Saecar Kalad

[Striagro Uspil]

Everyone.

Everyone where? Have a source?

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute list Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese and Korean as the hardest languages for an English speaker to learn, taking about 88 weeks or 2200 hours to learn.

[Nipponkyo]

Everyone where? Have a source?

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute list Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese and Korean as the hardest languages for an English speaker to learn, taking about 88 weeks or 2200 hours to learn.

So, they are the hardest languages for English speakers to learn. That doesn't refute my point at all.

[Farnhamia]

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute list Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese and Korean as the hardest languages for an English speaker to learn, taking about 88 weeks or 2200 hours to learn.

So, they are the hardest languages for English speakers to learn. That doesn't refute my point at all.

Which has what to do about English orthography?

[Nipponkyo]

So, they are the hardest languages for English speakers to learn. That doesn't refute my point at all.

Which has what to do about English orthography?

There is no need to get angry at me.

I merely made a comment earlier that stated: "Many Westerners don't appreciate how difficult of a language English really is to learn. It is very chaotic when compared to some other languages. If you grew up speaking English, or a language related to English, count yourself lucky, for the most useful language in the world has come easy to you."

Another user commented that English is not hard to learn because there are much harder languages. I asked for a source, the user did not provide one, but another user did which provided a list by the state department, which did not really have anything to do with my original point, which I pointed out in the post that made you angry.

[Farnhamia]

Which has what to do about English orthography?

There is no need to get angry at me.

I merely made a comment earlier that stated: "Many Westerners don't appreciate how difficult of a language English really is to learn. It is very chaotic when compared to some other languages. If you grew up speaking English, or a language related to English, count yourself lucky, for the most useful language in the world has come easy to you."

Another user commented that English is not hard to learn because there are much harder languages. I asked for a source, the user did not provide one, but another user did which provided a list by the state department, which did not really have anything to do with my original point, which I pointed out in the post that made you angry.

I'm not angry, I just wanted to make sure the thread stays on topic.

[Forsher]

And that I thought Saecar Kalad was a person is exactly why this is like ghoti and therefore nonsense.

"Caesar Salad"

It's a play on words.

I know what you were trying to do. The problem is that only ways you can pronounce Saecar Kalad in English require a hard c and K sound, which Caesar Salad does not feature.

Many Westerners don't appreciate how difficult of a language English really is to learn. It is very chaotic when compared to some other languages. If you grew up speaking English, or a language related to English, count yourself lucky, for the most useful language in the world has come easy to you.

I do. I can speak just enough German for every day life and German has way less nonsense, minus articles. And I know like 100 Spanish words. School really didn't stick.

Grammatical gender is the far greater crime against logical consistency than English orthography.

[Sordhau]

"Caesar Salad"

It's a play on words.

I know what you were trying to do. The problem is that only ways you can pronounce Saecar Kalad in English require a hard c and K sound, which Caesar Salad does not feature.

I think you misunderstood. The intention wasn't to fully replicate how the words are pronounced but with a different spelling.

[Ethel mermania]

There is no need to get angry at me.

I merely made a comment earlier that stated: "Many Westerners don't appreciate how difficult of a language English really is to learn. It is very chaotic when compared to some other languages. If you grew up speaking English, or a language related to English, count yourself lucky, for the most useful language in the world has come easy to you."

Another user commented that English is not hard to learn because there are much harder languages. I asked for a source, the user did not provide one, but another user did which provided a list by the state department, which did not really have anything to do with my original point, which I pointed out in the post that made you angry.

I'm not angry, I just wanted to make sure the thread stays on topic.

Is it time for soupy's fang joke?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

replacing c with s and k is the only good choice.

The the in the isn't even the same the as in the.

Duh.

Đuh.

english is a rather tough language. you can learn it through tough thorough thought, though.

I'm a native english speaker and even I had to read this twice.

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.dictionary.com/e/silent-letters-in-english/

We can do away with all the letters in English since they do not get pronounced. Except for V.

Vvvv vvv!

[Forsher]

replacing c with s and k is the only good choice.

Pray, tell, how would we spell "choice" in this brave new world?

I know what you were trying to do. The problem is that only ways you can pronounce Saecar Kalad in English require a hard c and K sound, which Caesar Salad does not feature.

I think you misunderstood. The intention wasn't to fully replicate how the words are pronounced but with a different spelling.

But your joke requires that Saecar Kalad looks like Caesar Salad. Which it does not.

[Sordhau]

replacing c with s and k is the only good choice.

Pray, tell, how would we spell "choice" in this brave new world?

I think you misunderstood. The intention wasn't to fully replicate how the words are pronounced but with a different spelling.

But your joke requires that Saecar Kalad looks like Caesar Salad. Which it does not.

Evidently it does considering you were able to figure out it was "Caesar Salad" on your own.

[Forsher]

Evidently it does considering you were able to figure out it was "Caesar Salad" on your own.

But I didn't. I had to click into the thread and read the OP to learn that. Your OP basically explains the joke.

[Katganistan]

Ah, the English language. It's just horrible, isn't it? Yes, that's right reader, it's Sordhau back again with another thread to discuss the intricacies of how utterly redundant and idiotic the English language is and how it frankly should be fixed. This time we're paying extra special attention to three little letters in close relation to one another: S, C, and K.

We all know the sounds they make. S makes the S sound, K makes the K sound, but C... C makes both. Now if there was ever anything in the English language that didn't make a lick of sense, it'd be that. Why the ever-loving fuck do we have a letter that exists purely to replicate the sound of two other letters? Why not just use those letters? Because English is stupid. It is a stupid, horrible language. Once again I will blame the Normans. Is it their fault? Probably not, but I need somebody to blame and the Normans are all dead anyway so fuck 'em. They get to be the scapegoats. Screw you, Billy the Bastard. Go back to Rouen ya French viking.

Perhaps the dumbest part of this whole ordeal, though, is that S shouldn't even be mixed up in this nonsense in the first place. Why? Because as Romaboos, Latin speakers, and anyone whose played Fallout: New Vegas will tell you: the letter 'C' in the original Latin makes the 'K' sound. Yes, that's right, billions of people have been pronouncing "Caesar", "century", etc. wrong this whole time. Romulus weeps as he spins in his grave. The Greek "Herakles" thus becomes the Latin "Hercules", and so on and so forth. To make things worse the letter 'K' is actually an import into English that did not come with the original introduction of the Latin alphabet. The Anglo-Saxons, already using 'C' to represent the 'K' sound, were wise enough to look down upon the letter K and it's redundancy - mocking the Greeks and their inferior symbols (Greek alphabet is actually way cooler tbh) and rejecting the heretical implications of the letter K. But at some point in time this changed; don't ask me when, or why, or how because all I'm gonna do is blame the Normans again. Yes, it's probably not their fault--the French, after all, don't use the letter 'K' either--but I need *someone* to blame damn it! And the Normans suck anyway, nobody likes them. Bunch of Value Brand viking LARPers smdh.

All this just begs the question(s) of why C can make an 'S' sound and why K was brought into English when the 'K' sound was already represented by the letter C. Truthfully, though, I don't particularly care for the answers to those questions. It doesn't matter how the arrow was lodged into your knee, ending your adventuring career for good in the process. What matters is that if you intend to pursue your secondary dream of being a city guardsman you must have it surgically removed! And so it is with this confounding conundrum that is the English language that the cancerous tumors riddling it's lexicon, orthography, alphabet, and other big words I forgot the meaning of and am too lazy to look up in the dictionary must be surgically removed! The question therefor is how to best go about it? Removing C seems to be the most straight-forward process. However, the letter C is also much more aesthetically pleasing than K so maybe we should ditch K and drop the 'S' sound for C instead? What say ye, NSG? How shall we fix the disgusting English language before it ushers in the ruin of human civilization as we know it?

Learn it, and its history, instead of bitching it's too hard. There is a reason it is the language of air traffic control worldwide.

Try learning a language that if you don't accurately reproduce the tone associated with the word, you've just said something completely different and possibly offensive.

[Finalis]

never in my life have i seen such a non-issue

[-Astoria-]

never in my life have i seen such a non-issue

You must have not stayed long in NSG.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

replacing c with s and k is the only good choice.

Pray, tell, how would we spell "choice" in this brave new world?

simple. tshoise. tʃoise if you're more extreme, and khoise if you're a psychopath.

[The Archregimancy]

We all know the sounds they make. S makes the S sound, K makes the K sound, but C... C makes both. Now if there was ever anything in the English language that didn't make a lick of sense, it'd be that. Why the ever-loving fuck do we have a letter that exists purely to replicate the sound of two other letters? Why not just use those letters? Because English is stupid. It is a stupid, horrible language. Once again I will blame the Normans. Is it their fault? Probably not, but I need somebody to blame and the Normans are all dead anyway so fuck 'em. They get to be the scapegoats. Screw you, Billy the Bastard. Go back to Rouen ya French viking.

It's the fault of the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans.

The Romans initially used 'c', 'q' and 'k' to represent both 'k' and 'g', with use dependent on the vowel, but by Augustus had stabilised this to 'c' and 'k' used to represent 'k' only, and with 'c' the most common.

In the post-Roman period, both Celtic and Germanic languages initially used 'c' to represent only 'k'; this is still the case in Welsh and Scots Gaelic (with the exception of some borrowed words). However, the emerging Germanic / Old English languages in what became England underwent a consonant shift in the use of the 'k' sound before some vowels, and it became a 'ch' sound (as in 'China'). This meant that 'c' now represented two sounds in Old English.

When the Normans invaded, they too used 'c' to represent the same two sounds, but were also using two letters. 'K' always represented 'k', but 'c' represented both 'k' and 'ch'. This transitional spelling convention was adopted in England. Had things rested here, we might have ended up with the logical 'k' for 'k', and 'c' for 'ch', and everyone would have been happy.

However, over the next 2-300 years, both English and French - which in this period were in a much closer relationship than they are today - gradually changed that 'ch' to an 's' sound. This left us with a situation where English uses 'k' for 'k', 's' for 's', 'ch' for 'ch', and 'c' for both 'k' and 's'.

[Sordhau]

We all know the sounds they make. S makes the S sound, K makes the K sound, but C... C makes both. Now if there was ever anything in the English language that didn't make a lick of sense, it'd be that. Why the ever-loving fuck do we have a letter that exists purely to replicate the sound of two other letters? Why not just use those letters? Because English is stupid. It is a stupid, horrible language. Once again I will blame the Normans. Is it their fault? Probably not, but I need somebody to blame and the Normans are all dead anyway so fuck 'em. They get to be the scapegoats. Screw you, Billy the Bastard. Go back to Rouen ya French viking.

It's the fault of the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans.

The Romans initially used 'c', 'q' and 'k' to represent both 'k' and 'g', with use dependent on the vowel, but by Augustus had stabilised this to 'c' and 'k' used to represent 'k' only, and with 'c' the most common.

In the post-Roman period, both Celtic and Germanic languages initially used 'c' to represent only 'k'; this is still the case in Welsh and Scots Gaelic (with the exception of some borrowed words). However, the emerging Germanic / Old English languages in what became England underwent a consonant shift in the use of the 'k' sound before some vowels, and it became a 'ch' sound (as in 'China'). This meant that 'c' now represented two sounds in Old English.

When the Normans invaded, they too used 'c' to represent the same two sounds, but were also using two letters. 'K' always represented 'k', but 'c' represented both 'k' and 'ch'. This transitional spelling convention was adopted in England. Had things rested here, we might have ended up with the logical 'k' for 'k', and 'c' for 'ch', and everyone would have been happy.

However, over the next 2-300 years, both English and French - which in this period were in a much closer relationship than they are today - gradually changed that 'ch' to an 's' sound. This left us with a situation where English uses 'k' for 'k', 's' for 's', 'ch' for 'ch', and 'c' for both 'k' and 's'.

Amazing. I was actually (somewhat) correct to blame the Normans. This will only further my prejudice against the Normans.

#GoBackToNormandy

[Pan-Pacific Unity]

I think you could probably replace 'c' with 's' and 'k' in most uses, but instead use 'c' as a replacement for 'ch', so that 'choice' would be spelt 'coise', 'watch' as 'watc', etc. That should simply things a bit.

I think you kould probably replase 'c' with 's' and 'k' in most uses, but instead use 'c' as a replasement for 'ch', so that 'choice' would be spelt 'coise', 'watch' as 'watc', etc. That should simply things a bit.

[The Free Joy State]

https://www.dictionary.com/e/silent-letters-in-english/

We can do away with all the letters in English since they do not get pronounced. Except for V.

Vvvv vvv!

It's unconscionable, wrong and obscene, dear lamb.

You'll wrest my meringue from my numbed, ghostly wrists.

Anyway, complex as the English language is to learn, its rich complexity allows for a great deal of wordplay and puns.

replacing c with s and k is the only good choice.

Pray, tell, how would we spell "choice" in this brave new world?

Presumably, there'd be a newspeak and all words using those letters would be replaced with simpler synonyms: so "choice" would be "bet". The word "good" would still exist, but if you wanted to say things were "superior" "exquisite" "superlative" or "luxurious", then perhaps "big good" would be used instead ("plus" having fallen out of the lexicon for the use of an "S", just in case that goes). "Free" would still exist, but words such as "rights" would not (that pesky "S" again).

[New Eestiball]

https://www.dictionary.com/e/silent-letters-in-english/

We can do away with all the letters in English since they do not get pronounced. Except for V.

Vvvv vvv!

It's unconscionable, wrong and obscene, dear lamb.

You'll wrest my meringue from my numbed, ghostly wrists.

Anyway, complex as the English language is to learn, its rich complexity allows for a great deal of wordplay and puns.

Pray, tell, how would we spell "choice" in this brave new world?

Presumably, there'd be a newspeak and all words using those letters would be replaced with simpler synonyms: so "choice" would be "bet". The word "good" would still exist, but if you wanted to say things were "superior" "exquisite" "superlative" or "luxurious", then perhaps "big good" would be used instead ("plus" having fallen out of the lexicon for the use of an "S", just in case that goes). "Free" would still exist, but words such as "rights" would not (that pesky "S" again).

To pluralize, just say More than one.

[Thermodolia]

Weird how sheepdogs are your friend, yet their cousin the wolf your mortal enemy.

Holy shit that’s a lot of posts.

It’s really not

[Thermodolia]

Google "what is the hardest language to learn" and you will quite literally have pages upon pages upon pages of linguists, language programs, teachers of the language, speakers of the language, pollsters, etc. saying it's one of the hardest languages to learn alongside Arabic, Hindi, Japanese, and Finnish.

finnish isn't hard at all lol, it's just "perkele" with different pronunciations

The easiest is danish, just put a potato in your mouth and attempt to speak German

[Thermodolia]

https://www.dictionary.com/e/silent-letters-in-english/

We can do away with all the letters in English since they do not get pronounced. Except for V.

Vvvv vvv!

Nah keep the O and A too.

Then I can say Va Va Voom