English Language Reforms

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

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.

I believe that in theory language can be reformed but it seems prohibitively difficult, especially now, and especially in a fiercely individualistic culture like America.

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.

I mean it is constantly changing, yes, and also that the changes usually happen in a bottom-up rather than top-down fashion -- fringe slang becomes mainstream, a word is misspelled so consistently for so long that the new spelling becomes the accepted spelling, etc.

I believe that in theory language can be reformed but it seems prohibitively difficult, especially now, and especially in a fiercely individualistic culture like America.

English is a tough language to change top-down, mainly because there is no top (some other languages have recognized authorities) and because it's so widely used.

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

Surely you know what "terribly language" means, even if it is vague. It was meant to be vague.

.

I really do not, except that the speaker, for some reason, does not like the language. There may be a number of reasons for not liking the language. For example, that German is guttural and harsh sounding. That is obviously not why you have problems. If you read the link, Mark Twain give several reasons why he thinks that German is "awful".

As for the sound, that is more a matter of convention is it not? I don't think it sounds harsh. I think it sounds funny. In fact it is quite somewhat common to speak (incorrect) german in Denmark when drunk because it sounds funny.

Well, if it comes to that, it is all a matter of convention, and also, what you are accustomed to, and have grown up with. To the French and Italian ear, and, perhaps less so, to the English ear, German does sound harsh, largely because it is a guttural language. Scandinavian languages are guttural too (they and German belong to the same sub-family) so that's possibly why German does not sound harsh to your ear.

OK.

I don't think it is a very large problem that a given language sounds harsh to natives of another language. That's hardly a worthwhile criticism.

I think you should read the first chapter in the Cut Spelling (CS) handbook. It is available here. It lists a number of reasons to implement CS and some implications of doing so etc. 22 pages.

I think I wrote earlier that I am not opposed to spelling reforms, which I think may be practical (but trivial). For instance, I think that the British should reform their spelling to conform with American spelling. But, there are other kinds of reforms I would be uncomfortable with. As I wrote earlier, calling a language "terrible" or "awful" is unenlightening except, of course, that it is clear that the speaker doesn't like the language for some reason or other. It might be the way it sounds, or for other reasons.

I'm pretty rational and academic. When I call something terrible I don't just mean that I dislike it. I mean something more. A more, what is called, objective judgment. (Notice the cutting of "e" in the last word.)

I am sure you do mean more. Only how can we tell what more you mean? "Judgment" is the American spelling. The other is the British.

As I wrote earlier, calling a language "terrible" or "awful" is unenlightening except, of course, that it is clear that the speaker doesn't like the language for some reason or other. It might be the way it sounds, or for other reasons.

You can't tell from that single sentence.

I prefer american spellings. Why would I add redundant letters?
But isn't it american english that has these "-ized" suffixes instead of "-ised"? That's annoying. There is no reason to use a different letter than "s" there. What about doing away with that letter all together. I can't think of a good reason to keep it.

Do you mean the letter "s" or the letter "z"?

You can't tell from that single sentence.

I prefer american spellings. Why would I add redundant letters?
But isn't it american english that has these "-ized" suffixes instead of "-ised"? That's annoying. There is no reason to use a different letter than "s" there. What about doing away with that letter all together. I can't think of a good reason to keep it.

Do away with the letter, 'z'? How would you spell, "Zebra"? But we pronounce the word, "santitized" with a "z" sound, not an "s" sound.

Sebra. To me they sound almost the same. Is it really worth the trouble to keep a letter around for this niche, bit deviant s sound? If anything, we should better use the symbols we have and freeing up one would help that.