Should English be simplified?

[norwaysaint]

I posted a link before to an article where somebody 100 years ago predicted we'd lose c, x and q. What do you think about the idea of doing this and of further simplifying our rather confused spelling system, which is a big mess due to English being such a mongrel language.

 

Obviously the Americans did it a long time ago with many words and that makes most British people a bit snobbish about the whole idea, but beyond the idea of upholding tradition in a medium that's constantly evolving, what is the point of having a "u" in colour or "ue" at the end og catalogue? Why do we need so many ways to make the same sound that features in sky, high, site, sight and I?

 

My daughter is six and speaks, reads and writes both English and Norwegian. However, she needs to learn how to spell and read English words, whereas if you know Norwegian letter sounds, you can correctly read and write pretty much every word.

 

Aside from trying to convince ourselves that it makes us somehow linguistically superior to Americans, is there any real reason to hang onto ideas of spelling that, in many cases we owe to the French and Germans? As text messaging begins to completely mess with many young people's idea of acceptable spelling, wouldn't it be a good idea to simplify things to a logical, more phonetic way of spelling that would be easier for everyone to get right in the first place without those awful abbreviations?

 

I'm expecting any replies to be anti-American and "dumming down", but it'd be interesting to know what people think. Remember spelling and pronunciation are slowly changing anyway and the way you say and write words is already not the same as they did 100 years ago.

[Verbal]

Yes. And it's a century-old argument: George Bernard Shaw was arguing for just this, and he applied simplified spellings and grammar in his writing.

[Window Cleaner]

[quote=norwaysaint;1234485

 

 

 

 

I'm expecting any replies to be anti-American and "dumming down", but it'd be interesting to know what people think. Remember spelling and pronunciation are slowly changing anyway and the way you say and write words is already not the same as they did 100 years ago.

 

I see you're already helping them then.

[ecuk268]

If we got rid of q, would it be Kween Elizabeth or Cween Elizabeth?

[Dimond Geezer]

If we got rid of q, would it be Kween Elizabeth or Cween Elizabeth?

 

It would be Kween, as "C" is getting the boot too (to, two).

[pap]

At this stage, I'm not sure that it is actually practical to try and simplify.

 

First, we have a massive body of literature that is written in our idiosyncratic idiom. We'd either need to convert all of that to simplified English, or retain a body of knowledge on how to read older stuff.

 

Second, our phonetic alphabet is much larger than our written one.

 

Finally, English is no longer just our language. Any home-grown attempt at standardisation would ultimately be a deviation from the wider language.

[saintbletch]

It's already happening norwaysaint. it's just an informal process. I understand the logic behind the question and can see the benefit of a simplified English. It's just that we don't make decisions like this solely with our head. Do we?

 

When your daughter reaches the age where you feel she should be allowed to 'text' and 'facebook' people in English, you'll see that the process you ask about is already well underway. Just as it was with Chaucer and Shaw and Dickens and others.

 

I'm comfortable for this to happen, mainly because like Canute (Knut to you I believe), I'm probably not going to be able to turn back the tide. But it will be a sad day if the 'correct' form for pronunciation and spelling isn't taught in schools. That correct form will of course itself slowly change and evolve over time too, as it has for hundreds of years.

 

I am however a little uncomfortable with the speed of change we are seeing now due to accelerated global communication through social networking and American domination of film and media. The issue is that kids now learn written communication far more away from school than they do in school. On one level, it's great that they feel confident to put their thoughts down in writing even if it is via a phone's keypad, but I do wonder what our language will look like in 30 years without some control over the process. The pragmatist in me says that as long as we are understood then that is all that matters. But I can't help feeling that something really important will have been lost.

 

And as for you questioning the point of the 'u' in colour. Well standing on the South Downs as I was on Saturday, looking out from Deacon Hill over the wonderful green fields towards Winchester and beyond, it hit me that I wasn't in America. It's not easy to convince yourself of that these days when our news 'outlets' broadcast 24 hour coverage of US primaries and caucuses; our televisions channels are full of US made programs and when our children talk about car hoods, slumber parties and school proms.

 

I write copy for many American companies and before I hand a piece over for review, I have to go through a process of replacing an 's' with a 'z' and removing the odd 'u' too. And even though I recognize (sic) that this is very inefficient, I never write 'native' American-English to start with.

 

Not an anti-American gibe, love the country and have many friends there. I'm just very proud to be English and day by day I find it more and more difficult to point to the things that define us as a distinct group of people.

 

Defend that 'u' norwaysaint. Even if it did get there via those pesky French.

[bridge too far]

At this stage, I'm not sure that it is actually practical to try and simplify.

 

First, we have a massive body of literature that is written in our idiosyncratic idiom. We'd either need to convert all of that to simplified English, or retain a body of knowledge on how to read older stuff.

 

Second, our phonetic alphabet is much larger than our written one.

 

Finally, English is no longer just our language. Any home-grown attempt at standardisation would ultimately be a deviation from the wider language.

 

We already have this facility, don't we? I remember trying to read Chaucer in the original text and having to rely on a 'translation' and even old headstones and memorial stones in churches are almost indecipherable because of 'f' for 's' etc.

 

I love my language and I love delving into the roots of words. I'm happy to txt when appropriate but I'd hate our quirky spellings to change.

[pap]

We already have this facility, don't we? I remember trying to read Chaucer in the original text and having to rely on a 'translation' and even old headstones and memorial stones in churches are almost indecipherable because of 'f' for 's' etc.

 

I love my language and I love delving into the roots of words. I'm happy to txt when appropriate but I'd hate our quirky spellings to change.

 

You're right, of course. But we have a comparatively small amount of literature in Middle English compared to the vast swathes written in something close to contemporary English ( ok, it gets less contemporary the further you go back, but Dickens etc is still eminently understandable ).

 

Language will always evolve, but the nice thing about evolution is that its a gradual process - giving us all a chance to assimilate new words and phrases as they occur.

 

And like yourself, I love our language too, foibles and all. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a foreigner trying to learn it, but I'm thankful it exists in the form it does - wonderfully expressive and living history at the same time.