English Language Reforms

[kennethamy]

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.

Yes. But you are not a native speaker. And if someone pronounced 'z's' as 's's" I would immediately know that they were not native speakers of English. The 'z' sound is voiced. But the 's' sound is not voiced. The difference is obvious to the native English-speaker. In fact, in the films, or on TV, actors who portray non-native speakers of English do just that. You don't hear the difference, of course. Just as Japanese speakers do not hear the difference between 'L' and 'R" as initial sounds, and so mispronounce many English words beginning with 'R'. For example, they say, "lice", rather than, "rice". Now if you are an advocate of phonetic spelling, why would you want the 'z' sound represented by the letter, 's'? That seems to me inconsistent.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes. But you are not a native speaker. And if someone pronounced 'z's' as 's's" I would immediately know that they were not native speakers of English. The 'z' sound is voiced. But the 's' sound is not voiced. The difference is obvious to the native English-speaker. In fact, in the films, or on TV, actors who portray non-native speakers of English do just that. You don't hear the difference, of course. Just as Japanese speakers do not hear the difference between 'L' and 'R" as initial sounds, and so mispronounce many English words beginning with 'R'. For example, they say, "lice", rather than, "rice". Now if you are an advocate of phonetic spelling, why would you want the 'z' sound represented by the letter, 's'? That seems to me inconsistent.

Fair enough. I drop the point. It was only a suggestion or idea anyway.

[xris]

It only proves the concept is a mine field of disagreement and conflict. For me even the word colour becoming color is a source of annoyance.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

It only proves the concept is a mine field of disagreement and conflict. For me even the word colour becoming color is a source of annoyance.

Yes, simplification, and standarization, is not everything.

[soz]

....and the preceding stretch of conversation is part of why I think it would be prohibitively difficult to reform the English language in a meaningful way.

Of the people who agree that there are problems, there are many different perspectives on WHAT, exactly, the problems are. So that would be hurdle one -- coming to some sort of an agreement on what should be changed.

I personally think the whole thing would collapse about there, with much bitterness and recrimination.

But say it goes further. There is an "authority" created... by whom... the president? (I can see the headlines now; "Obama Dictates New Language Standards: Steele Invokes George Orwell"). Right there are many more chances for implosion, as no authority that carries any weight wants to bother with this. Too little positives, a whole slew of politically dangerous negatives.

OK, but say for the sake of argument that the standards are agreed upon and the authority is created. Fine. The authority tells schools, "teach your children that there are no 'z's in the English language" (or whatever). Some teachers say um ok if you say so. Some say are you insane??? Of course I won't. That's ridiculous.

What happens to them? They lose their jobs? Not gonna go over well.

No penalty? They'll just ignore it.


Prohibitively difficult.

[xris]

Every time i see center on a building instead of centre it really annoys me. I know it sounds pathetic but i keep asking who decided to change my language and then rub my nose in it. I dont blame Americans but the administrations who allow these signs to be erected. For me its spelt wrongly and should be treated with derision. My English is terrible but I believe, I still have the right to defend it against foreign invasion.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by soz

....and the preceding stretch of conversation is part of why I think it would be prohibitively difficult to reform the English language in a meaningful way.

Of the people who agree that there are problems, there are many different perspectives on WHAT, exactly, the problems are. So that would be hurdle one -- coming to some sort of an agreement on what should be changed.

I personally think the whole thing would collapse about there, with much bitterness and recrimination.

But say it goes further. There is an "authority" created... by whom... the president? (I can see the headlines now; "Obama Dictates New Language Standards: Steele Invokes George Orwell"). Right there are many more chances for implosion, as no authority that carries any weight wants to bother with this. Too little positives, a whole slew of politically dangerous negatives.

OK, but say for the sake of argument that the standards are agreed upon and the authority is created. Fine. The authority tells schools, "teach your children that there are no 'z's in the English language" (or whatever). Some teachers say um ok if you say so. Some say are you insane??? Of course I won't. That's ridiculous.

What happens to them? They lose their jobs? Not gonna go over well.

No penalty? They'll just ignore it.


Prohibitively difficult.

You're making it sound more difficult than it is. The fact that it has been done many times prove that it ain't that difficult. Perhaps you should read the first chapter of the Cut Spelling handbook, here. It discusses some issues with implementation etc.

You're focusing on the US too. Everything is prohibitively difficult politically speaking in the US.

---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 04:38 PM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

Every time i see center on a building instead of centre it really annoys me. I know it sounds pathetic but i keep asking who decided to change my language and then rub my nose in it. I dont blame Americans but the administrations who allow these signs to be erected. For me its spelt wrongly and should be treated with derision. My English is terrible but I believe, I still have the right to defend it against foreign invasion.

Feelings seem to be the only thing you can write of in this thread. No arguments. No rationality. I feel this, I feel that. It is a discussion board and discussions involve arguments. Get on with it.

[soz]

Well, my original comment singled out "in America" -- I completely agree it would be more difficult here -- and also "now." I think there are times when it would have been easier.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by xris

My English is terrible but I believe, I still have the right to defend it against foreign invasion.

Tell that to William the Conqueror.

You'd have to go back to protolanguages, like proto-Indoeuropean (a progenitor of Latin, proto-Slavic, proto-Germanic, and even Hindi) to find a language with limited influence from outside.

I'm learning Hungarian now, which is my dad's language. It is not particularly difficult except insofar as it's totally and completely unfamiliar. You have to conjugate nouns in Hungarian. There is a definite and an indefinite verb conjugation (I pick up A rock is a different conjugation of "pick" than I pick up THE rock). As shielded as this Uralic language is from ANYTHING else in Europe (other than Finnish, Estonian, and Saami), it has some English, some French, some Slavic, and some Turkish words.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Tell that to William the Conqueror.

You'd have to go back to protolanguages, like proto-Indoeuropean (a progenitor of Latin, proto-Slavic, proto-Germanic, and even Hindi) to find a language with limited influence from outside.

I'm learning Hungarian now, which is my dad's language. It is not particularly difficult except insofar as it's totally and completely unfamiliar. You have to conjugate nouns in Hungarian. There is a definite and an indefinite verb conjugation (I pick up A rock is a different conjugation of "pick" than I pick up THE rock). As shielded as this Uralic language is from ANYTHING else in Europe (other than Finnish, Estonian, and Saami), it has some English, some French, some Slavic, and some Turkish words.

This idea of protecting a language from foreign invasion is a nationalistic nonsense. In Denmark the nationalist party leader suggested removing all loan words from danish. Sigh. Even more the idea of shielding english, english of all languages! It has a very, very turbulent history. Full of foreign influence. There are lots of danish/nordic-ish and french-ish words in english.