Should we simplify the English language?

SiD the Turtle

SiD the Turtle

SiD the Turtle

Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2003
Posts
9,682
Location
On the pale blue dot
As we all know, or as grammar Nazis are quick to point out, English is a complicated language. The combination of there, their and they're, strange spellings like vacuum and other crazy rules like i before e except before c (except when it's not, ha!) is enough to trip up the average poster.

A bod from Buckinghamshire New University believes we should simply things:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4474181.ece

The Times said:
  • Arguement for argument: Why drop the “e” in argument (and judgment) but not management?
  • Ignor for ignore: Ignore comes from the Latin ignorare, meaning “to know”, and ignarus, meaning “ignorant”. Neither of these words has an “e” after the “r”, so why do we?
  • Occured for occurred: There is no second “r” in the words “occur” or “occurs” and that is why nearly everyone misspells this word
  • Opertunity for opportunity: In Latin this word refers to the timely arrival at a harbour - Latin portus. But the Latin spelling is obportus, not opportus, so, if we were being consistent, we should spell “opportunity” as “obportunity”
  • Que for queue, or better yet cue or even kew: Where did we get the second “ue” in the word “queue” and why do we need it?
  • Speach for speech: We spell “speak” with an “ea”. We do not have to but we do. Since we do, let us then spell “speech” with an “a” too
  • Thier for their: (or better still, why not just drop the word their altogether in favour of there?) It does not make any difference to the meaning of a sentence if you spell “their” as “thier” or “there”, so why insist on “their”?
  • Truely for truly: We don’t spell the adverb “surely” as “surly” because this would make another word, so why is the adverb of “true” spelt “truly”?
  • Twelth as twelfth: Twelf is related to the Frisian tweli, but why should we care? You would not dream of spelling “stealth” or “wealth” with an “f” so why do it in “twelfth”?
Click to expand...

I definitely think we shouldn't normalise their/there. The words mean two different things, so if you were 'fixing' the language, perhaps we should remove ambiguity in words, so that a word pronounced one way can only mean one thing. Should we spell things more phonetically?

What do you think?


Grammar Nazis do not win any prizes by picking holes in this post :D
 
No.

It really isn't that hard to learn how to use English properly, in a correct and coherent manner. Why make it easier for the numpties that are already dragging this country down the toilet?
 
my answer is no, it means i would have to relearn my primary language sod that.

Its fine the way it is, why fix something that is not broken
 
paradigm said:
No.

It really isn't that hard to learn how to use English properly, in a correct and coherent manner. Why make it easier for the numpties that are already dragging this country down the toilet?
Click to expand...

pretty much sums up what my response would be as well :)
 
No, the English language has already been simplified enough. It's not the language that's the problem, it's the people who fail to grasp it that need to be sorted.
 
It wouldn't matter if we did accept the changes; there'd always be the ****s who would write however they like and then blame 'Grammar Nazis' for trying to put them right.
 
Why is there a need to "fix" our language? I dont see one, I prefer to have our spellings the way they have always been!!

Except when it was more "simplified" after Shakespeare's era :D

I hate it when people are lazy with spelling, and this will just drag ourselves down even more!!

I like our annoying but British spelling :D
 
I'm afraid I've got to point out this has been debated a few days back in this thread. As was pointed out there the fellow is a Criminologist (I'll refrain from putting down my thoughts on that particular subject area) rather than any form of English professor. That doesn't mean he shouldn't comment but it perhaps renders his position to have slightly less weight than he might otherwise have.
 
Heheh I thought this would be a one sided debate when I was writing the OP :D

I agree that it doesn't need 'fixing', though I am aware that languages change. English today is not English as it was a hundred years ago- I wonder if some of the changes in language we loathe will become 'official' over time through popular use. Thru anyone? Tho? Woteva.
 
its bad enough as it is
there is a place near crewe where people communicate with what sound like grunts
im not even kidding
 
No there are plenty ways of speaking or writing simply, but there are also ways of writing in wonderful complexity and beauty.
 
Lets make ourselves more most stupiderest! YEAH!!

:rolleyes:

There is a whole organisation dedicated to simplifying our spelling, the lot of them should just admit to being thick or lazy or both and then scarper off into hiding where we don't have to suffer their devolved minds.
 
paradigm said:
No.

It really isn't that hard to learn how to use English properly, in a correct and coherent manner. Why make it easier for the numpties that are already dragging this country down the toilet?
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous thing to say. How about we reintroduce roman numerals. That'll make life a bit harder for the "numpties".

Although the existing system isn’t bad it's far from optimal and fairly nonsensical in places. If we can improve on what we have already, why shouldn't we change it? It called progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom