NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=4042497&highlight=European+Commission+english#post4042497 7/12/2003

Whoops didn't realise it's that old. I didn't bother to go beyond 2005. Anyway, the question still stands.

"Actually got this in an e-mail but it brings to mind a question, should English be simplified so that ESL students will have less trouble learning to write it?"

Wow, I haven't seen that copy-pasted before! :rolleyes:

And, no, languages don't respond well to artificial evolution. English will keep on changing over time, just as it has for centuries.

Wow, I haven't seen that copy-pasted before! :rolleyes:

And, no, languages don't respond well to artificial evolution. English will keep on changing over time, just as it has for centuries.

Just look how well esperanto is doing.

Yes, English can be improved...specifically, spelling should be restandardized.

However, the c&p is old.

I demand a return to the English of Shakespeare or King James! *nods* Thou shalt see the folly of thy meddling!

It does it on its own. Why bother?

It does it on its own. Why bother?
One of the problems of having a dictionary, atleast in the modern style, is that it prevents spelling from evolving naturally (it does provide for a "standard English", but it also results in outdated spelling)

One of the problems of having a dictionary, atleast in the modern style, is that it prevents spelling from evolving naturally (it does provide for a "standard English", but it also results in outdated spelling)

Well, linguistic evolution remains a primarily slow process, even in the information age, so dictionaries can remain just as functional as they always have, so long as the publishers are willing to update in each new edition.

In terms of what can be expressed with English? I'd say its pretty good at that.
The main issue is learning it.
Fortunately that wasn't a problem for me. I knew how to use 'disembowel' in everyday conversation by the time I was six. History is fascinating when you read the right books (or have them read to you, in some cases) ;)

Well, linguistic evolution remains a primarily slow process, even in the information age, so dictionaries can remain just as functional as they always have, so long as the publishers are willing to update in each new edition.

I have old dictionaries. New editions include modern accepted spellings that weren't in old editions. My 1884 Webster's doesn't look much like the new dictionaries.

There is a place for standard rules in grammar and spelling. They serve to facilitate understanding. Do not be too hasty to throw off the constraints that allow clear communication. The spelling oddities of English serve as reminders of how the language has expanded to include so many influences from French, Latin, Greek, German, and dozens (conservatively) of other languages.

Latin should be the international language of choice, though. :)

Well, linguistic evolution remains a primarily slow process, even in the information age, so dictionaries can remain just as functional as they always have, so long as the publishers are willing to update in each new edition.

Oh, no question they're functional and useful...the problem is that the last major revision of spelling was Webster. I'd say we're long past the point where we should reconsider much of it

http://www.houseind.com/movie/

Yes, dear god yes! English is a horrible language. It keeps some rules from it's predecessors but drops others, and is completely non-phonetic.

Then again, I think the Germanic branch as a whole shouldn't be too proud of itself. I'm yet to see what "am, are, is" is supposed to accomplish.

I simplify English all the time by combining words. For example, sandals made for males would be mandals, etc. I do it with everything, but its only because I'm lazy.

Can English be improved?
It has been. We Americans have done away with a lot of wasteful and extraneous "u"s in words like color, honor, neighbor and armor.
Saves tons on printing costs.
Thrifty, we are.

It has been. We Americans have done away with a lot of wasteful and extraneous "u"s in words like color, honor, neighbor and armor.
Saves tons on printing costs.
Thrifty, we are.

Add to that things like Cheque->check...thrifty indeed.

Yes, English can and should be improved.

For one, it should enjoy more mixing with other languages, and it would, were the US less isolationist. Today, English isn't the language of Brits, it's the common tongue.

There have been successful works at improving languages. Phone, radio, TV all introduced a new manner of speaking. One TV series, BtVS, introduced a concept of unlimited prefixation and suffixation, and successfully entered a number of words and expressions into the common speech. And computers, BBS and Internet lead to a whole new "leetspeak" phenomenon, parts of which filter out into the general speech - for instance, "lol" is a fairly accepted word today.

Artificially changing it won't work all that well, not in 5 years, at least.

The first step is to do away with British spelling. Then we can actually begin to make the language phonetic.

Wow, I haven't seen that copy-pasted before! :rolleyes:

And, no, languages don't respond well to artificial evolution. English will keep on changing over time, just as it has for centuries.

Actually, in 1806 (and later in 1828), Noah Webster made some substantial changes to the English language. The Americanization of English spelling, while not completely the way he wanted it, succeeded and in a very short time the US was using Webster's spelling in preference to the English spelling. I believe this follows the definition of artificial evolution.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/21/074224.php

Yes. We need lots more tones and hand gestures. Make it so expressive people will sound like they've got a mouthful of wasps and look like they're having a fit when talking.

I don't think that English would need improving. I'm Finnish and I've learned it quite well. As for Finnish you can't pretty much learn it if you haven't born in Finland or have Finnish parents.

Today, English isn't the language of Brits, it's the common tongue.

What do you mean by this?

The first step is to do away with British spelling. Then we can actually begin to make the language phonetic.

Never, my good sir. :p

The first step is to do away with British spelling. Then we can actually begin to make the language phonetic.

English is as phonetic as any language. The problem is the orthography.

Seems like a good idea, but it won't happen. It's hard to force an entire language to change.

The first step is to do away with British spelling. Then we can actually begin to make the language phonetic.

Whose version of phonetic, though? The way we say it here, the very word "phonetic," is pronounced more as if it were spelled "f'nedic" or "f(u)nedic."

Then again, I think the Germanic branch as a whole shouldn't be too proud of itself. I'm yet to see what "am, are, is" is supposed to accomplish.

Ehmmm, "suis, es, est" is more supposedaccomplishabling?

The first step is to do away with British spelling. Then we can actually begin to make the language phonetic.

Sure, though it's a tough thought to plough through, *cough*.

Sure, though it's a tough thought to plough through, *cough*.

Shure, tho it's a tuff tthot to plow tthroo.

Shure, tho it's a tuff tthot to plow tthroo.

So "thO", "tthOt" and "tO" are the same O?

So "thO", "tthOt" and "tO" are the same O?

Getting pronunciation down to the hard and soft sounds for each letter would still be a significant step.

Getting pronunciation down to the hard and soft sounds for each letter would still be a significant step.

There's one big problem with a phonemic orthography: noone will agree with any solution, because everyone will have a different opinion on which sounds are actually being used.

yep, it sur can cept aint nobody listenin no more.

Whoops didn't realise it's that old. I didn't bother to go beyond 2005. Anyway, the question still stands.Well, I can't read Beowulf in its original form. So it can be changed, though I'm not sure if it's an improvement...

Yes, dear god yes! English is a horrible language. It keeps some rules from it's predecessors but drops others, and is completely non-phonetic.

English isn't 'completely non-phonetic'. It's phonetic. What's wrong with you?

English desperately needs simplification. The language is doubleplusungood. Goodthinkful.

English isn't 'completely non-phonetic'.

Just to put an end to that discussion: every spoken language is phonetic. Non-phonetic languages include sign languages and computer languages (no, I don't have a BASIC understanding of Java(nese), but I do LISP :p).

There's one big problem with a phonemic orthography: noone will agree with any solution, because everyone will have a different opinion on which sounds are actually being used.

Indeed. As I said earlier when someone mentioned eliminating British spelling and such, and then making it fully phonetic... it really depends whose English we're talking about. If you made it phonetic the way people in the rural south might pronounce it, it wouldn't look at all the way we would be accustomed to pronouncing our words. And if you based it off the way people here talk, it would be full of apostrophes between consonants where, in common speech, the vowell sound has been all but dropped.

English is as phonetic as any language. The problem is the orthography.

Korean and Thai are both much more phonetically correct. Given that's because the writing systems there were adopted later after many of the regional dialects had grown together, and so there has been less time to drift in how things are said from how they are written.

Indeed. As I said earlier when someone mentioned eliminating British spelling and such, and then making it fully phonetic... it really depends whose English we're talking about. If you made it phonetic the way people in the rural south might pronounce it, it wouldn't look at all the way we would be accustomed to pronouncing our words. And if you based it off the way people here talk, it would be full of apostrophes between consonants where, in common speech, the vowell sound has been all but dropped.

Obviously we should use a mid western American accent the common language of the world.

There's one big problem with a phonemic orthography: noone will agree with any solution, because everyone will have a different opinion on which sounds are actually being used.

solved by using the majority accent. Midwestern US American English.

Obviously we should use a mid western American accent the common language of the world.

Nah, the common language of the world has element number 79.

solved by using the majority accent. Midwestern US American English.

The majority accent is Indian-English or maybe by now Chinese-Engrish.

Nah, the common language of the world has element number 79.

oddly enough I find a string of element number 1s and number 6s joined together to be much more of a common language.

oddly enough I find a string of element number 1s and number 6s joined together to be much more of a common language.

Well, without lots of these, intermixed with large amounts of 8s and the odd 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and a lot more, there wouldn't even be languages (as we know them)...

The majority accent is Indian-English or maybe by now Chinese-Engrish.

Wrong. what your referring to is 350 million people in India who speak a creole or pidgin of English/Hindu. only 8%(about 100 million) of the Indian population is able to speak with people who are not versed in either the creole or the hindi. It would sort of like counting Nigerian English as English.

And PS the Chinese teach American English in their schools. Even Hong Kong has been encouraged to teach American English.

And PS the Chinese teach American English in their schools. Even Hong Kong has been encouraged to teach American English.

They teach it, but that sure isn't the way it works out! :D

No, it doesn't need improvement; if you're so much of a dumbass that you can't learn how to talk/spell English, without one being directly related to the other (as in phonemic spellings), then you're probably never going to be able to learn much else.

English is only complex because A) it's not a douche and is willing to steal words from other languages, and B) because some dumbasses in the USA thought they'd be special snowflakes and create new spellings of English words so they could be different from those ebil British.

No, it doesn't need improvement; if you're so much of a dumbass that you can't learn how to talk/spell English, without one being directly related to the other (as in phonemic spellings), then you're probably never going to be able to learn much else.

English is only complex because A) it's not a douche and is willing to steal words from other languages, and B) because some dumbasses in the USA thought they'd be special snowflakes and create new spellings of English words so they could be different from those ebil British.

Most languages actually have a revision of the spelling every few hundred years because speakers tend to drift from how things were original written.
Given with democracy in most English speaking lands this is kinda hard as before it took a monarch, or a dictator in the case of communist China.

actually American English is closer to the original. You see we stopped changing how we pronounced things mid way through the great vowel shift. Favorite instance my theater major, linguistic history minor, friend was doing Shakespeare in London. At the end of the play the Brits asked them why didn't they use a British accent and he got to smile and explain they used a proper Shakespearean accent.

Also American spellings were not intentional seems we had our falling out before spelling of words were Standardized. Now for some reason our spellings makes more sense. Likely has to do with the intellectuals taking our side of the fight.

Yes, it can. But if I say how, you all will hate me and call me a flamer so, I´m abstaining.:tongue:

If everyone had my accent, the world would be a lot easier to understand. ;)

If everyone had my accent, the world would be a lot easier to understand. ;)

And smexier to boot.:tongue:

And smexier to boot.:tongue:

:hail::hail:

Fo sho.

I don't think that English would need improving. I'm Finnish and I've learned it quite well. As for Finnish you can't pretty much learn it if you haven't born in Finland or have Finnish parents.

I'm totally unable to read Finnish, but I consider the language to be absolutely fascinating. I've got quite a few cd's from Finnish bands in my music collection, that may have something to do with it. But I'll be damned if I know what Uhrilehto is singing about in their songs "Kolmen Minuutin Armopala" and "Vitutuksen Viitoittama Vuosikymmen".

They teach it, but that sure isn't the way it works out! :D

The main land government is set to issue fines for using the British accent to native Chinese there. They already do for the spelling.

Actually, in 1806 (and later in 1828), Noah Webster made some substantial changes to the English language. The Americanization of English spelling, while not completely the way he wanted it, succeeded and in a very short time the US was using Webster's spelling in preference to the English spelling. I believe this follows the definition of artificial evolution.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/21/074224.php

Well, sort of. The first dictionary a given person ever uses does have certain advantages, it's true, but that ship has pretty much sailed. Plus, you may notice that what worked to define a dialect did not work to define a language; all it did was create two accepted spellings for each of many words instead of one - hardly a great simplification from the perspective of a modern environment where we have to interact on a regular basis with people who don't live next door.

Honestly, though, while there's no doubt English is one of the most difficult languages for non-native speakers to learn proficiently, it's also one of the most rewarding, for the very simple reason that it's freaking huge and has been in a constant state of flux for centuries. There are an immense number of different dialects, all of which cheerfully steal from each other, so now English borrows words indiscriminately from everything from Cherokee to Chinese. When one learns English, one is really learning a little of practically every language on Earth. It's a crazy polyglot tongue, and I love that about it. :)

I have heard that Hebrew is a strange language in that each letter can carry a concept, and thus the meaning of the word is contained within the spelling of the word. This adds weight to events such as when God changed Abram's name to Abraham. Are there any scholars who can confirm this and expand upon the concept if it is true? Do any other languages work this way without resorting to the massive alphabetic systems of the Far East?

English is useful precicely because of its complexity. We need a thesaurus because there are so many words that mean essentially the same thing but carry shades of meaning that can be very useful for clear statements.

I have heard that Hebrew is a strange language in that each letter can carry a concept, and thus the meaning of the word is contained within the spelling of the word. This adds weight to events such as when God changed Abram's name to Abraham. Are there any scholars who can confirm this and expand upon the concept if it is true? Do any other languages work this way without resorting to the massive alphabetic systems of the Far East? You are absolutely correct about Hebrew. I haven't researched it enough, but I know that this is something that is growing in interest in both Jewish and Christian fields.


http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_home.html that might give you a better understanding of how it works.


-edit- This is something else that might interest you Lord Tothe:

Athol Dickson has the most interesting things to bring before me. He writes about a devotional by Aaron Rabin 'Behold and Be Held, the Memorial Name of God'.

I'm trying to get the book...here's a quote from Dickson's blog:

Mr. Rabin investigated the ideographic meaning of the Hebrew letters Yud Hey Vav Hey. An ideogram is a symbol that represents an idea, like those little male and female shaped signs you see on the outside of public restroom doors. This is similar--but not identical--to the Chinese written system, or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Hebrew letters have had ideographic meanings since ancient times.

There are several ideographic meanings for each of the letters. Hey, for example can mean both "window", and "look" or "behold". Vav can mean "hook", "peg", or "nail". But in each case the ideas represented by the letters are closely related. With all of this in mind, using the ideographic meanings of Yud Hey Vav Hey most commonly accepted by Jewish scholars throughout the centuries, I found they absolutely match Rabin's translation.

Symbolically speaking, the most holy name of God, YHVH, can indeed be translated as:

"Behold, the hand. Behold, the nail."

Take it for what you will, but once again, Yeshua's autograph is seen in our world. What will you do with the choice you have?

Shalom.

Some people's English can be improved...

It has been. We Americans have done away with a lot of wasteful and extraneous "u"s in words like color, honor, neighbor and armor.
Saves tons on printing costs.
Thrifty, we are.

That was less thrift and more a desire on the part of Americans to be different from the tyrannical British that they had recently overthrown.

Shure, tho it's a tuff tthot to plow tthroo.

That looks stupid though. It's a very ugly way of writing the English language.

The way we write now, though drenched in the pretentiousness of trying to make the English language look more 'Sophisticated', is quite pleasing to the eye actually.

However, I'll be the first to admit that it's a bitch to learn English spelling and avoid common spelling errors.

I think British English should be "officially" split into high and low variations, which exists to a limited degree, anyway.

High English would be fixed, whilst Low English would evolve on it's own. This would give the language the flexibility survive, without being dumbed down and corrupted so much that it becomes culturally worthless, and useless for anything above txtin' chav-talk.

I have heard that Hebrew is a strange language in that each letter can carry a concept, and thus the meaning of the word is contained within the spelling of the word. This adds weight to events such as when God changed Abram's name to Abraham. Are there any scholars who can confirm this and expand upon the concept if it is true? Do any other languages work this way without resorting to the massive alphabetic systems of the Far East?

English is useful precicely because of its complexity. We need a thesaurus because there are so many words that mean essentially the same thing but carry shades of meaning that can be very useful for clear statements.

Only sort of.

Hebrew makes a lot of words by sticking vowels inside groups of three consonants, so changing one of those consonants will probably change the meaning of the word, because there are only so many groups of three consonants possible.

That said, English will often also change meaning if you switch around letters inside some small words: Ball/bell/bill all have the same three consonants.

If you're talking about Abram/Abraham specifically, the Ab in Hebrew means father. The extra (Hebrew) letter changed the meaning of the part after that.

That said, Hebrew is not like Chinese or Japanese and it is absolutely impossible in Hebrew to figure out the meaning of a word that you don't know by looking at the characters. You probably got that because ancient rabbis, having a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do, assigned symbolism to everything, including the Hebrew alphabet.

Some people's English can be improved...

Understatement of the month.