Ask Any Question

What would the English language be like if you could write your own rules of grammar and spelling?

Ariel 128 - 2007-07-05 20:32:27 - Languages

I would love to simplify the spelling and make it phonetically logical. We have 26 letters which make 44 different sounds which can be spelled approximately 440 different ways! No wonder even people with college educations can't spell sometimes. English is only 40% phonetic. I have always spoken correct English at home. I expect others with a high school education to do so also. I was an English Major in college. I am not in favor of a national language body like the French have because English will always be a living language. Prepositions don't necessarily need objects to make sense. I think if I met a person who spoke absolutely correct English grammar all the time, he would have to be from another planet. There are too many rules and I found the grammar part of English classes very boring except when I studied the New English Grammar which was finally new material. Now, what have been your frustrations about our native tongue? Any ideas how to improve it? Yes, I am an English major. This question was written after a very tiring weeklong vacation to an adjoining state. After proofreading the question, I knew that I would sound like an "over-educated I-don't-know-what". I didn't delete the question because I would not lose all the effort I had put into it. Besides, maybe the answers would be interesting. One of English's greatest strengths as well as its weakness (spellingwise) is that is borrows en mass words from other languages. It has always been a living and vital language. I am afraid that we are all stuck with it, but the best part is that each one of us who speak it or try to learn it has a part in determining its ultimate destiny and shape! I really love the English language!

Best Answer:

Most of us may not speak or write perfect English, or French, or whatever, but at least learning or trying to learn is, I think, a pleasure. Simplifying English, for too many people may be understood as extending the SMS experience to writing any way they want, very approximatively. And totally impossible to understand by anyone else but the writer. Although... Ever tried to read your own short hand notes after a few weeks? I am sure even the writer would be lost in the end. Unless you create rules for such simplification. But then you will be in conflict with others, with their own rules for simplification. Do you think another set of rules, replacing the rules of grammar by the rules of simplication, will be easily accepted? Complicated or not, English or not, the "shape" of a language is made by people who use it. The diversity of thoughts expressed in any language is phenomenal, and we don't want to loose all this heritage. Imagine people 'educated' (!) in 'simplified English' in less than 50 years trying to make sense of Wilde (I don't even want to mention Shakespeare); they would look like monkeys with razors. Until we find a way to directly connect our brains together, we need rules to communicate, and such rules call for languages. About grammar: I can spend hours reading grammar books, in French and in English. French grammar is a nightmare, for one rule you have 100 exceptions. English grammar is a torture with all these little nasty prepositions to on for in out of etc. But don't ask me why, it is like a game, or a scientific process, I just enjoy the brain teasing experience.

Answers:

Unfortunately, it would probably be a lot like it is when people text each other--unintelliglible.

The English language would resemble the grammar and spelling of many of the questions and answers on this Web site.

If I did it, I'd rewrite half the rules and then get bored and do something else. English would be worse than ever.

I´m sorry to say this, but it would lead to nobody knowing how to speak English. A language changes usually slowly, although because of Internet and the computers, any language changes faster nowadays than before. Your intentions are good, but you would not get far with your "simplifications". If you WOULD succeed, you will be a Nobel Prize Winner someday. I´m sorry, I absolutely understand what you mean and your thoughts are not at all stupid. I don´t have any ideas how to improve English. I just follow "the stream".

There isn't a problem with English as it is. 1) "Phonetic" spelling. First of all, which dialect are you going to use as the model? You can only have ONE dialect as the standard for a "phonetic" spelling system. So all the other people who speak English natively are out of luck. Second, you will lose contact with the millions of pages of English that has been written over the last 10 centuries by changing the spelling. Children would have to learn to read TWO different languages in order to read current materials and literature from the past. That's impractical. Third, the sounds of every language are constantly changing. Once a couple of generations pass, the "phonetic" spelling system is no longer phonetic. You either have to reform the system every two or three generations or have a "phonetic" system that ceases to be phonetic. 2) English grammar is constantly changing. That's just the nature of language. You can eliminate all the exceptions and inconsistencies of language today and they will be replaced by new exceptions and inconsistencies within two or three generations. English is no more and no less "inconsistent" and "illogical" than any other language. As languages change over time, these things enter the language. That's just the nature of language change. Inconsistencies and irregularies are just the leftovers of past regular grammar. Also, there are almost an infinite variety of wonderful things to be found in the world's languages, but they do not always work well together. And, finally, languages MUST operate with a certain amount of redundancy. Communication would grind to a halt without redundancy.

it would be anywhere from here to nonsense. BTW, this is my first day here, and I've been noticing that wherever Taivo goes everyone else then gets a thumbs down. Except himself. Is this a common strategy for becoming self-popular or something? Should I be working my way up to level 2 so I can do it to everyone else, too?

Most of us may not speak or write perfect English, or French, or whatever, but at least learning or trying to learn is, I think, a pleasure. Simplifying English, for too many people may be understood as extending the SMS experience to writing any way they want, very approximatively. And totally impossible to understand by anyone else but the writer. Although... Ever tried to read your own short hand notes after a few weeks? I am sure even the writer would be lost in the end. Unless you create rules for such simplification. But then you will be in conflict with others, with their own rules for simplification. Do you think another set of rules, replacing the rules of grammar by the rules of simplication, will be easily accepted? Complicated or not, English or not, the "shape" of a language is made by people who use it. The diversity of thoughts expressed in any language is phenomenal, and we don't want to loose all this heritage. Imagine people 'educated' (!) in 'simplified English' in less than 50 years trying to make sense of Wilde (I don't even want to mention Shakespeare); they would look like monkeys with razors. Until we find a way to directly connect our brains together, we need rules to communicate, and such rules call for languages. About grammar: I can spend hours reading grammar books, in French and in English. French grammar is a nightmare, for one rule you have 100 exceptions. English grammar is a torture with all these little nasty prepositions to on for in out of etc. But don't ask me why, it is like a game, or a scientific process, I just enjoy the brain teasing experience.

The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as Euro-English (Euro for short). In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "W" by "V". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

You are right the problem with English is spelling it is not only not phonetic but it is confusing.Yet we use only 26 letters without attachments and that is the beauty of it. The grammar is rather simple.Please don't improve it or else most people would not undersand it.

English is not my native tongue, and I don't know if I am authorised to make any comment here, anyway here I go. First of all, I must thank you, Ariel, for posting this question. It was a treat to read some of the responses including those of Taivo; Antipode, who mentioned 'the joy of learning', and David, who expressed his views so crisply. I too think that there's nothing gravely wrong with English. And if it is a little difficult, that's OK. (The more difficult it is, the more fun it is to learn.) This difficulty would exist only till a person has gained some proficiency in the language. The adaptability of English has been the reason for its growth, I am sure many will agree. But rather than introduce radical changes as inviting each one to write his or her own grammar rules, I would support gradual absorption of modern words and usages to keep the language trendy, updated and fun to use. (I am surprised that this suggestion of breaking of grammar rules should be made by an English Major. It would only lead to the degeneration of the language as many fear.) Lastly, as my idea to improve and protect the language, I would suggest encouraging of those who use (read, write and speak) the language well.