianism:

Tire Centre.

American English (written) is different for a simple reason: business.

After the revolution, Webster came out with a new dictionary; an American dictionary. Trouble is, English ones were fine. Same language, right? Well, in the new and free Republic, that just didn't cut it.

Under the pretense that it was a popular English, an American one, a linguistic emancipation from the tyranny of Jolly Ol', he changed the spelling of many words.

Now, he could sell it and people would buy it. Cha. And might I add, ching.
Yes, I've heard that that's why it is the way it is. It just irriates me, now that I live in America and have to deal with it on a daily basis. :)

As for Tyre, etc...

See the great Canadianism:

Tire Centre.
LOL :D Now there's true bastardisation for you, eh?

I work in an accounting firm here, and so I've had to learn to do the dates backwards, and spell cheques as "checks" *shudder* and try to keep the client business names straight. The ones with "centre" or "jewellery" as part of their name are tough.

Restaurants are fun to visit, too. I can't help but make fun of the euphemisms they use for the toilets. Instead of a sign saying "TOILETS" they generally say "RESTROOMS". That one's a killer. I get around it by telling people I have to go have a rest...

Ok, now that I've got the "I hate American English" rant off my chest, here's a little tidbit for everyone to try out. I defy even native English speakers to get this one correct on the first try. Or even on the second or third... Try saying it out loud and you'll see what I mean.

http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/stuff/english-pronunciation.html
If you just switch your brain off and read it without thinking about it, it becomes surprising easy. It's even easier once you've learnt it by heart to impress (nerdy) people.

Restaurants are fun to visit, too. I can't help but make fun of the euphemisms they use for the toilets. Instead of a sign saying "TOILETS" they generally say "RESTROOMS". That one's a killer. I get around it by telling people I have to go have a rest...
What's really annoying is when you say 'Where are they toilets' and they reply 'In the bathrooms'.

The problem with changing English to a phonetic (or preferably, phonemic) spelling system is that it doesn't take differing pronunciation into account. It'd probably be easier to create a new phonemic language, based heavily on English.

The problem with changing English to a phonetic (or preferably, phonemic) spelling system is that it doesn't take differing pronunciation into account. It'd probably be easier to create a new phonemic language, based heavily on English.
If we're to reinvent the language, I'd like to propose that we add more clicking sounds into it.:D

Wouldn't it be hard to speak?

There's only one way to find -click - out...

And the mistery will go on and on for ages, unsolved :D ...

English can be quite annoying. We should spelll how words sound, not the other way.

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through.
Well don't! And now you wish, perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps.
Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard but sounds like bird.
And dead: it's said like bed, not bead,
For goodness sake don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt).
A moth is not a moth as in mother
Nor both as in bother, nor broth as in brother,
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear, for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose--
Just look them up--and goose and choose
And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword
And do and go, then thwart and cart,
Come, come! I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful Language? Why man alive!
I learned to talk it when I was five.
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five.

English can be quite annoying. We should spelll how words sound, not the other way.

So would you spell 'grass,' grass or grarse?

Well, if our alphabet and memory of it was somehow destroyed. We could probably come up with a more effecient way of spelling.

So would you spell 'grass,' grass or grarse?

Personally, I think we should bring back "æ" for the sound in "cat" and spell it græs (or graes when the æ is unavailable). On the other hand, vowels are a particularly difficult issue in English.

Personally, I think we should bring back "æ" for the sound in "cat" and spell it græs (or graes when the æ is unavailable). On the other hand, vowels are a particularly difficult issue in English.

I assume you mean that there are too many sounds for the number of letters.

Personally, I think we should bring back "æ" for the sound in "cat" and spell it græs (or graes when the æ is unavailable). On the other hand, vowels are a particularly difficult issue in English.

Though that fails to take into account the accent of those in the south of England (for example), who lengthen their vowels.

The crazy spelling is one of the few things English does best. The more infuriatingly complex and full of traps a language is, the more fun there is to be had in being a grammar nazi. English should have about eleventy cases, four noun genders, verb conjugation that makes a distinction between "we" as in two, three, four or many people and sentence structures that would make a German go insane.

And the clicking sounds were a good idea too.

The crazy spelling is one of the few things English does best. The more infuriatingly complex and full of traps a language is, the more fun there is to be had in being a grammar nazi. English should have about eleventy cases, four noun genders, verb conjugation that makes a distinction between "we" as in two, three, four or many people and sentence structures that would make a German go insane.

And the clicking sounds were a good idea too.

I would support such a system, but it's too simple. Gender, as used in grammar, should be defined as follows:

[Gender/(social hierarchy - length of shadow)] * (The amount of rabid badgers in the immediate vicinity)

The gender thus defined would then be indicated through the appropriate amount of clicks.

Now that's grammar!

Though that fails to take into account the accent of those in the south of England (for example), who lengthen their vowels.


Good old Sussex by the Sea!

English should have (...) verb conjugation that makes a distinction between "we" as in two, three, four or many people
A distinction between 'you' as in one person and 'you' as in two or more would be welcome. :) Of all the languages I have an idea about, English is the only one which doesn't make that distinction.

Yes, that's a bump in disguise. ;)

No. It would look silly. Besides, it's funny when people pronounce words incorrectly.
Exactly.

And anyway, what about French? What about Chinese? What about Welsh—Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwllllantisiogogogoch?

Why does the English language has such an awfull spelling system? I mean, the letter 'u' alone can be pronounced in several different ways. For example: cut, rude, fury, burn. Plus the same group of letter can also be pronounced in several different ways: meadow and measles, out and group etc.

Would you change it to a phonetic system if you could? Why? Why not?

You were really desperate to start a forum werent you?

While English has a truly bizarre pronunciation system, it does compensate for this by having comparatively easy grammar.

Apart from the aspect of verbs, that gets nearly everyone learning English.

eg. 'I go to the shops' as compared to 'I am going to the shops'. Same literal meaning, different contextual meaning.

You were really desperate to start a forum werent you?
Since we're adressing ad hominem attacks...

Not as desperate as you were to post.

P.S. I started a thread. You can't start a forum, at most you can create one. Duh! :rolleyes:

I feel very sorry for anyone who has to learn English as a second language. It really is a bloody awful language in many ways, yet it's the only one I know. :) The thing that really kills me is the way the Americans have taken the traditional spellings that most of us are used to and bastardised them to further complicate matters.


Errrr...English isn't that hard to learn with all due respect. It is my second language. My first language is Dutch and third language is French.

Since we're adressing ad hominem attacks...

Not as desperate as you were to post.

P.S. I started a thread. You can't start a forum, at most you can create one. Duh! :rolleyes:

ah you know what I mean

It's all really simple, honestly.

English started out as an Indo-European language back in the mid-morning of human history (just after people moved from Africa to Europe, but before they wandered off to India). Three tribes of people, the Anglos, Saxons, and Jutes (pronounced Utes) decided that they didn't like the rest of the Germans and moved to England. (Old English)

Where they got conqured by the Normans.

And had a system where the nobility spoke French, the rest spoke English till around the 10th c when there was a great "LET'S BE ENGLISH!" and everyone spoke English. Except that the English spoken, and spelling thereof, was phonetic. The k in knight, for example was pronounced. (Middle English)

A wee bit later, after Chaucer, the Great Vowel Shift happened, and the vowels settled into their present forms. During that time, the language was very fluid, with new words being coined and spelling in a flux (Shakespeanean English).

About the time that America became a country, the language decided to standardize the spellings of words, but tended to use some funky spellings from some words written back when the language was phonetical. (Modern English)

However, thanks to the UK (Brillant pirates, their navy stole half the world and their language stole the rest of it), and American dominance after WWII has lead to an explosion of English across the planet, with no real 'home' branch of it any more (World Englishes).

See? Simple.

It is pretty interesting how English has become such a widely used language.