English Language Reforms

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

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.

OK.

I don't think it is a very large problem that a given language sounds harsh to natives of another language. That's hardly a worthwhile criticism.

I think you should read the first chapter in the Cut Spelling (CS) handbook. It is available here. It lists a number of reasons to implement CS and some implications of doing so etc. 22 pages.

-

As for the Twain essay. I made a nice pdf version here.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

OK.

I don't think it is a very large problem that a given language sounds harsh to natives of another language. That's hardly a worthwhile criticism.

I think you should read the first chapter in the Cut Spelling (CS) handbook. It is available here. It lists a number of reasons to implement CS and some implications of doing so etc. 22 pages.

I think I wrote earlier that I am not opposed to spelling reforms, which I think may be practical (but trivial). For instance, I think that the British should reform their spelling to conform with American spelling. But, there are other kinds of reforms I would be uncomfortable with. As I wrote earlier, calling a language "terrible" or "awful" is unenlightening except, of course, that it is clear that the speaker doesn't like the language for some reason or other. It might be the way it sounds, or for other reasons.

P.S. What about the capitalization of all nouns as a spelling reform? Mark Twain seems to think that's a splendid idea. But you seem to be for decapitalization everywhere. You would have been at home in France during the Revolution (I mean, "revolution").

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I think I wrote earlier that I am not opposed to spelling reforms, which I think may be practical (but trivial). For instance, I think that the British should reform their spelling to conform with American spelling. But, there are other kinds of reforms I would be uncomfortable with. As I wrote earlier, calling a language "terrible" or "awful" is unenlightening except, of course, that it is clear that the speaker doesn't like the language for some reason or other. It might be the way it sounds, or for other reasons.

I'm pretty rational and academic. When I call something terrible I don't just mean that I dislike it. I mean something more. A more, what is called, objective judgment. (Notice the cutting of "e" in the last word.)

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

I'm pretty rational and academic. When I call something terrible I don't just mean that I dislike it. I mean something more. A more, what is called, objective judgment. (Notice the cutting of "e" in the last word.)

I am sure you do mean more. Only how can we tell what more you mean? "Judgment" is the American spelling. The other is the British.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I am sure you do mean more. Only how can we tell what more you mean? "Judgment" is the American spelling. The other is the British.

You can't tell from that single sentence.

I prefer american spellings. Why would I add redundant letters?
But isn't it american english that has these "-ized" suffixes instead of "-ised"? That's annoying. There is no reason to use a different letter than "s" there. What about doing away with that letter all together. I can't think of a good reason to keep it.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

As I wrote earlier, calling a language "terrible" or "awful" is unenlightening except, of course, that it is clear that the speaker doesn't like the language for some reason or other. It might be the way it sounds, or for other reasons.

It may be the way it sounds, but it may be something more important, or practical. Like, that the language is inconsistent, or that it is unreasonably hard to learn, or unreasonably hard to use. Or, the person may have gripes about certain rules. Why would it not be enlightening to evaluate and eventually critique these things in order to improve communication? I don't know why you would immediately assume that when someone says they think a language is terrible it is a preferential thing, like "I dislike vanilla icecream". If someone said an argument was terrible on this forum, would you write it off as something preferential -- they just don't like the way it 'sounds'? I think you would give them the benefit of the doubt that they were speaking about the substance of the argument; perhaps the form, or the justification, or the content. I mean, wouldn't you think this especially in a language reform thread, where, presumably, the finer points of language of being evaluated?

I don't think most people who are gunning for a reform are doing so because they don't like the way "Mississippi" sounds, do you? Although I do find the word annoying when I hear it spoken, why do we need so many s's?

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 04:04 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Emil

You can't tell from that single sentence.

I prefer american spellings. Why would I add redundant letters?
But isn't it american english that has these "-ized" suffixes instead of "-ised"? That's annoying. There is no reason to use a different letter than "s" there. What about doing away with that letter all together. I can't think of a good reason to keep it.

Do you mean the letter "s" or the letter "z"?

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Do you mean the letter "s" or the letter "z"?

The latter letter. "z".

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

You can't tell from that single sentence.

I prefer american spellings. Why would I add redundant letters?
But isn't it american english that has these "-ized" suffixes instead of "-ised"? That's annoying. There is no reason to use a different letter than "s" there. What about doing away with that letter all together. I can't think of a good reason to keep it.

Do away with the letter, 'z'? How would you spell, "Zebra"? But we pronounce the word, "santitized" with a "z" sound, not an "s" sound.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Do away with the letter, 'z'? How would you spell, "Zebra"? But we pronounce the word, "santitized" with a "z" sound, not an "s" sound.

Sebra. To me they sound almost the same. Is it really worth the trouble to keep a letter around for this niche, bit deviant s sound? If anything, we should better use the symbols we have and freeing up one would help that.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Emil

Sebra. To me they sound almost the same. Is it really worth the trouble to keep a letter around for this niche, bit deviant s sound? If anything, we should better use the symbols we have and freeing up one would help that.

Sorry but that tells us all we want to know, or is it no...Zebra with an s..ohhh dear. or is that deer..

I will pull up my sip and have a zip of water.