English Language Reforms

[Emil]

Originally Posted by xris

I'm hiding in the language. What do want me to say? Its our language and mind your own business? Try telling a french man his language is outdated..

Haven't seen an argument yet. I wonder if there really are any in your posts. Maybe in future posts...

[kennethamy]

Our Antiquated, Obsolete Spelling Ridiculed by George Bernard Shaw


For Emil (and anyone else).

[xris]

Originally Posted by Emil

Haven't seen an argument yet. I wonder if there really are any in your posts. Maybe in future posts...

Dont need to, just an aversion to silly requests. Language comes from evolution not invention. If you try altering an evolutionary process it becomes a monster a deviant ,invalid. Esperanto is the consequence of invention and its example is my argument. Everything and nothing.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

Dont need to, just an aversion to silly requests. Language comes from evolution not invention. If you try altering an evolutionary process it becomes a monster a deviant ,invalid. Esperanto is the consequence of invention and its example is my argument. Everything and nothing.

Yes. This sort of thing never works. The nearest to it is the French Academy whose job it is to prevent anglicisms from polluting the French language. But the French still call the weekend, "le week-end" despite all the efforts of the French Academy to get them to call it, "le fin de semaine".

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by xris

Dont need to, just an aversion to silly requests. Language comes from evolution not invention. If you try altering an evolutionary process it becomes a monster a deviant ,invalid. Esperanto is the consequence of invention and its example is my argument. Everything and nothing.

You've aware that humans reform on a rather consistent basis, right? We've been doing so since our infancy. We've been reforming government, academic institution, law, healthcare, food distribution and consumption, economy & trade, etc. for centuries. Hell, Americans have reformed their constitution alone over a dozen times already!

Language has nothing to do with evolution, and it pains me for you to think this. It is a system that needs fine tuning, like many things. Why we would refrain from making the system better simply because of some archaic and sentimental desire to preserve original spelling is beyond me.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes. This sort of thing never works. The nearest to it is the French Academy whose job it is to prevent anglicisms from polluting the French language. But the French still call the weekend, "le week-end" despite all the efforts of the French Academy to get them to call it, "le fin de semaine".

I disagree. I think if people saw how beneficial it would be to simplify and make consistent our language, there would be people who would opt to support this. It would just be practical to do so.

Keep in mind most people are idiots and are already spelling words incorrectly, usually in simplified fashions (what it "sounds like"), so this task won't even be that difficult! Stupidity is already indirectly supporting this reform!

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Language has nothing to do with evolution, and it pains me for you to think this.

Language Evolution (Studies in the Evolution of Language) (Paperback)

~ Morten H. Christiansen (Editor), Simon Kirby (Editor)

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Language Evolution (Studies in the Evolution of Language) (Paperback)

~ Morten H. Christiansen (Editor), Simon Kirby (Editor)

Sorry, I was attempting to contrast biological evolution and the disputes within the scientific community regarding genetic manipulation (it seemed as though he was stating we would create a "monster" in much the same way people whine about manipulating the DNA of organisms). You could say many things are evolving if you use the term loosely. To say language evolves is to say that convention changes. And that, of course, is correct. But that isn't what I was referring to. It seemed as though xris feared changing language in much the same way one would fear genetically modifying a lifeform, and I didn't understand this.

(But thank you for pointing this out: I should have rephrased, or just left that sentence out altogether. I was very unclear.)

Central questions here: What does it mean for a language to evolve naturally? Is it not natural for us to revise the system in order to communicate more effectively? At what point do we begin calling a natural language a constructed language? Lastly, why does it matter if it's constructed or not?

As an aside, I'd be interested in seeing your response to the rest of what I wrote.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes. This sort of thing never works. The nearest to it is the French Academy whose job it is to prevent anglicisms from polluting the French language. But the French still call the weekend, "le week-end" despite all the efforts of the French Academy to get them to call it, "le fin de semaine".

Never works, hmm? Care to argue that? I don't believe you. Obviously, it does not work under all conditions.

I love esperanto. That language is actually doing pretty good. Consider that both Hitler and Stalin tried to get rid of it (the author/creator was a jew).

Wikipedia comes in esperanto too. The danish Wiki and the esperantoian (What is the adjective? This is a fine demonstration for the need of a general and universally applicable mechanism to create adjectives. Esperanto has just that.) have about the same number of articles, yet there are many more people that speak/write danish than esperanto. The language is far from dead.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 05:02 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zetherin

You've aware that humans reform on a rather consistent basis, right? We've been doing so since our infancy. We've been reforming government, academic institution, law, healthcare, food distribution and consumption, economy & trade, etc. for centuries. Hell, Americans have reformed their constitution alone over a dozen times already!

Language has nothing to do with evolution, and it pains me for you to think this. It is a system that needs fine tuning, like many things. Why we would refrain from making the system better simply because of some archaic and sentimental desire to preserve original spelling is beyond me.

I disagree. I think if people saw how beneficial it would be to simplify and make consistent our language, there would be people who would opt to support this. It would just be practical to do so.

Keep in mind most people are idiots and are already spelling words incorrectly, usually in simplified fashions (what it "sounds like"), so this task won't even be that difficult! Stupidity is already indirectly supporting this reform!

Words being written as close to how they sound like is how it should be. Is that "lowering the standards"? (Whatever that means.) If yes, then who cares? It's beneficial nonetheless.

Moral support. <3

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Emil

Is that "lowering the standards"? (Whatever that means.) If yes, then who cares? It's beneficial nonetheless.

I'd be interested to see how one would demonstrate how streamlining language to facilitate effective communication is lowering standards. If anything, I would think that it would be raising standards, revising these muddy spellings in order to increase practical value.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Sorry, I was attempting to contrast biological evolution and the disputes within the scientific community regarding genetic manipulation (it seemed as though he was stating we would create a "monster" in much the same way people whine about manipulating the DNA of organisms). You could say many things are evolving if you use the term loosely. To say language evolves is to say that convention changes. And that, of course, is correct. But that isn't what I was referring to. It seemed as though xris feared changing language in much the same way one would fear genetically modifying a lifeform, and I didn't understand this.

(But thank you for pointing this out: I should have rephrased, or just left that sentence out altogether. I was very unclear.)

Central questions here: What does it mean for a language to evolve naturally? Is it not natural for us to revise the system in order to communicate more effectively? At what point do we begin calling a natural language a constructed language? Lastly, why does it matter if it's constructed or not?

As an aside, I'd be interested in seeing your response to the rest of what I wrote.

This problem with what "natural" is supposed to mean is why I avoid the phrase "natural language" and use "normal language" instead though the meanings are slightly different.

One could change the personal pronoun's rule of having to be written with a capital "I". Is there any reason for that? And please do away with verbal conjugation. There is no verbal conjugation in danish and there are no problems with that AFAIK.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 05:07 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zetherin

I'd be interested to see how one would demonstrate how streamlining language to facilitate effective communication is lowering standards.

I have no idea. Usually the objection is only voiced, not argued. As above. People may even refuse to argue their case! (Again, as above.)