Should we simplify the English language?

[nikebee]

In a word, "No".

I like to think I'm quite good at my native language, certainly not perfect (we all make spelling mistakes or punctuation/grammar errors here and there) and I certainly don't want to have to relearn it for some idiots who can't understand how to read and write.

I accept that Languages evolve and change over time, that our native tongue has changed a heck of a lot over the years - but changing the spellings of many words simply because people can't spell them correctly?

Ridiculous. I'm not spending my time relearning the language even though I can do it correctly - just so those who can't do it correctly get to say "now I can".

 

[Stretch]

In a word, "No".

I like to think I'm quite good at my native language, certainly not perfect (we all make spelling mistakes or punctuation/grammar errors here and there) and I certainly don't want to have to relearn it for some idiots who can't understand how to read and write.

I accept that Languages evolve and change over time, that our native tongue has changed a heck of a lot over the years - but changing the spellings of many words simply because people can't spell them correctly?

Ridiculous. I'm not spending my time relearning the language even though I can do it correctly - just so those who can't do it correctly get to say "now I can".

I think the real benefits apply to future generations, not "some idiots who can't understand how to read and write". And your reasons for not wanting change seem entirely selfish, and don’t take account of the potential long term benefits.

 

[paradigm]

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.

Progress isn't making things overly simple so we cannot distinguish between context without having to paraphrase everything!

Wud u raver hav ppl tiepin lyk dis 2 u all da time? Progrez innit!

 

[Stretch]

Progress isn't making things overly simple so we cannot distinguish between context without having to paraphrase everything!

Wud u raver hav ppl tiepin lyk dis 2 u all da time? Progrez innit!

I agree entirely, but that dosen't apply to the first three points raise by the OP.

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.

There are lots of other examples in the English language where the "rules" are fuzzy at best. I'm not in the business of having to learn everything parrot fashion, it's just a waste of time. I like to think that someone would have the time and intelligence to structure the language in more logical manner.

 

[paradigm]

It is a logical manner, most of the "redundant" letters are there for vowel sounds and pronunciation rather than to mirror the words from which their origins spawn. Say "managment" out loud, it would come across as man-agg-ment; its all about spoken pronunciation. The same cannot be said for Judgment (as the dg creates the vowel-sounding "je"), or for argument (as the pronunciation comes from having the proceeding "u" after the "g").

Having been an A Level English Language student (a fair number of years ago), I believe that our language (both written and spoken) is as evolved as it needs to be, and the only changes that are required from here on in are to expand our vocabularies.

 

[Stretch]

It is a logical manner, most of the "redundant" letters are there for vowel sounds and pronunciation rather than to mirror the words from which their origins spawn. Say "managment" out loud, it would come across as man-agg-ment. Its all about spoken pronunciation.

Having been an A Level English Language student (a fair number of years ago), I believe that our language (both written and spoken) is as evolved as it needs to be, and the only changes that are required from here on in are to expand our vocabularies.

Good for you. You've obviously had the privilege of spending enough time studying English to understand the language at a higher level, most probably because it's something that interests you personally. However to the vast majority of the population who just want to use the language as a tool, there are far too many unnecessary nuances and caveats to make spelling anything more than an exercise in memory.

 

[nikebee]

I think the real benefits apply to future generations, not "some idiots who can't understand how to read and write". And your reasons for not wanting change seem entirely selfish, and don’t take account of the potential long term benefits.

Feel free to enlighten me on the benefits of "dumbing down" our native language?

*tongue in cheek* I mean while we're at it, why don't we reinvent the way trigonometry works as I gather a lot of young kids can't understand that either?

 

[Strife212]

Because the language is completely arbitrary at the moment and words are not constructed around any rules?

Whereas Trigonometry will not work correctly any other way?

 

[Ethics]

Good for you. You've obviously had the privilege of spending enough time studying English to understand the language at a higher level, most probably because it's something that interests you personally. However to the vast majority of the population who just want to use the language as a tool, there are far too many unnecessary nuances and caveats to make spelling anything more than an exercise in memory.

So.... we should simplify the language for our lowest common denominator?

We should be striving to educate people, not change to suit them.

 

[nikebee]

Whereas Trigonometry will not work correctly any other way?

You obviously missed the

*tongue in cheek*

part of my post. I'm perfectly aware that it wouldn't work if it was to be "redesigned".

 

[Strife212]

I saw

 

[nikebee]

So.... we should simplify the language for our lowest common denominator?

We should be striving to educate people, not change to suit them.

This was pretty much what I was trying to get at. We shouldn't change the English language for those that cannot understand it. Teaching those that don't, to understand it, is a much better solution.

 

[Ethics]

This was pretty much what I was trying to get at. We should change the English language for those that cannot understand it. Teaching those that don't, to understand it, is a much better solution.

Well i think you have a type in there, that statement is contradictory...

You either want to change the language to suit people, or people to suit the language

 

[paradigm]

Good for you. You've obviously had the privilege of spending enough time studying English to understand the language at a higher level, most probably because it's something that interests you personally. However to the vast majority of the population who just want to use the language as a tool, there are far too many unnecessary nuances and caveats to make spelling anything more than an exercise in memory.

I see you missed my edit explaining why the examples given in the OP are actually very bad examples of why we need to change the language. As has been said, actually educating the masses to use their own language correctly would be more productive!

Secondly, studying English Language and construct doesn't and didn't interest me, I took it at A-Level as I believed it would be of some use to me, then low and behold...

 

[nikebee]

Well i think you have a type in there, that statement is contradictory...

You either want to change the language to suit people, or people to suit the language

Sorry yeah typo.. I meant "shouldn't" change it... corrected

Typo in a grammar thread... oh the ironing...

edit: hehe! you've got one too, you mean typo not type

 

[Stretch]

So.... we should simplify the language for our lowest common denominator?

We should be striving to educate people, not change to suit them.

Maybe people want to be educated, but don't want to spend an unnecessary amount of time learning an overly complicated language. Just because some isn't interested in a language doesn’t make them stupid or unwilling to learn. Although I admit it is a lot of cases.

Tbh I've been looking a few of the words I have real issues with like neighbour, eight, choir and iron and I really wouldn't know where to start spelling them differently There doesn’t seem to be a perfect way, maybe I'm getting old and English has finally got the better of me

 

[semi-pro waster]

This was pretty much what I was trying to get at. We should change the English language for those that cannot understand it. Teaching those that don't, to understand it, is a much better solution.

A perfect example of why you need clarity and rules in language. Because an "n't" has been missed off the end of "should" the whole sentence is rendered non-sensical and that is something that might not be noticed so easily or clearly if we didn't have the defined rules that we currently do. Demonstrating a mastery of English is similar to demonstrating mastery in any other area, it shows dedication and an understanding of the art; these are attributes to be appreciated rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator. What are the odds anyone will give me for dirtydog showing up in this thread?

Sorry nikebee, I actually agree with your position but the chance for an example is too good to pass up.

 

[Justintime]

Personally i wish english was harder, it'd stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from coming here. I've been told it is a very easy language to learn for foreigners.

 

[Strife212]

The point is that English words are plain memorization, theres no sense or rules to the construction of the words.

Not that it matters to me, but I can see where people are coming from.

 

[NokkonWud]

The English language is very easy, the only people without a good grasp are those too lazy to try.

A good example is:

Occured for occurred: There is no second “r” in the words “occur” or “occurs” and that is why nearly everyone misspells this word

Occur to Occurred isn't the only word in the English language to double the last letter before adding "-ed" on the end, but the method for understanding it couldn't be simpler, if the main impact in the pronunciation of the word is on the second of the two syllables, double the last letter, if it's on the former of the two syllables then you don't.

Almost all methods are that easy, but as I said, people are lazy.

As for unifying there and their, utter nonsense, it's a descriptive method of differentiating between the ownership and location of an item. If it was all 'there' then the confusion would be 100 times worse.