I have an idea for a change in the english language.

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
This change is only for the written part, not oral, so all of the speak would still be the same. Aside from some grammatical rules, most of the change is within the alphabet and the different pronounciations of the letters. Basically, I would like to make it a language where a word is spelled exactly how it is pronounced.

Pros: Easier to learn. Easier to spell. Never any confusion on how to pronounce something such a Caribbean. Easier to use, avoids many complications. Something such as the word Lithium would never look weird for the first time (the second I in lithium breaks the english rules and makes a long e sound).

Cons: Writing would feel weird at first for those who are used to present spellings.

Here goes:

The alphabet would have to have major changes. We would have to get rid of some letters such as c or k, q, x,y, and possibly some others. Every letter would have 1 sound, not many, not another if you apply a hat, just one. Those sounds that are made with two letter would also be dismissed for one letter such as, the ch and sh sounds. Other letters like x, which the sound can be made up of more simpler elements - ks as in socks and sox. Some words would get a little longer, not too much and some would get a bit shorter as well.

Another idea that would be nice would be an extra letter of the vowel that you stress. This would help easily pin-point where exactly you stress it instead of us having to memorize all these words.

Instead, we would just have to memorize the sounds that the letters make and the letters.

As far as the grammar works. I would like to have neutral words. Such as smell for example. I don't like that there are far too many words describing one thing, or weird words that describe a variation. Like odor has a negative connotation. Why, create a word and give us the trouble to memorize it when all we have to do is say bad smell. Or maybe suffixes and preffixes would be a better system. But these suffixes and preffixes would change the connotation.

Another minor change would be to say what you are describing first before you describe it. Such as car red. I doesn't make sense to say red car, because the person doesn't know what you are describing before you actually say car. Think about it, how they describe the following: Big, juicy, mouth-watering, tasty... this could be a steak, some chicken, watermelon, just plain melon. Giving the object first would leave people less in the blind, making it easier to follow a conversation. Although it can make for some nice jokes, it seems incorrect.

*I may not know a lot of English, but I shouldn't need to be an English major to know better if I appear foolish. And I probably present an average English Intellect - I'm better at math.
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
Wow, I didn't know that there were already existances of this sort of stuff. It's cool though.

I've always said:

"The only innovation is the first to market"

But I'm probably repeating someone there too.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: VIAN
This change is only for the written part, not oral, so all of the speak would still be the same. Aside from some grammatical rules, most of the change is within the alphabet and the different pronounciations of the words. Basically, I would like to make it a language where a word is spelled exactly how it is pronounced.

Pros: Easier to learn. Easier to spell. Never any confusion on how to pronounce something such a Caribbean. Easier to use, avoids many complications. Something such as the word Lithium would never look weird for the first time (the second I in lithium breaks the english rules and makes a long e sound).

Cons: Writing would feel weird at first for those who are used to present spellings.

Here goes:

The alphabet would have to have major changes. We would have to get rid of some letters such as c or k, q, x,y, and possibly some others. Every letter would have 1 sound, not many, not another if you apply a hat, just one. Those sounds that are made with two letter would also be dismissed for one letter such as, the ch and sh sounds. Other letters like x, which the sound can be made up of more simpler elements - ks as in socks and sox. Some words would get a little longer, not too much and some would get a bit shorter as well.

Another idea that would be nice would be an extra letter of the vowel that you stress. This would help easily pin-point where exactly you stress it instead of us having to memorize all these words.

Instead, we would just have to memorize the sounds that the letters make and the letters.

As far as the grammar works. I would like to have neutral words. Such as smell for example. I don't like that there are far too many words describing one thing, or weird words that describe a variation. Like odor has a negative connotation. Why, create a word and give us the trouble to memorize it when all we have to do is say bad smell. Or maybe suffixes and preffixes would be a better system. But these suffixes and preffixes would change the connotation.

Another minor change would be to say what you are describing first before you describe it. Such as car red. I doesn't make sense to say red car, because the person doesn't know what you are describing. Although it can make for some nice jokes, it seems incorrect.

*I may not know a lot of English, but I shouldn't need to be an English major to know better if I appear foolish. And I probably present an average English Intellect - I'm better at math.

A few points.

First, Spanish is already almost that way...there are exceptions, but for the most part you spell it like you say it. Other languages, such as Esperanto, have been invented to make things easier, but they never really caught on. The reason is that simplicity in and of itself isn't desirable in a language. Easier to learn, but there is no way to demonstrate you have MASTERED it. The end result is you just get a bunch of mediocre writers, instead of some crappy ones and some brilliant ones. Also, the reason English is so complicated is that it borrows words from other languages ALL THE TIME...even if everything changed the way you like it, within a generation there would be a number of new words that didn't conform to "the rules". Languages change, and carry with them a rich historical and cultural background which would be lost if we changed things for the sake of simplicity. Would you replace the Mona Lisa with a smiley face, to make her smile easier to understand?

As for making words "neutral", it's nice for people who are just learning it, but it makes it hard to describe the nuances of something if you don't have a huge dictionary of synonyms, each with their own connotations and related sentiments. Look at a really well-written book, and you'll see what I mean: the author must use a large range of words to truly explain what it is they are describing. We're humans; we have emotions and always allow them to color our descriptions. This is reflected in our language.

 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
"If I can rearrange the alphabet, I would put U and I together." Damn it, I can't get that Joey line outta my mind now.
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
A few points.

First, Spanish is already almost that way...there are exceptions, but for the most part you spell it like you say it. Other languages, such as Esperanto, have been invented to make things easier, but they never really caught on. The reason is that simplicity in and of itself isn't desirable in a language. Easier to learn, but there is no way to demonstrate you have MASTERED it. The end result is you just get a bunch of mediocre writers, instead of some crappy ones and some brilliant ones. Also, the reason English is so complicated is that it borrows words from other languages ALL THE TIME...even if everything changed the way you like it, within a generation there would be a number of new words that didn't conform to "the rules". Languages change, and carry with them a rich historical and cultural background which would be lost if we changed things for the sake of simplicity. Would you replace the Mona Lisa with a smiley face, to make her smile easier to understand?

As for making words "neutral", it's nice for people who are just learning it, but it makes it hard to describe the nuances of something if you don't have a huge dictionary of synonyms, each with their own connotations and related sentiments. Look at a really well-written book, and you'll see what I mean: the author must use a large range of words to truly explain what it is they are describing. We're humans; we have emotions and always allow them to color our descriptions. This is reflected in our language.
Romance languages don't quite make it there, it is close but with many exception still. I understand that English borrows from many languages and that's what I don't like. I haven't heard of Esperanto. But what I'm proposing is easier, because you don't change the way you speak, it's essentially the same lanuage with different spelling techniques.

It's logical to do this. Isn't that what we all do. We always invent things to make our lives simpler, but language oh no.

Just because we change it doesn't mean we'd loose all the history. The change marks the history still.

I also agree that there should be a sort of council. Not just anybody can make a word like Bling-bling. It should always adhere to the rules, or else it is not recognized. Just as all those teachers told me in school. Ain't isn't a word. It is now, it is in the dictionary. I could make up a word right now and if many people use it, it will become one. A dictionary is just a history book an nothing more. It cannot be trusted.

The council would also make sure the meanings of the words would not change.

 

t3h l337 n3wb

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2005
2,698
0
76
Originally posted by: JoeKing
I perfer NewSpeak myself, it's double plus good :thumbsup:

What's up with all the 1984 allusions on AT... There's like one on every non-hardware post :p
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Originally posted by: JoeKing
I perfer NewSpeak myself, it's double plus good :thumbsup:

What's up with all the 1984 allusions on AT... There's like one on every non-hardware post :p

Dude, we have free speech in America, and freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four.
 

remagavon

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2003
2,516
0
0
As someone else said; we would be left with at best mediocre writers (I used at best before I said writers, sinful! :p). The great thing about our language is that it can be simple enough for even illiterate people to understand, and yet still provides the flexibility for great authors to show their mastery of the language with written work. The only problem is that the majority of people in our country simply don't have the education to be able to *appreciate* a good piece of work when they read it. Many of the books read in high schools are in fact 'classics' in the literal sense of the word, however most are not realized as such in that gradeschool classroom environment. Somewhat ironic that one needs to be great at writing to recognize great writing.
 

yoda291

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,079
0
0
IIRC, russian is pronounced like it's spelled.

Personally, I don't find English all that difficult to write and I am morally against doing anything that would appeal to a lower common denominator.