English: A Broken Language?

[Aillyria]

English is my L1 and I absolutely love it. English as a language has an interesting history, and is one of the most expressive languages in the world. The common misconceptions about our language being broken or being illogical are incredibly false, and is due to an ignorance of its complex evolution. English spelling conventions are actually more or less predictable if you have studied the history.

This shouldn't be a requirement for a writing system that you use on a daily basis. Everyone who can speak the language should be able to pick up a pen and start writing without having to worry about spelling conventions from the 15th century.
English orthography has been butchered and stitched up again countless times, most of the time by incompetent quacks who had no idea what they were doing. Take for example the spellings of "island", or of "debt".
Both those words had silent letters inserted at some point in history, which were supposed to show their etymology. But there was no such etymology. "Island" does not descend from "insula". It is also not related to "isle". The S has absolutely no place in the word. There are countless cognates of the word in the other Germanic languages, and guess what: None of them contains the letter S.
It is almost just as bad with "debt". The "b" in that word had been lost for centuries, ever since the times of Old French. No other letters from the Latin root, "dēbitum", were inserted, so why the B? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I should not have to put in the extra effort of memorizing the errors of poets and scholars that have been dead for hundreds of years.

Eh, it's part of the language's character and charm. If someone can't be bothered to learn a language's quirks, they have no business learning it in the first place. Every single language, without fail has inconsistencies. The spoken form will always outpace the written form, since speech is the living and breathing aspect of the language constantly changing with the people who speak it. In my opinion, written French is much more confusing than written English, but guess what? Even French spelling is ultimately predictable.

[East Angria]

Eh, it's part of the language's character and charm. If someone can't be bothered to learn a language's quirks, they have no business learning it in the first place. Every single language, without fail has inconsistencies. The spoken form will always outpace the written form, since speech is the living and breathing aspect of the language constantly changing with the people who speak it. In my opinion, written French is much more confusing than written English, but guess what? Even French spelling is ultimately predictable.

The problem is that English orthography consists almost exclusively of quirks instead of regularities. Its writing used to be a total Free-For-All that at some point was shock-frozen into a set of prescriptive rules.
It would be close to phonetic if you were still speaking Early Modern English prior to the Great Vowel Shift. Just like you said, languages change over time. So why don't writing systems change? The easiest and flattest orthographies among the world's major languages are one or two centuries old. Take for example Finnish or Turkish. You have an almost perfect grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence in these systems, meaning that any one sound of the spoken language is represented by exactly one letter in the written form. English can't have this for the simple reasons of blockheadedness and desperate clinging to tradition.

I have to agree with you on French though. I heared one of my professors, who is fluent in French, claim that written and spoken French are in fact two seperate languages. There are inflections in the written language that haven't taken place in spoken French for hundreds of years.

[Aillyria]

Eh, it's part of the language's character and charm. If someone can't be bothered to learn a language's quirks, they have no business learning it in the first place. Every single language, without fail has inconsistencies. The spoken form will always outpace the written form, since speech is the living and breathing aspect of the language constantly changing with the people who speak it. In my opinion, written French is much more confusing than written English, but guess what? Even French spelling is ultimately predictable.

The problem is that English orthography consists almost exclusively of quirks instead of regularities. Its writing used to be a total Free-For-All that at some point was shock-frozen into a set of prescriptive rules.
It would be close to phonetic if you were still speaking Early Modern English prior to the Great Vowel Shift. Just like you said, languages change over time. So why don't writing systems change? The easiest and flattest orthographies among the world's major languages are one or two centuries old. Take for example Finnish or Turkish. You have an almost perfect grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence in these systems, meaning that any one sound of the spoken language is represented by exactly one letter in the written form. English can't have this for the simple reasons of blockheadedness and desperate clinging to tradition.

I have to agree with you on French though. I heared one of my professors, who is fluent in French, claim that written and spoken French are in fact two seperate languages. There are inflections in the written language that haven't taken place in spoken French for hundreds of years.

The thing is for both English and French, changing the orthographies would cause more harm and confusion than they would fix. Both languages have a vast array of homophones to accommodate, so their seemingly useless archaic spelling serves to distinguish them in writing. Some languages have subtle enough changes in their history that their written forms can be reformed pretty easily, like with Portuguese in Brazil and in Germany with Standard German (Hochdeutsch).

[Minoa]

There are cases where English can catch some people off guard, such as the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" sentence.

There was also a case in India where a legal judgement had to be re-drafted because there was too much prose. No wonder why some are sceptical of the judiciary.

[Aillyria]

There are cases where English can catch some people off guard, such as the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" sentence.

There was also a case in India where a legal judgement had to be re-drafted because there was too much prose. No wonder why some are sceptical of the judiciary.

No one would use that many "hads" together that is completely unintelligible to me. Beyond two "hads" the sentence makes no further aspect or tense distinctions.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I like how many of the words we borrow have their own history of where we borrowed them of the mixture of different groups of people throughout history.
The Etymology of some words is fascinating.

There are cases where English can catch some people off guard, such as the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" sentence.

Is this a legit sentence or are you doing the ol bamboozle?

Cos right now i'm leanin toward the ol bamboozle.

[East Angria]

The thing is for both English and French, changing the orthographies would cause more harm and confusion than they would fix. Both languages have a vast array of homophones to accommodate, so their seemingly useless archaic spelling serves to distinguish them in writing. Some languages have subtle enough changes in their history that their written forms can be reformed pretty easily, like with Portuguese in Brazil and in Germany with Standard German (Hochdeutsch).

You can distinguish homophones in speech easily, so why do you need multiple separate spellings for them? Add little superscript numbers if it's really that difficult. Finnish has a much smaller phoneme inventory than English, hence they probably have more homophones, but they get by with phonetic spelling just fine.
Standard German is an artificial language that was engineered for communication on a national level. Its design includes leveling and standardization of various High German dialectal features.
It has only been used for spoken communication for 200 years or so, and is already showing signs of diverging from the orthography. That's why we've had so many orthographic reforms over the last century.
It is also fundamentally flawed. It doesn't have enough letters to account for all the phonemes, which means we have to use diphthongs and even triphthongs for frequent sounds. It also has some quirks and etymological spellings that don't make much sense. And worst of all, it has no regular way of marking vowel length, which is one of the key features of German phonology.

[Arvanon and Vortes]

Nah.

There is also lots of incorrect usage like internet slang

"lolz" "gg ez" "ttyl" and so on...

That's just evolution, mate. You'll survive.

[Pasong Tirad]

There is also lots of incorrect usage like internet slang

"lolz" "gg ez" "ttyl" and so on...

That's just evolution, mate. You'll survive.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. Unironically use gaming speak in everyday language.

[Esternial]

I don't think you can really call any language broken.

I'd compare it to many European cities. There's no grid when you look at the street map. It just evolved from a small town to a large city, gradually growing and developing without much planning. Sure, it can be very confusing if you compare it to "planned" cities and insanely frustrating if they've implemented some kind of mobility plan with a shitton of one-way streets.

However, it can also be rather charming.

[Atsvea]

That's just evolution, mate. You'll survive.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. Unironically use gaming speak in everyday language.

It's the new meta.

[The Federation of Kendor]

What I think?

Someone who has been posting shit threads all day (PrayToShinji, not you, Kat <3) does not deserve such a long post as a response.

Beyond that, yes, it is broken. A Dutchman with a grudge has said so

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chaos

PrayToShinji. You mean threads like that Persona 5 meme on F7 (I know that this was posted many hours ago. Just commenting by the way)

Anyway, I think English is a great language. It's universal and while I still have problems with it, like with the grammar, it's relatively simple to learn, compared to complex languages like Chinese, Japanese, or Arabian.

[Minoa]

I like how many of the words we borrow have their own history of where we borrowed them of the mixture of different groups of people throughout history.
The Etymology of some words is fascinating.

There are cases where English can catch some people off guard, such as the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" sentence.

Is this a legit sentence or are you doing the ol bamboozle?

Cos right now i'm leanin toward the ol bamboozle.

It is real, albeit leaning towards boundary testing scenarios.

[Risottia]

That is, they use broken English. English most definitely isn't my favourite language, but watching it being turned into gibberish just fills me with an unbearable sadness.

It's pretty hard for me as well. I know I tend to typo (and then correct) on here, but after a while grading I will see something misspelled so many times I have to check the dictionary to make sure that *I* am not the one who's wrong.
...

Same here. Plus, I'm not a native speaker (English isn't even my second language), so making sense of broken English is even harder for me.

[The Two Jerseys]

Every native anglophone that has learned a second language realizes that English are just dumb, if the English didn't sailed around enslaving everyone forcing their language the global language wouldn't be English hence I'd never needed to learn them, Spanish and French are so much better.

English doesn't have to worry about using the masculine/feminine form of "the" or the formal/informal form of "you", therefore is infinitely superior.

Expression in the English language is pretty limited compared to other languages,

Gonna need some proof of that, chief...

[Aellex]

I have to agree with you on French though. I heared one of my professors, who is fluent in French, claim that written and spoken French are in fact two seperate languages. There are inflections in the written language that haven't taken place in spoken French for hundreds of years.

First part is true to some extent as there are a lot of tenses and formulations we use in the written form we do not in the oral one and reciprocally (at least for the formulation bit).
The second one, however, is utterly wrong.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

To this day, I am still amazed that despite the western world's obsession with Japanese TV, Japanese comics, Japanese video games and Japanese music, Japan still takes the initiative to learn our language, instead of telling us to learn theirs. It almost feels too good to be true.

I don't know who to believe on which language is harder to learn (obviously having grown up with one of them, I can't speak for comparison, and even those who learned each as a second language might not necessarily respond genuinely if asked) but I hope English is easier to learn, not just because I'm considering being one of the ones to teach it, but because I'd hate to think Japan is just being so accommodating as to do something more difficult for them than learning Japanese might have been for us.

[Sovaal]

I can't stand the English language. It's illogical, poorly devised (being, essentially, a cross between French and German) and has no soul or flavour to it... the linguistic equivalent of flour and water.

I've always preferred other languages.

It's no more illogical as a spoken language then any other one is. As for "soul", that may just be due to over exposrue to the language. I'm sure that if Spanish was the dominant language you would think the same.

[Sovaal]

To this day, I am still amazed that despite the western world's obsession with Japanese TV, Japanese comics, Japanese video games and Japanese music, Japan still takes the initiative to learn our language, instead of telling us to learn theirs. It almost feels too good to be true.

I don't know who to believe on which language is harder to learn (obviously having grown up with one of them, I can't speak for comparison, and even those who learned each as a second language might not necessarily respond genuinely if asked) but I hope English is easier to learn, not just because I'm considering being one of the ones to teach it, but because I'd hate to think Japan is just being so accommodating as to do something more difficult for them than learning Japanese might have been for us.

I mean, Japanese is largely only spoken on the home islands, while many of the most wide spoken languages in the world(as in both population and area) are Western in origin.

[Khasinkonia]

Every native anglophone that has learned a second language realizes that English are just dumb, if the English didn't sailed around enslaving everyone forcing their language the global language wouldn't be English hence I'd never needed to learn them, Spanish and French are so much better.

English doesn't have to worry about using the masculine/feminine form of "the" or the formal/informal form of "you", therefore is infinitely superior.

Expression in the English language is pretty limited compared to other languages,

Gonna need some proof of that, chief...

I may be a bit biased against English but I have to say I prefer to speak in French when I’ve got the right vocabulary than in English.

By the same logic as to your opinion as to why English is superior to French and Spanish, one could say Mandarin is superior to English for lacking verb declensions entirely, though it does have a formal “you.”

I have to say I have mixed feelings on the gender system of the Romance languages. In Latin, I like it since it builds in another level of specificity that can sometimes be overlooked by English, and in some cases, for French, it can be very useful. All I can say there is I miss the neuter. I’d much prefer if English were either more analytical or less analytical.

Going on to just talk about English, in their current form, English verbal declensions are rarely, if ever, useful, and I’d prefer them to either just go away or for them to become useful enough to where we wouldn’t need to use pronouns as subjects except for emphasis.

In spoken English, at least where I am, different articles and differentiation between pronouns are both becoming distinct in speech. A and the as articles sort of fused in many situations with a and the both just sounding like ‘uh’, with the sometimes having just a bit more stress placed on it, exceptions being mostly where someone is using the for emphasis.

And for he vs she, a decent number of people where I live have just started dropping the initial consonants, with both sounding either like ‘e or ye. Y’all instead of you as 2nd person plural is probably my favourite change to spoken, and sometimes written English, that’s more widespread. And if one of y’all is thinking: “That doesn’t sound like any specific dialect of English” it’s mostly just something some of my relatives, friends, and I do. I like it though, since it simplifies the speech a lot.

[Katganistan]

Every native anglophone that has learned a second language realizes that English are just dumb, if the English didn't sailed around enslaving everyone forcing their language the global language wouldn't be English hence I'd never needed to learn them, Spanish and French are so much better.

Funny, I've studied French and Italian and while both have their charms, I don't think English is dumb.

And let's not go pointing fingers about world conquest shall we?

[Katganistan]

Every native anglophone that has learned a second language realizes that English are just dumb, if the English didn't sailed around enslaving everyone forcing their language the global language wouldn't be English hence I'd never needed to learn them, Spanish and French are so much better.

Yeah...no.

English is my L1 and I absolutely love it. English as a language has an interesting history, and is one of the most expressive languages in the world. The common misconceptions about our language being broken or being illogical are incredibly false, and is due to an ignorance of its complex evolution. English spelling conventions are actually more or less predictable if you have studied the history.

And honestly, the spelling irregularities come from the fact that it's absorbed so many other languages into it.

But other languages -- like Spanish -- also have their quirks when dealing with words absorbed from other languages. For instance: in Spain, the humble peanut is el cacahuate. In parts of Latin America, it's el mani. In Mexico, tomato is jitomate, while in Spain it's el tomate. In other words, there are words that Spanish absorbed in the new world -- the natives' words for things -- that are different from the Spanish word Europeans use.

No one seems much fussed nor confused about there being completely different words for the same thing, though.

And Spanish also absorbed a good bit of Arabic and Arab culture -- algodon is clearly quite close to قُطْن (cutton is what it sounds like), and ojalá from law sha'a Allah.

These influences don't take away from the beauty of the language -- it tells a great deal about the history and cultures that helped them evolve.

[Sovaal]

Yeah...no.

English is my L1 and I absolutely love it. English as a language has an interesting history, and is one of the most expressive languages in the world. The common misconceptions about our language being broken or being illogical are incredibly false, and is due to an ignorance of its complex evolution. English spelling conventions are actually more or less predictable if you have studied the history.

And honestly, the spelling irregularities come from the fact that it's absorbed so many other languages into it.

But other languages -- like Spanish -- also have their quirks when dealing with words absorbed from other languages. For instance: in Spain, the humble peanut is el cacahuate. In parts of Latin America, it's el mani. In Mexico, tomato is jitomate, while in Spain it's el tomate. In other words, there are words that Spanish absorbed in the new world -- the natives' words for things -- that are different from the Spanish word Europeans use.

No one seems much fussed nor confused about there being completely different words for the same thing, though.

And Spanish also absorbed a good bit of Arabic and Arab culture -- algodon is clearly quite close to قُطْن (cutton is what it sounds like), and ojalá from law sha'a Allah.

These influences don't take away from the beauty of the language -- it tells a great deal about the history and cultures that helped them evolve.

If anything they add to it.

[Katganistan]

Eh, it's part of the language's character and charm. If someone can't be bothered to learn a language's quirks, they have no business learning it in the first place. Every single language, without fail has inconsistencies. The spoken form will always outpace the written form, since speech is the living and breathing aspect of the language constantly changing with the people who speak it. In my opinion, written French is much more confusing than written English, but guess what? Even French spelling is ultimately predictable.

I would add on that native speakers SHOULD be expected to know the foibles of the language and be able to speak, spell and read correctly, rather than revel in their ignorance and claim it's 'too hard' or 'it's broken, it's not my fault.'

No, being a poor native speaker shows either a lack of education (which is forgivable should they seek to correct that lack), a learning disability (which still has ways to overcome) -- or an abominable laziness, which absolutely is not.

[Katganistan]

I like how many of the words we borrow have their own history of where we borrowed them of the mixture of different groups of people throughout history.
The Etymology of some words is fascinating.

There are cases where English can catch some people off guard, such as the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher" sentence.

Is this a legit sentence or are you doing the ol bamboozle?

Cos right now i'm leanin toward the ol bamboozle.

I've never heard that sentence, or anything like it, before. I had had some interesting experiences in the language previously, but nothing like that.