Would you support the english language being simplified?

26 Comments

The point would be to help people who don't know English learn it more easily. I'm not sure what exactly this would include, but I think we could all agree on things like replacing hard C's with K, replacing consonant Y with J and vowel Y with I, replacing hard J's with G, and other letter changes that would make it more like other European languages. Some of the harder grammatical rules would be removed or changed. None of these changes would make English less expressive or less clear, and none of them would be too difficult for people who already know English to learn. Ideally the changes wouldn't prevent people who only know the simplified English from being able to figure out what things written in the previous form of English mean. Kind of like reading 18th century English with an understanding of today's English, the spelling and grammar may be weird to you but you'll probably be able to figure out what it means. Do you think a plan like this would work?

Yes, it would help make English more universal and understandable 17
No, current English speakers wouldn't adapt 24
No, we can't allow foreign influence in our language! 29
No, it's a good idea but people wouldn't agree on the details 19
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 26 )
  • dappled
    12 years ago

    English is a mongrel language. It lacks the logic, order and consistency of the Chinese written language. It lacks the verbal flow of Italian and French (where words are sometimes spelled a certain way just to make them sound nicer when spoken). It has more words than almost any other language (having borrowed versions of the same word from many languages).

    Despite that, an Italian friend (who speaks five languages) said that English was the most beautiful, the most flexible, and the most poetic. I would hate to lose that.

    What I would prefer is a compulsory second language. A world language that has nothing to do with English, particularly, and that has a compulsory sign language version. The whole world could talk as one, and that includes the deaf.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      12 years ago

      Didn't they already kinda try to do that with esperanto? We all know how that turned out.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
        -
      • dappled
        12 years ago

        You could actually argue that Esperanto is a success. It's spoken in over a hundred countries and is probably the most successful IAL (the only other one I could even name is Interlingua, although I know there are lots of them).

        I think the key is tying something new to a signed language. The artificiality of any auxiliary language has got to be a problem; language evolves, it isn't just created. But sign language was largely created and people have no trouble learning that. If the signs had deeper meaning (a bit like in Tai Chi) so they could take on a mnemonic or emotional significance, I think this could work. Better still, anyone who can speak it and sign it has two channels to communicate with. Simultaneously. It would change the way we interact.

        But it's not going to happen because I'm just talking off the top of my head on a site about whether stuff is normal or not.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • [Old Memory]
          12 years ago

          I thought only hardcore enthusiasts still use it. Anyways I don't think it's that much of a success since it's not really being used for any real purpose such as in the military/politics/bureaucracy or anything. It was an interesting experiment and that's pretty much it.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
    • pooItoy
      12 years ago

      most french words have silent letters at the end. Why the hell have silent letters? Probably every book ever printed in french could be 25-30% shorter without those useless letters at the ends of most words. Think of the paper the french have wasted, just another reason to dislike the french.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dappled
        12 years ago

        That implies all French words are 70-75% wastage. If the silent letter is a single letter, it also implies most French words are only three or four letters long. Yes, pamplemousse is a longish one. Not really a short one in your language though, is it? Grapefruit is ten letters long. Unless you call it "gf". Which you probably do, and this is why your girlfriend is a fruit. :)

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
    12 years ago

    No because it's a pointless idea. The English language is great, many foreign people learn it from an early age so there's no real hardship. Also can you imagine all the things that have ever been written in the current English? All that would become irrelevant.

    Olde English being changed is different to your idea because now every word has a set spelling, whereas with your idea it's just changing hard and soft letters.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • Orangepeelx
    12 years ago

    NO!!! Other languages wouldn't change to make it easier to learn for anyone so why should we? (no offence) but America has already made English spelling easier (Gray, mom, color etc) any more and it wouldn't be english. Yes many people learn English and I know it's one of the most difficult to learn but that's the beauty of the language :) swapping y for I would sound silly, whi isn't the same as why!!! D:

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • ya-lyublyu-tebya
      12 years ago

      Juh rirli fingk sow? Ahj fingk it luks inchresting.

      But ðac gust mahj opinjun.....

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • DanielNavrotsky
    12 years ago

    No, English is perfect the way it is, and it's pretty easy to learn too.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Rhuarc
    12 years ago

    Like it already isn't simple?! I mean look at all the "Hood Slang" I mean is it so hard to say "for sure" rather than "fo sho"?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • disthing
    12 years ago

    I believe they did something similar in Germany (Reform of 1996) right?

    There are languages like Arabic, Russian and Chinese that are arguably more complicated for non-native speakers to learn, especially those whose native tongue is a Germanic or Romance language. Should these also be simplified?

    There are pros and cons to the idea, and it would have to be a gradual change to avoid leaving people behind. I just don't think enough people care to make it happen. It's already a lingua franca and learnt in its current form internationally. It functions very well as a language.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • #1A$$HO!@
    12 years ago

    I sure dont know what all that fancy english stuff is yur talkin bout,but where I comes from,we aint got no problums speekin to each other. Shot Billy just said the other day that we otta go tubin down at the river sum evenin and see if we caint catch us some of them there river cats and I aint need no kinda help figurin out what he'z talkin bout.Now wants we got to the river I jumped right in and grabbed me one of them there river cats and screamed jahoo!!(instead of yahoo) I just catched me one of them there river cats,dinners gonna be at my shack tonite! aint no better meal that catfish and moonshine.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
    12 years ago

    Other:

    It would not work.

    Yes languages change over time, over centuries. Mandating a change overnight is not the same thing.

    The other factor is, you would have to get people to accept it and... they won't.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Tehboss
    12 years ago

    english is already too freaking easy...
    There is no point to it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Arkos
    12 years ago

    English has already been devolved through arcane spellings, colloquialisms and other idioms. I am English and take particular offence to Americans changing 'sulphur' to 'sulfur'. How hard is it to remember that a 'ph' is meant to sound like a 'f'? At least there isn't the complication of der/die/das, masculine, feminine and neutral versions of 'the'.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dinz
    12 years ago

    I agree with reforms to the English language - The average English-speaking child takes nearly three times longer to learn the basics of reading and writing than users of other alphabetic writing systems.

    But here comes the hard part - phonetic spelling especially with English is extremely problematic due to the wide range of English accents.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • ya-lyublyu-tebya
    12 years ago

    I wuhd noht lajk ðat, but I kan understahnd waj pipuhl wuhd wohnt ðat.

    Inglish wuhd looß sum ov ic eg, ðo.

    (That's probably what English would look like if I was in charge of the language reform. Bonus points for people who can read it.)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dwe
    12 years ago

    Yes, after I'm dead. :)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dickwashington
    12 years ago

    i like the slang, but the grammar and what not yeah simplify the hell out of that

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • HecateAlVanne
    12 years ago

    English is already the easiest language to learn, so there would be no reason to simplify it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Gena45
    12 years ago

    Everyone who already speaks English wouldn't make the changes. So the new people who learn it would know it one way, and the people who already speak it would know it a different way. It would just cause a lot of confusion. It's not worth it. Millions of people learn it, if one person can others can too. It's not that hard really.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • penguin1
    12 years ago

    I respect the differences in cultures and such, but I don't like the idea of changing too many things.

    I don't think too many people here would adapt well to change. We're unique. I personally like being different.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Shackleford96
    12 years ago

    No.

    English is already a pet peeve of mine because of things like multiple meanings for words that are spelled the same and if anything it needs to be more complex. I think that there should be one unique word for everything and that words should be spelled the same way that they sound. That would make English better in my opinion.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • Megid
      12 years ago

      That is roughly what OP is suggesting.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Shackleford96
        12 years ago

        Hmm, ok. Well, I did not fully understand the original post then. Maybe it would be a good idea. English is not my best subject even though I have spoke it all of my life.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0