English Language Reforms

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by 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?

I don't know about the "sacred value" stuff, but English is a very effective tool of communication for all of its defects. It is not for nothing that English has become the lingua franca of the world. More people speak English as a second language than any other language, by far. However, I think that George Bernard Shaw, and Emil, are both advocating improvement, not a wholesale revision, nor a replacement like Esperanto. And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

Do we ever contemplate revising the works of say, Shakespeare, in order to suit modern tongue? Of course not. We read it as is, as it was intended to be read. So, why do you think we would attempt to go through the monumental task of rewriting every great work of English literature?

Perhaps the thing that you are missing is that English will continue to change, whether we consciously attempt to change it or not. Language changes because convention changes, and this has always been happening. Why you're acting like this is something unheard of or not already currently taking place, seems odd to me. And besides conventional changes, Emil has presented many cases where common languages have been successfully reformed.

Though English is already a very effective tool for communication, I don't see what's wrong with trying to improve upon it. Noone is saying these improvements are necessary, but for many they are desirable because it is argued that the changes facilitate faster and more effective communication, and there is less confusion.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Do we ever contemplate revising the works of say, Shakespeare, in order to suit modern tongue? Of course not. We read it as is, as it was intended to be read. So, why do you think we would attempt to go through the monumental task of rewriting every great work of English literature?

Actually, we do. We now have modernized, abridged, condensed versions of Shakespeare. I've even heard of these being used in high school literature courses now.

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Perhaps the thing that you are missing is that English will continue to change, whether we consciously attempt to change it or not. Language changes because convention changes, and this has always been happening. Why you're acting like this is something unheard of or not already currently taking place, seems odd to me. And besides conventional changes, Emil has presented many cases where common languages have been successfully reformed.

No, I didn't miss that at all. Xris pointed out that language evolves in its own way, and I mentioned that this has happened quite a bit in the colloquial speech we are now exposed to every day. Just like the Romans used what we call "classical latin" in their literature, and "vulgar latin" in the conversations of the masses. We can still let the colloquial English language slip into a mess of urban dialects and slang words, without codifying this 'evolution' into the formal literary language.

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Though English is already a very effective tool for communication, I don't see what's wrong with trying to improve upon it. Noone is saying these improvements are necessary, but for many they are desirable because it is argued that the changes facilitate faster and more effective communication, and there is less confusion.

I'm not opposed to improving the English language; I am just unconvinced that a switch to phonetic spellings would constitute an improvement. The solutions to any confusion, or ineffective communication using the English language, are called reading and writing.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Actually, we do. We now have modernized, abridged, condensed versions of Shakespeare. I've even heard of these being used in high school literature courses now.

I'm pretty sure for the most part we leave the text as is, unless, of course, we have to translate it to even understand it (which may often be the case). There will always be revisions of whatever work, but that doesn't mean we are dismissing the old work - this is what I meant. And most people choose to make as few revisions as possible, in order for the work to be read as intended. The Shakespeare I've read seemed to be in Old English, and it was very hard to understand, but I waded through it. Maybe when I have time I'll research a bunch of old English works and actually see the disparity between the original works and the newer renditions. But the point was we certainly don't entirely rewrite old works to tailor modern language (It seemed as though you were implying this with your comment).

I'm not opposed to improving the English language; I am just unconvinced that a switch to phonetic spellings would constitute an improvement. The solutions to any confusion, or ineffective communication using the English language, are called reading and writing.

Certainly with reading, writing, and memorization of any language, one can become more proficient at it. But that's not the point. If you have the choice between an easier or harder method, why choose the harder method? In many cases it is argued that phonetic spellings make it easier for children to learn language, as phonetics has a significant connection with how we use and memorize language.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by 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?

There are plenty of things that make communication with english less effective than it could be, especially but not exclusively for foreigners. Consider the case of word spellings with unnecessary letters, so called silent letters. These do not help in any way with communication and they make it less effective. (One proposal focuses almost exclusively on these, Cut Spelling.) Moreover the words are longer, so it takes more time to type them. Obviously this point applies both to foreigners (like me) and to natives.

Every time I start discussing reforming language on a discussion board, there are always a couple of people that like you do not respond with arguments but only with ridicule (hidden nicely with the clever use of words) and seemingly random questions. Please consider the case fairly, like you rationally should!

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

Maybe. I'm not supporting any specific reform proposal as of now. I have no researched it that much.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:05 AM ----------

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?

The first part of this reminds me of continental 'philosophy'.

IIRC it is not known but estimated to between 100,000 and 2,000,000. There are about 5,500,000 that speak danish.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:13 AM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know about the "sacred value" stuff, but English is a very effective tool of communication for all of its defects. It is not for nothing that English has become the lingua franca of the world. More people speak English as a second language than any other language, by far. However, I think that George Bernard Shaw, and Emil, are both advocating improvement, not a wholesale revision, nor a replacement like Esperanto. And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

The reason that english is the primary world language is not because it is a good language. It is for other reasons.

Replacements give us a more effective language but are harder to pull through. I'm not sure I support a replacement of english with esperanto. (But I support a replacement of danish with english.)

Indeed german is quite phonetically spelled. That's why it is so easy to learn compared to english. (I'm taking a german class right at this moment.) Danish is perhaps even worse phonetically spelled than english and it is too a terrible language. (Though it lacks another defect that english has, verbal conjugation.)

From your link:

"A speaker of the language should be able to pronounce correctly any sequence of letters that he may meet, even if they were previously unknown, and secondarily, to be able to spell any phonemic sequence, again even if previously unknown."

German is close to this ideal. English (and danish) is not.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

A travesty? I suppose that means "something bad said with a smart word" in this context. Why would that be bad?

[xris]

Then convince the world to speak Esperanto and leave English alone.

I can see silly decision making boards of linguistics arguing for years about silly things such as the spelling of flour or is it flower. Alice threw the looking glars. Sorry it changes at the speed of necessity not by invention. The English will never allow it.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

T Danish is perhaps even worse phonetically spelled than english and it is too a terrible language.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

I don't know what a "terrible language" is, or how that is measured. Expecially in the abstract. English is not a "terrible language" for saying in it what you want to say. Nor is it as complicated as is Latin, or Ancient Greek, or German (all those declensions!). And its nouns do not have gender, which drives me crazy when I (try) to speak or write French or German. (Why "das Maedchen"? Why is "girl" neuter?). Unphonetic spelling alone does not make a language terrible.See:

"The Awful German Language" by Mark Twain

[soz]

Languages change organically. I don't think we can or should purposely change English because of some perceived lack. It has been evolving and will continue to evolve.

[Robert]

Lanugage reform has extensive precedent, so we at least can in theory.