English Language Reforms

@Emil,

Emil wrote:

This problem with what "natural" is supposed to mean is why I avoid the phrase "natural language" and use "normal language" instead though the meanings are slightly different.

"This is for health food fiends, the natural-fabrics gang, and all those green-head environmental hustlers who stomp around in the "natural": Your key word is meaningless. Everything is natural. Everything in the universe is part of nature. Polyester, pesticides, oil slicks, and whoopee cushions. Nature is not just trees and flowers. It's everything. Human beings are part of nature. And if a human being invents something, that's part of nature, too. Like the whoopee cushion."

- George Carlin

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

So how far do we take this bastardisation..This fonetic speeech, doz it go az far az renaming filadelfia...load of twaddle..sorry twoddle.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;107078 wrote:

So how far do we take this bastardisation..This fonetic speeech, doz it go az far az renaming filadelfia...load of twaddle..sorry twoddle.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Please, this is a discussion board. Arguments, not silly whatever it is you're doing.

0 Replies

@Emil,

Well, I think he brings up a valid question - To what magnitude of a reform should this be?

Do you have an easy answer to that, Emil?

1 Reply

@Emil,

Emil;106949 wrote:

If it works, then why is it unprofessional? Why not embrace their new words? They seem to be better than yours, since they allow for faster communication. Even though it may be a little more context dependent.

Their words are not new. The problem is that 1) there are some abbreviations that can stand for multiple things, 2) they are more likely to include something if it has an abbreviation rather than if it's important, 3) consultants, nurses, documentation specialists, and insurance auditors will not necessarily know what the documentation means, and 4) they are unable to present the most critical part of a patient encounter, which is the history of present illness using this kind of communication. The chart note is supposed to be a narrative, not an alphabet soup. Finally, especially in typed or dictated documentation (admission notes, discharge notes, consult notes, and clinic notes), it's sort of a slap in the face to send a formal letter about a patient to their regular doctor and have it look like crap, rather than a polished statement made by a professional. People hide behind shorthand when language makes them look vulnerable.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;107084 wrote:

Well, I think he brings up a valid question - To what magnitude of a reform should this be?

Do you have an easy answer to that, Emil?

The question may be 'valid', but the form is counter-productive.

If one tries to change language too quickly, it will not work. Some reform proposals come in steps, so that they can easily be set in motion. One idea is to only change a few % difference between the actual language and the target language at a time.

Wiki also lists a couple of known language reforms:[INDENT]

Chinese
- (1920s) - replaced Classical Chinese with Vernacular Chinese as the standard written language.
- Mandarin was chosen at a committee from several Chinese dialects.
- (1950s PRC) - reformed the script used to write the standard language by introducing Simplified Chinese characters (later adopted by Singapore and Malaysia, but Traditional Chinese characters remain in use in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and various overseas Chinese communities).
Czech (19th century) - The dictionary of Josef Jungmann contributed to the renewal of the vocabulary. In the 1840s the letter w became replaced by v.
Estonian (1910s/1920s) - reform movement led by Johannes Aavik and Johannes V. Veski renewed the vocabulary, borrowing a lot of roots from Finnish and other Uralic languages and even inventing some roots that do not exist anywhere.
German (1901/02) - unified the spelling system nationwide (first in Germany, with later adoption by other Germanophone countries). Further reforms were enacted more recently, in the German spelling reform of 1996.
Greek (1970s/1980s) - while the written "pure" language, the katharevusa was full of Old Greek words, the spoken "popular" language, the dhimotiki was not. After the fall of the military rule, a law was promulgated, making the latter become the written language as well. For example, on Greek coins, the plural of the currency was drachmai (katharevusa form) before and became drachmes (dhimotiki form) after 1982.
Hebrew (1920s) - Modern Hebrew was created from Ancient Hebrew by simplification of the grammar (especially of the syntax) according to Indo-European models, coinage of new words from Hebrew roots based on European models, and simplification of pronunciation rules. Linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann argues that Modern Hebrew, which he terms "Israeli", is a Semito-European hybrid, based not only on Hebrew but also on Yiddish and other languages spoken by revivalists.[1] Zuckermann therefore endorses the translation of the Hebrew Bible into what he calls "Israeli".[2]
Hungarian (late 18th and early 19th centuries) - more than ten thousand words were coined,[3] out of which several thousand are still actively used today (see also Ferenc Kazinczy).
Irish (1940s) - spelling system greatly simplified e.g. Gaedheal became Gael, became .
Norwegian (20th century) - as Norway became independent from Denmark (1814), Norwegian started to drift away from Danish. The reforms in 1907 and 1917 made the written standard Norwegian, renamed Nynorsk
Portuguese (20th century) - replaced a cumbersome traditional spelling system with a simplified one (asthma, for instance, became asma and phthysica became ).
Romanian (19th century) - replaced the Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin alphabet, deprecated hundreds of Slavic in favour of Romance ones.
Somali (1970s) - modified Latin script developed by Somali linguist Shire Jama Ahmed for writing the Somali language; made compulsory in 1972 by then President of Somalia General Mohamed Siad Barre. Also the vocabulary was renewed, a lot of new words became coined from existing Somali roots.
Turkish (1930s) - language and writing system were reformed starting in the 1920s, to the point that the older language is called by a different name, Ottoman Turkish. The Ottoman alphabet was based on the Arabic alphabet, which was replaced in 1928 by the new, Latin-based Turkish alphabet. Loanwords of Persian and Arabic origin were dropped in favor of native Turkish words or new coinages based on Turkic roots.
Vietnamese (20th century) - during the French colonial rule, the classical vernacular script based on Chinese characters was replaced with the new Latin alphabet.

[/INDENT]So much for being impossible.

-

Another benefit of the reforms are that it will make communication faster because unnecessary letters are removed making the words shorter in general.

1 Reply

@Emil,

Very cleverly researched and posted but you dont answer the question. Language is progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It cant be forced into something of necessity, it is the rhythm of those who speak it and compose by it. It has romance, the eloquence of language is it anomalies. Be gone, leave my English to the English.

By the way how many do you think speak Esperanto?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;107097 wrote:

Very cleverly researched and posted but you dont answer the question. Language is progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It cant be forced into something of necessity, it is the rhythm of those who speak it and compose by it. It has romance, the eloquence of language is it anomalies. Be gone, leave my English to the English.

By the way how many do you think speak Esperanto?

What does the number of people speaking Esperanto have to do with reforming the English language? Obviously it's much harder to create a new language and build a large native speaker base, than reform an already existing and commonly spoken language. Esperanto, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with this.

There have been reforms for common languages, such as Chinese, as illustrated by Emil. So, if we have evidence that there have been successful reforms of common languages, despite language being "progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It can't be forced into something of necessity...", then what do you have to say?

Shouldn't you, at this point, demonstrate why the reformation of the English language isn't a good idea? Because you haven't yet.

1 Reply

@Emil,

There is something to be said about a language's sacred value to its native speakers and writers. And, there is nothing about the English language currently that makes communication any less effective than it could be. It may be somewhat difficult for non-native speakers to learn, but then so it is with every language.

We don't need to officially dilute the essence of our language so that foreigners can have an easier time trying to learn it. But, unofficially, it has already happened in speech, with the common use of slang words, as with other languages.

As Xris did point out, it's not a gud idea, since we wudn't want evryone riting and reeding like this, wud we?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;107111 wrote:

What does the number of people speaking Esperanto have to do with reforming the English language? Obviously it's much harder to create a new language and build a large native speaker base, than reform an already existing and commonly spoken language. Esperanto, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with this.

There have been reforms for common languages, such as Chinese, as illustrated by Emil. So, if we have evidence that there have been successful reforms of common languages, despite language being "progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It can't be forced into something of necessity...", then what do you have to say?

Shouldn't you, at this point, demonstrate why the reformation of the English language isn't a good idea? Because you haven't yet.

The degree of change and who decides? I will oppose it because im English and pretty damned obstinate. Who will enforce it? Who decides what is appropriate? Sorry it is more than observation it is conclusion. If the Chinese want to change their language , let them and if you want to talk a certain pigeon English, do so but dont say its a necessity.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;107115 wrote:

There is something to be said about a language's sacred value to its native speakers and writers. And, there is nothing about the English language currently that makes communication any less effective than it could be. It may be somewhat difficult for non-native speakers to learn, but then so it is with every language.

We don't need to officially dilute the essence of our language so that foreigners can have an easier time trying to learn it. But, unofficially, it has already happened in speech, with the common use of slang words, as with other languages.

As Xris did point out, it's not a gud idea, since we wudn't want evryone riting and reeding like this, wud we?

I don't know about the "sacred value" stuff, but English is a very effective tool of communication for all of its defects. It is not for nothing that English has become the lingua franca of the world. More people speak English as a second language than any other language, by far. However, I think that George Bernard Shaw, and Emil, are both advocating improvement, not a wholesale revision, nor a replacement like Esperanto. And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107117 wrote:

And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;107122 wrote:

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

Do we ever contemplate revising the works of say, Shakespeare, in order to suit modern tongue? Of course not. We read it as is, as it was intended to be read. So, why do you think we would attempt to go through the monumental task of rewriting every great work of English literature?

Perhaps the thing that you are missing is that English will continue to change, whether we consciously attempt to change it or not. Language changes because convention changes, and this has always been happening. Why you're acting like this is something unheard of or not already currently taking place, seems odd to me. And besides conventional changes, Emil has presented many cases where common languages have been successfully reformed.

Though English is already a very effective tool for communication, I don't see what's wrong with trying to improve upon it. Noone is saying these improvements are necessary, but for many they are desirable because it is argued that the changes facilitate faster and more effective communication, and there is less confusion.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;107125 wrote:

Do we ever contemplate revising the works of say, Shakespeare, in order to suit modern tongue? Of course not. We read it as is, as it was intended to be read. So, why do you think we would attempt to go through the monumental task of rewriting every great work of English literature?

Actually, we do. We now have modernized, abridged, condensed versions of Shakespeare. I've even heard of these being used in high school literature courses now.

Zetherin;107125 wrote:

Perhaps the thing that you are missing is that English will continue to change, whether we consciously attempt to change it or not. Language changes because convention changes, and this has always been happening. Why you're acting like this is something unheard of or not already currently taking place, seems odd to me. And besides conventional changes, Emil has presented many cases where common languages have been successfully reformed.

No, I didn't miss that at all. Xris pointed out that language evolves in its own way, and I mentioned that this has happened quite a bit in the colloquial speech we are now exposed to every day. Just like the Romans used what we call "classical latin" in their literature, and "vulgar latin" in the conversations of the masses. We can still let the colloquial English language slip into a mess of urban dialects and slang words, without codifying this 'evolution' into the formal literary language.

Zetherin;107125 wrote:

Though English is already a very effective tool for communication, I don't see what's wrong with trying to improve upon it. Noone is saying these improvements are necessary, but for many they are desirable because it is argued that the changes facilitate faster and more effective communication, and there is less confusion.

I'm not opposed to improving the English language; I am just unconvinced that a switch to phonetic spellings would constitute an improvement. The solutions to any confusion, or ineffective communication using the English language, are called reading and writing.

0 Replies

@Emil,

Pangloss wrote:

Actually, we do. We now have modernized, abridged, condensed versions of Shakespeare. I've even heard of these being used in high school literature courses now.

I'm pretty sure for the most part we leave the text as is, unless, of course, we have to translate it to even understand it (which may often be the case). There will always be revisions of whatever work, but that doesn't mean we are dismissing the old work - this is what I meant. And most people choose to make as few revisions as possible, in order for the work to be read as intended. The Shakespeare I've read seemed to be in Old English, and it was very hard to understand, but I waded through it. Maybe when I have time I'll research a bunch of old English works and actually see the disparity between the original works and the newer renditions. But the point was we certainly don't entirely rewrite old works to tailor modern language (It seemed as though you were implying this with your comment).

Quote:

I'm not opposed to improving the English language; I am just unconvinced that a switch to phonetic spellings would constitute an improvement. The solutions to any confusion, or ineffective communication using the English language, are called reading and writing.

Certainly with reading, writing, and memorization of any language, one can become more proficient at it. But that's not the point. If you have the choice between an easier or harder method, why choose the harder method? In many cases it is argued that phonetic spellings make it easier for children to learn language, as phonetics has a significant connection with how we use and memorize language.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;107115 wrote:

There is something to be said about a language's sacred value to its native speakers and writers. And, there is nothing about the English language currently that makes communication any less effective than it could be. It may be somewhat difficult for non-native speakers to learn, but then so it is with every language.

We don't need to officially dilute the essence of our language so that foreigners can have an easier time trying to learn it. But, unofficially, it has already happened in speech, with the common use of slang words, as with other languages.

As Xris did point out, it's not a gud idea, since we wudn't want evryone riting and reeding like this, wud we?

There are plenty of things that make communication with english less effective than it could be, especially but not exclusively for foreigners. Consider the case of word spellings with unnecessary letters, so called silent letters. These do not help in any way with communication and they make it less effective. (One proposal focuses almost exclusively on these, Cut Spelling.) Moreover the words are longer, so it takes more time to type them. Obviously this point applies both to foreigners (like me) and to natives.

Every time I start discussing reforming language on a discussion board, there are always a couple of people that like you do not respond with arguments but only with ridicule (hidden nicely with the clever use of words) and seemingly random questions. Please consider the case fairly, like you rationally should!

As Xris did point out, it's not a gud idea, since we wudn't want evryone riting and reeding like this, wud we?

Maybe. I'm not supporting any specific reform proposal as of now. I have no researched it that much.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:05 AM ----------

xris;107097 wrote:

Very cleverly researched and posted but you dont answer the question. Language is progressive, it moves at the speed of those who use it. It cant be forced into something of necessity, it is the rhythm of those who speak it and compose by it. It has romance, the eloquence of language is it anomalies. Be gone, leave my English to the English.

By the way how many do you think speak Esperanto?

The first part of this reminds me of continental 'philosophy'.

IIRC it is not known but estimated to between 100,000 and 2,000,000. There are about 5,500,000 that speak danish.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:13 AM ----------

kennethamy;107117 wrote:

I don't know about the "sacred value" stuff, but English is a very effective tool of communication for all of its defects. It is not for nothing that English has become the lingua franca of the world. More people speak English as a second language than any other language, by far. However, I think that George Bernard Shaw, and Emil, are both advocating improvement, not a wholesale revision, nor a replacement like Esperanto. And it is not just spelling, I think, either. If it is only spelling, I think I would not mind that. But that is quite trivial, I think. German is quite phonetically spelled, and it does not "dilute its essence".

The reason that english is the primary world language is not because it is a good language. It is for other reasons.

Replacements give us a more effective language but are harder to pull through. I'm not sure I support a replacement of english with esperanto. (But I support a replacement of danish with english.)

Indeed german is quite phonetically spelled. That's why it is so easy to learn compared to english. (I'm taking a german class right at this moment.) Danish is perhaps even worse phonetically spelled than english and it is too a terrible language. (Though it lacks another defect that english has, verbal conjugation.)

From your link:
[INDENT]"A speaker of the language should be able to pronounce correctly any sequence of letters that he may meet, even if they were previously unknown, and secondarily, to be able to spell any phonemic sequence, again even if previously unknown."
[/INDENT]German is close to this ideal. English (and danish) is not.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

Pangloss;107122 wrote:

Spelling reform is what has been argued for on this thread so far, not some other type of reform. See the link in the first post.

What are we to do? Rewrite all literature after this "trivial" reform so that its words use phonetic spelling? Such a revision of the great works of English literature would be a travesty.

A travesty? I suppose that means "something bad said with a smart word" in this context. Why would that be bad?

2 Replies

@Emil,

Then convince the world to speak Esperanto and leave English alone.

I can see silly decision making boards of linguistics arguing for years about silly things such as the spelling of flour or is it flower. Alice threw the looking glars. Sorry it changes at the speed of necessity not by invention. The English will never allow it.

0 Replies

@Emil,

Emil;107223 wrote:

T Danish is perhaps even worse phonetically spelled than english and it is too a terrible language.

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

I don't know what a "terrible language" is, or how that is measured. Expecially in the abstract. English is not a "terrible language" for saying in it what you want to say. Nor is it as complicated as is Latin, or Ancient Greek, or German (all those declensions!). And its nouns do not have gender, which drives me crazy when I (try) to speak or write French or German. (Why "das Maedchen"? Why is "girl" neuter?). Unphonetic spelling alone does not make a language terrible.See:

"The Awful German Language" by Mark Twain

0 Replies

@Emil,

Languages change organically. I don't think we can or should purposely change English because of some perceived lack. It has been evolving and will continue to evolve.

1 Reply

@Emil,

Lanugage reform has extensive precedent, so we at least can in theory.

1 Reply

English Language Reforms

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know