For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
But language shouldn't be logical. It should be beautiful and say something about the people who speak it. If the English language is bit unnecessasarily complex, with a little bit of this and that thrown in, but still doggedly unique, then hey, that's the english. It's a reflection of the culture of the people who speak it. American english has naturally evolved and removed some of the little finicky things the english are so good at. Your "improved" language looks like a computer talking.
Believe me, English is MUCH more logical that German, Dutch or French.
Example: In Dutch we have two different words for the word 'the': 'de' and 'het'. For about half of all words you use 'de', and 'het' for the other half. And how do you know when to use which? Well, you just know if Dutch is your native language. Than you just somehow 'feel' it. But if you learn Dutch at a later age, it's almost impossible to learn.
Another example: we have a weird habid of putting t's and d's behind our verbs. And there's a whole bunch of rules (that I, to be honest, still don't entirely understand) that tell you when you should use a 't', a 'd' or 'dt'.
It's a reflection of the culture of the people who speak it. American english has naturally evolved and removed some of the little finicky things the english are so good at.
We have the same thing with Afrikaans. The Dutch took their language with them to South African in the 17th/18th century and ever since it evolved on it's own into an entirely new language, that to our ears sounds really funny.
I love linguistics. Really fascinating. In one language (maybe Australian aboriginal) the only numbers they have are 1, 2 and 3. after that it's just "many". Can it be an accident that only German has a word for "taking pleasure from someone else's misfortune." (correct me if I'm wrong). That whole thing about eskimos having a hundred words for snow is a myth. They have about four.
I love linguistics. Really fascinating. Can it be an accident that only German has a word for "taking pleasure from someone else's misfortune." (correct me if I'm wrong).
We have a word for that: leedvermaak (literally: leed = misfortune, vermaak = entertainment).
I love linguistics. Really fascinating. In one language (maybe Australian aboriginal) they only numbers they have are 1, 2 and 3. after that it's just "many".
In French they pretty much stop counting after 60, then they start adding and multiplying. 92 For instance is 'quatre-vingt-douze' (four-twenty-twelve).
In French they pretty much stop counting after 60, then they start adding and multiplying. 92 For instance is 'quatre-vingt-douze' (four-twenty-twelve).
Sacre blue! It will be interesting to see if the French are able to artificily preserve their language or whether the inroads english is making is unstopable. Methinks the later forsooth!
When the English tongue we speak, Why is “break” not rhymed with “freak”? Will you tell me why it’s not true We say “sew” but likewise “few”; And the maker of a verse Cannot cap his “horse” with “worse”? “Beard” sounds not the same as “heard”; Cow is “cow”, but low is “low”; “Shoe” is never rhymed with “foe”. Think of “hose” and “dose” and “lose”; Think of “comb” and “tomb” and “bomb”; “Doll” and “roll” and “home” and “some”. And since “pay” is rhymed with “say”, Why not “paid” with “said,” I pray? We have “blood” and “food” and “good”; “Mould” is not pronounced like “could” Wherefore “done” but “gone” and “lone”? Is there any reason known?
And in short, it seems to me, Sounds and letters disagree!
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
real01
Male
Logged
