Ingglish speling reform?

[The Saint]

That paragraph looks like my spelling when I used to drunk text people

[Brillnuck]

It looks more Dutch than English.

I don't think English needs a spelling reform. There's a lot of other types of English though. (ie:British English, American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc)

Why do people keep saying that? It doesn't look anything like Dutch.

I don't know why. It just looks like it. Another language it looks like is Scots.

I know it isn't Dutch, but it just looks similar.

[Phocidaea]

Not phonetically please!
Reform sure, but do not do this. Also, something smells like Newspeak. Just saying.

English could use being spelled more akin to German, but Dutch does not into English. Dutch is just... No.

Inglisj dassent loek verrie wel wif(wie doont hef jor stoepid "th"-sound) Nedderlends spelling, Ai egrie./Van Gaaliaans

Nederlands op zichzelf ziet er echter stukken beter uit dan gewoon Engels, als je het mij vraagt; maar het lijkt mij hoe dan ook beter als jullie Engelssprekenden gewoon zelf een systeem bedenken, in plaats van hem van een andere taal te pikken. Of jullie houden de oude gewoon... Ja, dat is waarschijnlijk nog de beste optie, maar dan wel met de Nederlandse "oe"

Ző ríl szalúsin isz tu ték ő pégy fröm ző Höngerijön plébük end vrájt inglis lájk zisz.

[Conscentia]

Inglisj dassent loek verrie wel wif(wie doont hef jor stoepid "th"-sound) Nedderlends spelling, Ai egrie./Van Gaaliaans
Nederlands op zichzelf ziet er echter stukken beter uit dan gewoon Engels, als je het mij vraagt; maar het lijkt mij hoe dan ook beter als jullie Engelssprekenden gewoon zelf een systeem bedenken, in plaats van hem van een andere taal te pikken. Of jullie houden de oude gewoon... Ja, dat is waarschijnlijk nog de beste optie, maar dan wel met de Nederlandse "oe"

Ző ríl szalúsin isz tu ték ő pégy fröm ző Höngerijön plébük end vrájt inglis lájk zisz.

What?

[Conscentia]

Why do people keep saying that? It doesn't look anything like Dutch.

I don't know why. It just looks like it. Another language it looks like is Scots.

I know it isn't Dutch, but it just looks similar.

It looks neither similar to Dutch nor Scots.

[Constaniana]

What a stupid idea. English is wonderful as it is.

[Pandeeria]

I see you're a language utilitarian.

Why not just get on the Newspeak band wagon now?

[Brillnuck]

English could use being spelled more akin to German, but Dutch does not into English. Dutch is just... No.

If you went back before the Normans invaded England, you would have found that they would have spoke Old English, which was similar to German. English is still similar to German (some words), but English is also similar to French.

I don't know why. It just looks like it. Another language it looks like is Scots.

I know it isn't Dutch, but it just looks similar.

It looks neither similar to Dutch nor Scots.

I know.
I have read though it again, and it now apparently looks like someone isn't using proper grammar. IT looks more chav (I mean the OP) than English.

[Hasila]

Why do you lot keep saying it looks like Dutch? It's not Dutch nor does it even look like Dutch.

[Fvaarniimar]

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.

[Vyvland]

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.

The trouble with this, apart from it being way over and above what is needed to achieve vague consistency in English spelling, is that 'which' and 'one' don't have the same vowel sound for many English speakers, instead being [ʍ] (voiceless) and [w] (voiced) respectively. In addition, double consonants serve a real purpose in most cases (although their use isn't entirely consistent) - to shorten the preceding vowel sound (think latter vs. later). You don't have to do away with this to achieve consistent spelling - Dutch has it, for example.

[Cymrea]

English could use being spelled more akin to German, but Dutch does not into English. Dutch is just... No.

If you went back before the Normans invaded England, you would have found that they would have spoke Old English, which was similar to German. English is still similar to German (some words), but English is also similar to French.

It looks neither similar to Dutch nor Scots.

I know.
I have read though it again, and it now apparently looks like someone isn't using proper grammar. IT looks more chav (I mean the OP) than English.

English, Anglish, Saxonish...it's all the same thing and all Germanic in origin. The French influence was introduced when William Plantagenet conquered England with his army (and self) from Normandy, in France. English was seen as a mongrel language and many did what they could to class it up a bit. There is a similar Italian influence on the language during the Renaissance and periods of particular puissance in the Vatican. English as a language is a sponge...or South Park Trapper Keeper. It absorbs, sometimes modifies, and repurposes or repeats what it finds socially influential.

For those too clueless to have picked up the clear and repeated premise here, it's that writing phonetically instead of grammatically can be a way to help people who are struggling to learn one of the most colloquial languages in the world, while at the same time native English (or American) speakers can still understand what is being said.

Given the lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts and even here on NS, spelling phonetically shouldn't be that big of a stretch. And many of you puffing out your chest and shitposting internet gibberish are frequently guilty of grammatical facepalms yourselves. Try not to be too damned smug, eh?

[Vyvland]

If you went back before the Normans invaded England, you would have found that they would have spoke Old English, which was similar to German. English is still similar to German (some words), but English is also similar to French.




I know.
I have read though it again, and it now apparently looks like someone isn't using proper grammar. IT looks more chav (I mean the OP) than English.

English, Anglish, Saxonish...it's all the same thing and all Germanic in origin. The French influence was introduced when William Plantagenet conquered England with his army (and self) from Normandy, in France. English was seen as a mongrel language and many did what they could to class it up a bit. There is a similar Italian influence on the language during the Renaissance and periods of particular puissance in the Vatican. English as a language is a sponge...or South Park Trapper Keeper. It absorbs, sometimes modifies, and repurposes or repeats what it finds socially influential.

All languages do this.

one of the most colloquial languages in the world

There are languages where the written form is totally different from how it's spoken by most people, so English could hardly be called particularly 'colloquial', if that's what you mean by the word.

Given the lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts and even here on NS, spelling phonetically shouldn't be that big of a stretch. And many of you puffing out your chest and shitposting internet gibberish are frequently guilty of grammatical facepalms yourselves. Try not to be too damned smug, eh?

Smug? Them?

This is coming from someone who appears to be incredibly smug in decrying what you see as improper English usage. Even if textspeak was still used by a lot of people, it's actually a really nice way to shorten a language; there are also studies (like this one) that show that 'lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts' has no correlation with lacking intelligence and may even show better subconscious grammatical/phonological knowledge.

[Condunum]

Yeah, English needs a spelling reform. It's present day existence is an ugly conglomeration of basically every germanic and frankish tribe that ever entered the islands, tortured by time, and quite frankly even though it's my most fluent language it's the one that confuses me the most. Plus nearly half of the dictionary is loan words...

[Brillnuck]

If you went back before the Normans invaded England, you would have found that they would have spoke Old English, which was similar to German. English is still similar to German (some words), but English is also similar to French.




I know.
I have read though it again, and it now apparently looks like someone isn't using proper grammar. IT looks more chav (I mean the OP) than English.

English, Anglish, Saxonish...it's all the same thing and all Germanic in origin. The French influence was introduced when William Plantagenet conquered England with his army (and self) from Normandy, in France. English was seen as a mongrel language and many did what they could to class it up a bit. There is a similar Italian influence on the language during the Renaissance and periods of particular puissance in the Vatican. English as a language is a sponge...or South Park Trapper Keeper. It absorbs, sometimes modifies, and repurposes or repeats what it finds socially influential.

For those too clueless to have picked up the clear and repeated premise here, it's that writing phonetically instead of grammatically can be a way to help people who are struggling to learn one of the most colloquial languages in the world, while at the same time native English (or American) speakers can still understand what is being said.

Given the lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts and even here on NS, spelling phonetically shouldn't be that big of a stretch. And many of you puffing out your chest and shitposting internet gibberish are frequently guilty of grammatical facepalms yourselves. Try not to be too damned smug, eh?

Just asking, but is it possible for English to be a creole?

[Vyvland]

English, Anglish, Saxonish...it's all the same thing and all Germanic in origin. The French influence was introduced when William Plantagenet conquered England with his army (and self) from Normandy, in France. English was seen as a mongrel language and many did what they could to class it up a bit. There is a similar Italian influence on the language during the Renaissance and periods of particular puissance in the Vatican. English as a language is a sponge...or South Park Trapper Keeper. It absorbs, sometimes modifies, and repurposes or repeats what it finds socially influential.

For those too clueless to have picked up the clear and repeated premise here, it's that writing phonetically instead of grammatically can be a way to help people who are struggling to learn one of the most colloquial languages in the world, while at the same time native English (or American) speakers can still understand what is being said.

Given the lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts and even here on NS, spelling phonetically shouldn't be that big of a stretch. And many of you puffing out your chest and shitposting internet gibberish are frequently guilty of grammatical facepalms yourselves. Try not to be too damned smug, eh?

Just asking, but is it possible for English to be a creole?

No; English didn't form in that way as it wasn't spoken by disparate groups of people trying to communicate with one another with no common language. It's been learnt as a first language by a lot of people since it split from continental West Germanic dialects. The grammar of English is also non-creole like. Interesting question though.

[Cymrea]

Just asking, but is it possible for English to be a creole?

As in a mix of languages? Or as in culturally?

There's many folks in Hawai'i that speak a pidgin form of English, Quebecois sometimes speak what Anglophones call Frenglish, there's Spanglish in California and Florida; but I think as far as English goes, it annexes other languages and dialects rather than blending. English doesn't seem to allow for much competition in that regard. But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

[Brillnuck]

Just asking, but is it possible for English to be a creole?

As in a mix of languages? Or as in culturally?

There's many folks in Hawai'i that speak a pidgin form of English, Quebecois sometimes speak what Anglophones call Frenglish, there's Spanglish in California and Florida; but I think as far as English goes, it annexes other languages and dialects rather than blending. English doesn't seem to allow for much competition in that regard. But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

A mix of languages.
I think Middle English could be a creole.

[Vyvland]

But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

good - best
bad - worst
old - oldest/eldest
happy - happiest
common - commonest/most common
influential - most influential

Nope.

[Olivaero]

If you don't like English, why not learn a language that you think is easier and try and encourage other people to learn it too? Because I've gotta say English spelling reform is a lot of hassle for not much gain in the eyes of the native English speakers. Which is why it will never happen. When you've spent nearly your entire life speaking a language why would you voluntarily make part of your skill set Ie. Speaking regular non utilitarian English completely redundant?

[Cymrea]

one of the most colloquial languages in the world

There are languages where the written form is totally different from how it's spoken by most people, so English could hardly be called particularly 'colloquial', if that's what you mean by the word.

By colloquial, I mean where a phrase is used to mean something completely different than it's literal meaning. Like, "My uncle kicked the bucket last week."

This is coming from someone who appears to be incredibly smug in decrying what you see as improper English usage. Even if textspeak was still used by a lot of people, it's actually a really nice way to shorten a language; there are also studies (like this one) that show that 'lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts' has no correlation with lacking intelligence and may even show better subconscious grammatical/phonological knowledge.

Yep. Fair enough. I do indeed have an aversion to what looks like the degeneration of English usage when numbers and individual letters are used in place of whole words. And I get that this is completely contrary to my advocating anything that helps non-English speakers communicate more easily. But I find it difficult to see text shorthand as anything but lazy. If they're honest, most of those that do will agree: it's wholly a matter of convenience, not a lack of intelligence.

[Cymrea]

But then, English is a language of conquest. The superlative forms tend to have violent overtones - a phenomenon amply demonstrated in sports broadcasting where defeating an opponent is likened to battle and conquest.

good - best
bad - worst
old - oldest/eldest
happy - happiest
common - commonest/most common
influential - most influential

Nope.

We defeated our opponent by a considerable margin - We totally slaughtered those guys!
I have a tremendous headache - Ugh, my brain is going to explode!
He is doing very well on stage - Dude, he's killing it up there!

Yep.

[Conscentia]

good - best
bad - worst
old - oldest/eldest
happy - happiest
common - commonest/most common
influential - most influential

Nope.

We defeated our opponent by a considerable margin - We totally slaughtered those guys!
I have a tremendous headache - Ugh, my brain is going to explode!
He is doing very well on stage - Dude, he's killing it up there!

Yep.

You think it's different in other languages?

The French for lol is mdr - mort de rire - died of laughter.

[Vyvland]

There are languages where the written form is totally different from how it's spoken by most people, so English could hardly be called particularly 'colloquial', if that's what you mean by the word.

By colloquial, I mean where a phrase is used to mean something completely different than it's literal meaning. Like, "My uncle kicked the bucket last week."

That phenomenon is also by no means particularly unique to English; metaphorical and idiomatic constructions are found in all languages.

This is coming from someone who appears to be incredibly smug in decrying what you see as improper English usage. Even if textspeak was still used by a lot of people, it's actually a really nice way to shorten a language; there are also studies (like this one) that show that 'lazy mush-minded crap people are using in texts' has no correlation with lacking intelligence and may even show better subconscious grammatical/phonological knowledge.

Yep. Fair enough. I do indeed have an aversion to what looks like the degeneration of English usage when numbers and individual letters are used in place of whole words. And I get that this is completely contrary to my advocating anything that helps non-English speakers communicate more easily. But I find it difficult to see text shorthand as anything but lazy. If they're honest, most of those that do will agree: it's wholly a matter of convenience, not a lack of intelligence. [/quote]
Yeah; it is a matter of convenience. But convenience is so core to language use that it can't be confined to textspeak.

good - best
bad - worst
old - oldest/eldest
happy - happiest
common - commonest/most common
influential - most influential

Nope.

We defeated our opponent by a considerable margin - We totally slaughtered those guys!
I have a tremendous headache - Ugh, my brain is going to explode!
He is doing very well on stage - Dude, he's killing it up there!

Yep.

Those aren't superlatives. In any case, violent metaphors and hyperbole are common to many languages because they're so effective at communicating a point, and I wouldn't say they're particularly prevalent in English or any other language that has pushed out other languages or been used by prolific conquerors.

[Cymrea]

You think it's different in other languages?

The French for lol is mdr - mort de rire - died of laughter.

I don't know if it's different in other languages, and I never stated such. Nor did I say English was the only language to have violent connotations in its expressions.