english is awkward

[*V Guyver]

Plus, if you take the syllable "dough", its vowel is similar or identical to that of the "do" in "donut."

I believe (but I'm not sure) the vowel is the Close-mid back rounded vowel, but I'm not all too sure.

But yes, donut is a shortening of doughnut, seeing as the two can be decidedly pronounced similarly.

Precisely! You people may not realise it, but all languages go through this phrase, it's how a language evolves. In this case, we have two opposing rules of written language evolution. Words that should be spelled/pronounced differently to simplify it so that the language becomes more viable. And the other is the preservation of the standard rules in order to prevent a decay of the language. Sounds weird, I know.

Well lets take into account how some words, despite their spelling, need to have a variation in spelling to avoid confusion. Such as Two, to, and too. Try to switch them around in sentences, and you'd get confused. So they should remain. But at the same time, you can have a word like Night, simply changed to "Nite" because there really is no need for an g and an h in there. It's needless spelling. Yet, when you talk about a Knight, though sounding the same as nite/night, it's still needed to different in a written language. So a compromise would usually come down the road for that word some hundred years later. I can imagine the word night become "nite" and the word Knight become "knite" still the same pronunciation, still the same same rules but simplified for generation to come.

Just apply the same thing to "tonight" and you can continue on. To people who prefer an unchanged system, they would view this as chaotic and lazy, but to people newly introduced to the language, children, and some spelling scholars, it makes perfect sense to change the words in the manner above.

Do note, this is totally different from IM and txt. Though a good deal of that could be viewed as the same thing, most of the changes were done as a time saver, and doesn't really simplify. On the other hand though... it's a true showcasing of how new languages are formed.

[*Jess♥]

i'm disagreeing again.

this time, I want to bring up the issue of word origins and etymlogy.

let's look at night. then consider the word nigh. seeing the spelling of a word, let's you know roughly where it's come from and what it is related to.

when a word comes from a different language originally, if you can see the spelling you can recognise the word as coming from that other language and it can help in learning new words by decoding it according to spelling and other word relations.

if a person knows the word 'recognise' and comes across a new word 'cognisant' and nobody tells them exactly what it means, they can actually link it to 'recognise', but if you start changing spelling of words, you lose that.

-------------

base: reactions

stem: reaction (s)

root: (re) act (ion) (s)

a possible simplification of reactions, could be reaxunz. a bit skewed but it serves the purpose.

how do you understand the root of the word? by looking at it, you might think of 'axe'? how do people start making links in the language?

I do this form of word breakdown a lot, and is how i understand a lot of the new words that i learn. and i mean truly understand, which is different from remembering the dictionary definition.

so many people in the world are illiterate and i don't see how messing with the spelling of words would help literacy.

p.s. yeah i know this has happened a lot in many languages, english included. who knows if it will happen more. these things occur naturally over time. I see no sense in forcing it though, i only see confusion occurring.

[durendal]

Although it may not be my place to judge people on how they spell, but I absolutely hate wrong spelling and grammar. On a casual conversation like this, I may be tolerant but on formal conversation I absolutely abhore it. Sure changing light into lite are acceptable vernacular to other people, but not for me. I have a full set of keyboard and I intend to fully utilize it. Using laziness or ease to spell words are absolutely unforgiveable. This is usually the start of degradation. It may be logical to understand why people who have english as their second language are better at speaking them, mainly because they learn the language with a solid foundation using the most correct terms, spelling and grammar. Colloquial terms or "slang" are usually learned later when they already have a firmer grasp of the language. Instant Messaging and Text Message adds to the degradation of the language. With the current trend of how younglings speak, I fear the day that no adult would be able to spell correctly or use the correct grammar.

Again, I will not condem the incorrect usage of English while we are discussing things here mainly because we are speaking casually. xep wen u spik lyk dis, then that's a completely different matter. I am merely pointing out that correct English usage should always be used during formal conversation. Just imagine when you are in a job interview and you spell words using slang, what kind of impression do you think this will give the employers? Absolute unprofessionalism.

[Yamato381]

I've seen a very nasty reaction to people trying to simplify languages.

Simplified Chinese.

When they first introduced it, it was already confusing many people in China.

When they decided to modify and simplify characters again, nobody could pick up the language, and it was scrapped.

They're already planning on ways to revert to traditional.

And the whole reason behind not being able to recognize these new characters is simply because

1. Two slightly different characters meaning slightly different things became one.

2. They couldn't relate the pieces that make up a complex character to the character's meaning.

I don't believe a whole "simplification" of a language's writing/spelling (as in, removing bits and pieces so that it becomes shorter/easier to write) makes much sense.

And if you're going to simplify English into "a standard pronunciation language, where every letter corresponds to a certain sound", try simplifying words like axe. All of the letters "x" will likely be removed and replaced by ks or cks. Does this mean that we're going to lose letters like x and z? Plus, I know a great number of English-natives who can't tell the difference between "th", "f", and "v."

You'd end up losing: th (as "f"), z (as "s"), x (as "ks"), v (as "f"), ph (as "f"), c (as either "s" or "k"), q/qu (as "kiu/ku"), and possibly even t (as "d").

Also, variations in vowel sounds would then require NEW letters, which I can't quite imagine (pronunciation differences like between quart and apple, where the a would be modified).

Essentially we lose consonants and replace them with vowels, which I can't even imagine will look like, unless we take them from IPA, which would be ridiculous.

And besides, it's controversial to do such a thing, especially when multiple countries have a grand majority of speakers. Imagine your language sounded identical to a visiting country, but was written completely differently. It would look ridiculous!

[*Jess♥]

it's possible some of you haven't seen this, it's very thought provoking.

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 EuroEnglish (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 emthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like fotograf" 20 persent 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 enkorage 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.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru.

[durendal]

That sounds awfully familiar. Didn't I post that in some other thread? hehehe. I intended it to be humorous, who knew that it would be thought provoking.

[Yamato381]

Exactly my point.

If you're going to spell English that way you may as well use German because, hell, it sure LOOKS like German.

[durendal]

I do seem to notice that there are some language that rely on context to be able to express clearly. This is most true especially to cases where two words that sound exactly the same have different meanings. I guess these are most commonly found on Asian languages. Most often, this kind of conversation are used as gags for comedic effect on various medias. Perhaps this is also some of the reasons why English translators find it hard to translate certain dialogue that would keep the pun intended.

[durendal]

WHY ENGLISH IS HARD TO LEARN

We'll begin with box, the plural is boxes,

But the plural of ox is oxen, not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, and two are called geese,

Yet the plural of moose is never called meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a house full of mice;

But the plural of house is houses, not hice.

The plural of man is always men,

But the plural of pan is never pen.

If I speak of a foot, and you show me two feet,

And I give you a book, would a pair be a beek?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,

Why shouldn't two booths be called beeth?

If the singular's this and the plural is these,

Should the plural of kiss be ever called keese?

We speak of a brother and also of brethen,

But though we say mother, we never say methren,

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him;

But imagine the feminine....she, shis and shim!