English Language Reforms

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Robert

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

Take a look at Emil's post, #26.

Originally Posted by 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.

What do you mean language changes organically? Do you just mean it's ever-changing? If so, I agree, but why just because it is perpetually evolving should we not purposely change anything?

[xris]

I think we should be honest and say there is distinct difference between the American desire and the English determination. Whose damned language is it for god sake? I'm getting a bit hissed of with these demands.

Whose going to form this academic board of linguistic examination? What criteria should we abide by? the new worlds desire to bring it down to the lowest denominator? gr8 4 uhoo r twittering ....

An impossible task, fraught with mischief and rebellion. You stole our colony , you wont get away with bastardizing our language.

[soz]

I mean it is constantly changing, yes, and also that the changes usually happen in a bottom-up rather than top-down fashion -- fringe slang becomes mainstream, a word is misspelled so consistently for so long that the new spelling becomes the accepted spelling, etc.

I believe that in theory language can be reformed but it seems prohibitively difficult, especially now, and especially in a fiercely individualistic culture like America.

[xris]

The English language is constantly changing and it can absorb most colloquial alterations but dogmatic demands act counter to its attraction as a literature based medium. You cant force change, only encourage modification. I would love for shakespearean English to be in vogue, it has romance in the simplest of requests. "how goeth the night kind sir" so much better than "wots the time ubby".

[GoshisDead]

Language naturally evolves yet standardization doesn't. Language being a natural human function as spoken and language being an artifical construct as written/standardized. Any effective real reform would have to be reformed to update it more closely with modern spoken English. It will also normally include things considered ungrammatical, like more better, and funner. The reason why these are "ungrammatical" is not that they don't have a grammatical function, it is because a standardizing authority and the consequent status ethos created by it, says that they are ungrammatical. There are a multitude of socio-political quagmires involving standardization that can be distilled into thee A's Accuracy, Acceptance, and Aesthetics. A feasable standardization must balance these things in a way that can be implemented for a speech community, again English being a World language makes it just thast much 'difficulter'.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by soz

I believe that in theory language can be reformed but it seems prohibitively difficult, especially now, and especially in a fiercely individualistic culture like America.

English is a tough language to change top-down, mainly because there is no top (some other languages have recognized authorities) and because it's so widely used.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nothing interesting or relevant follows from this.

And what is it with these biological metaphors (should be "metafors")?

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 12:53 AM ----------

Originally Posted by soz

I mean it is constantly changing, yes, and also that the changes usually happen in a bottom-up rather than top-down fashion -- fringe slang becomes mainstream, a word is misspelled so consistently for so long that the new spelling becomes the accepted spelling, etc.

I believe that in theory language can be reformed but it seems prohibitively difficult, especially now, and especially in a fiercely individualistic culture like America.

What makes you think that it is "prohibitively difficult"?

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 12:55 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Robert

English is a tough language to change top-down, mainly because there is no top (some other languages have recognized authorities) and because it's so widely used.

One could just create a such authority if needed.

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 02:03 AM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

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

Surely you know what "terribly language" means, even if it is vague. It was meant to be vague.

It's "Das Mädchen". There is an explanation for why it is neuter, but I don't recall it. There are ways to tell which words are which in german, but the decision rules are often not without exceptions. For instance, any word ending on "e" is usually female. (Not when the "e" comes from plurals though.) I recently took a german class and we spent some time on these decision rules.

And yes gendered-nouns is a bad idea. Danish suffers from a similar problem. There are t-words and n-words, and there is no way to tell which are which. Sometimes when I say begin to say or write something and I find a better word while saying it which is of the other kind, I have to go back and fix the other words so that they fit the chosen word. That is so annoying. One never encounters this problem with english. The problem is even worse with german.

You are right about that a language failing at the alphabetic principle does not logically imply that it is a terrible language, it does highly suggest it. It's a good inductive argument. English does not just fail at the alphabetic principle, it fails utterly hard.

English also has other defects. There is the unneeded and annoying verbal conjugation of the third person singular. Usually it is "s" but sometimes it's more than "s" as in "express", "expresses". There is no verbal conjugation in danish at all. That's one of the few good things I have to say about my own native language.

Then there is the thing with apostrophes... etc.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

Surely you know what "terribly language" means, even if it is vague. It was meant to be vague.

.

I really do not, except that the speaker, for some reason, does not like the language. There may be a number of reasons for not liking the language. For example, that German is guttural and harsh sounding. That is obviously not why you have problems. If you read the link, Mark Twain give several reasons why he thinks that German is "awful".

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I really do not, except that the speaker, for some reason, does not like the language. There may be a number of reasons for not liking the language. For example, that German is guttural and harsh sounding. That is obviously not why you have problems. If you read the link, Mark Twain give several reasons why he thinks that German is "awful".

I did read the link. Did you mean to imply that I had not? I responded earlier to some of the points made in the essay. He does give some good reasons.

The problem of long words that are hard to read is also in danish. In english one does not normally conjoin nouns together but one does both in german and danish. ("lunch box", not "lunchbox") That's why one gets words such as "flødekaramelingrediensliste" (meaning cream caramel ingredient list).
It is worth noting that even native danes often have problems reading such words, and indeed with conjoining words according to the rules of danish grammar. I sometimes use hyphens "-" for clarity when combining words. In that way it is easier to see what it means because one can see which words it is made up of.

As for the sound, that is more a matter of convention is it not? I don't think it sounds harsh. I think it sounds funny. In fact it is quite somewhat common to speak (incorrect) german in Denmark when drunk because it sounds funny.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

As for the sound, that is more a matter of convention is it not? I don't think it sounds harsh. I think it sounds funny. In fact it is quite somewhat common to speak (incorrect) german in Denmark when drunk because it sounds funny.

Well, if it comes to that, it is all a matter of convention, and also, what you are accustomed to, and have grown up with. To the French and Italian ear, and, perhaps less so, to the English ear, German does sound harsh, largely because it is a guttural language. Scandinavian languages are guttural too (they and German belong to the same sub-family) so that's possibly why German does not sound harsh to your ear.