English Language Reforms

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Emil

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.

"This is for health food fiends, the natural-fabrics gang, and all those green-head environmental hustlers who stomp around in the "natural": Your key word is meaningless. Everything is natural. Everything in the universe is part of nature. Polyester, pesticides, oil slicks, and whoopee cushions. Nature is not just trees and flowers. It's everything. Human beings are part of nature. And if a human being invents something, that's part of nature, too. Like the whoopee cushion."

- George Carlin

[xris]

So how far do we take this bastardisation..This fonetic speeech, doz it go az far az renaming filadelfia...load of twaddle..sorry twoddle.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by xris

So how far do we take this bastardisation..This fonetic speeech, doz it go az far az renaming filadelfia...load of twaddle..sorry twoddle.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Please, this is a discussion board. Arguments, not silly whatever it is you're doing.

[Zetherin]

Well, I think he brings up a valid question - To what magnitude of a reform should this be?

Do you have an easy answer to that, Emil?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Emil

If it works, then why is it unprofessional? Why not embrace their new words? They seem to be better than yours, since they allow for faster communication. Even though it may be a little more context dependent.

Their words are not new. The problem is that 1) there are some abbreviations that can stand for multiple things, 2) they are more likely to include something if it has an abbreviation rather than if it's important, 3) consultants, nurses, documentation specialists, and insurance auditors will not necessarily know what the documentation means, and 4) they are unable to present the most critical part of a patient encounter, which is the history of present illness using this kind of communication. The chart note is supposed to be a narrative, not an alphabet soup. Finally, especially in typed or dictated documentation (admission notes, discharge notes, consult notes, and clinic notes), it's sort of a slap in the face to send a formal letter about a patient to their regular doctor and have it look like crap, rather than a polished statement made by a professional. People hide behind shorthand when language makes them look vulnerable.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Well, I think he brings up a valid question - To what magnitude of a reform should this be?

Do you have an easy answer to that, Emil?

The question may be 'valid', but the form is counter-productive.

If one tries to change language too quickly, it will not work. Some reform proposals come in steps, so that they can easily be set in motion. One idea is to only change a few % difference between the actual language and the target language at a time.

Wiki also lists a couple of known language reforms:

• Chinese
  • (1920s) — replaced Classical Chinese with Vernacular Chinese as the standard written language.
  • Mandarin was chosen at a committee from several Chinese dialects.
  • (1950s PRC) — reformed the script used to write the standard language by introducing Simplified Chinese characters (later adopted by Singapore and Malaysia, but Traditional Chinese characters remain in use in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and various overseas Chinese communities).
• Czech (19th century) — The dictionary of Josef Jungmann contributed to the renewal of the vocabulary. In the 1840s the letter w became replaced by v.
• Estonian (1910s/1920s) — reform movement led by Johannes Aavik and Johannes V. Veski renewed the vocabulary, borrowing a lot of roots from Finnish and other Uralic languages and even inventing some roots that do not exist anywhere.
• German (1901/02) — unified the spelling system nationwide (first in Germany, with later adoption by other Germanophone countries). Further reforms were enacted more recently, in the German spelling reform of 1996.
• Greek (1970s/1980s) — while the written "pure" language, the katharevusa was full of Old Greek words, the spoken "popular" language, the dhimotiki was not. After the fall of the military rule, a law was promulgated, making the latter become the written language as well. For example, on Greek coins, the plural of the currency was drachmai (katharevusa form) before and became drachmes (dhimotiki form) after 1982.
• Hebrew (1920s) — Modern Hebrew was created from Ancient Hebrew by simplification of the grammar (especially of the syntax) according to Indo-European models, coinage of new words from Hebrew roots based on European models, and simplification of pronunciation rules. Linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann argues that Modern Hebrew, which he terms "Israeli", is a Semito-European hybrid, based not only on Hebrew but also on Yiddish and other languages spoken by revivalists.[1] Zuckermann therefore endorses the translation of the Hebrew Bible into what he calls "Israeli".[2]
• Hungarian (late 18th and early 19th centuries) — more than ten thousand words were coined,[3] out of which several thousand are still actively used today (see also Ferenc Kazinczy).
• Irish (1940s) — spelling system greatly simplified e.g. Gaedheal became Gael, Ó Séigheadh became Ó Sé.
• Norwegian (20th century) — as Norway became independent from Denmark (1814), Norwegian started to drift away from Danish. The reforms in 1907 and 1917 made Riksmål the written standard Norwegian, renamed Bokmål in 1929. Bokmål and the more vernacular Nynorsk were made closer by a reform in 1938. Today both language forms are spoken: on Norwegian coins, the name of the country is alternately Norge (Bokmål) and Noreg (Nynorsk).
• Portuguese (20th century) — replaced a cumbersome traditional spelling system with a simplified one (asthma, for instance, became asma and phthysica became tísica).
• Romanian (19th century) — replaced the Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin alphabet, deprecated hundreds of Slavic in favour of Romance ones.
• Somali (1970s) — modified Latin script developed by Somali linguist Shire Jama Ahmed for writing the Somali language; made compulsory in 1972 by then President of Somalia General Mohamed Siad Barre. Also the vocabulary was renewed, a lot of new words became coined from existing Somali roots.
• Turkish (1930s) — language and writing system were reformed starting in the 1920s, to the point that the older language is called by a different name, Ottoman Turkish. The Ottoman alphabet was based on the Arabic alphabet, which was replaced in 1928 by the new, Latin-based Turkish alphabet. Loanwords of Persian and Arabic origin were dropped in favor of native Turkish words or new coinages based on Turkic roots.
• Vietnamese (20th century) — during the French colonial rule, the classical vernacular script based on Chinese characters was replaced with the new Latin alphabet.

So much for being impossible.

-

Another benefit of the reforms are that it will make communication faster because unnecessary letters are removed making the words shorter in general.

[xris]

Very cleverly researched and posted but you dont answer the question. Language is progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It cant be forced into something of necessity, it is the rhythm of those who speak it and compose by it. It has romance, the eloquence of language is it anomalies. Be gone, leave my English to the English.

By the way how many do you think speak Esperanto?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by xris

Very cleverly researched and posted but you dont answer the question. Language is progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It cant be forced into something of necessity, it is the rhythm of those who speak it and compose by it. It has romance, the eloquence of language is it anomalies. Be gone, leave my English to the English.

By the way how many do you think speak Esperanto?

What does the number of people speaking Esperanto have to do with reforming the English language? Obviously it's much harder to create a new language and build a large native speaker base, than reform an already existing and commonly spoken language. Esperanto, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with this.

There have been reforms for common languages, such as Chinese, as illustrated by Emil. So, if we have evidence that there have been successful reforms of common languages, despite language being "progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It can't be forced into something of necessity...", then what do you have to say?

Shouldn't you, at this point, demonstrate why the reformation of the English language isn't a good idea? Because you haven't yet.

[Pangloss]

There is something to be said about a language's sacred value to its native speakers and writers. And, there is nothing about the English language currently that makes communication any less effective than it could be. It may be somewhat difficult for non-native speakers to learn, but then so it is with every language.

We don't need to officially dilute the essence of our language so that foreigners can have an easier time trying to learn it. But, unofficially, it has already happened in speech, with the common use of slang words, as with other languages.

As Xris did point out, it's not a gud idea, since we wudn't want evryone riting and reeding like this, wud we?

[xris]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

What does the number of people speaking Esperanto have to do with reforming the English language? Obviously it's much harder to create a new language and build a large native speaker base, than reform an already existing and commonly spoken language. Esperanto, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with this.

There have been reforms for common languages, such as Chinese, as illustrated by Emil. So, if we have evidence that there have been successful reforms of common languages, despite language being "progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It can't be forced into something of necessity...", then what do you have to say?

Shouldn't you, at this point, demonstrate why the reformation of the English language isn't a good idea? Because you haven't yet.

The degree of change and who decides? I will oppose it because im English and pretty damned obstinate. Who will enforce it? Who decides what is appropriate? Sorry it is more than observation it is conclusion. If the Chinese want to change their language , let them and if you want to talk a certain pigeon English, do so but dont say its a necessity.