The main thing though is that the Norman Conquest really did not mess up English orthography that badly, considering that the orthographies used to write Late Middle English were often at least close to phonemic, with probably the main places where they were not being with respect to marking of vowel length (or not) and indicating places where vowel lengthing and elision of word-final /@/ had already occurred (towards the end of the Middle English period). What really messed up English orthography was the Great Vowel Shift and a whole range of different phonological changes that have occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period, combined with some very idiotic decisions with respect to orthographic design which occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period.
the english langugage?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
Excellent comments, JJM.
<<What really messed up English orthography was the Great Vowel Shift and a whole range of different phonological changes that have occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period, combined with some very idiotic decisions with respect to orthographic design which occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period.>>
Also, some of the most glaringly silly spellings resulted from spellings being taken from different English dialects but with one form finally dominating over others. For example, "bury" reflects a historically valid spelling of a certain dialect's pronunciation but it does not do a good job representing how most people pronounce it today, so it stands out as non-sensical to most. For whatever reason, it came out as the winner and has remained the standard spelling.
However, I still maintain that English spelling, as crazy as some words are, actually does a pretty good job considering the demands placed on it. Also, we never notice the times when things are very consistent. Sure, "i" doesn't have a continental value in a word like "time," but it makes sense according to English spelling rules. We tend to notice the crazy exceptions and not the 85% of the time when things are actually more or less consistent (once learning the basic rules of English spelling you'd never doubt how to pronounce whole legions of words like "pod" "tuck" "cat" "tanned" "station" etc.).
<<What really messed up English orthography was the Great Vowel Shift and a whole range of different phonological changes that have occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period, combined with some very idiotic decisions with respect to orthographic design which occurred since the start of the Early Modern English period.>>
Also, some of the most glaringly silly spellings resulted from spellings being taken from different English dialects but with one form finally dominating over others. For example, "bury" reflects a historically valid spelling of a certain dialect's pronunciation but it does not do a good job representing how most people pronounce it today, so it stands out as non-sensical to most. For whatever reason, it came out as the winner and has remained the standard spelling.
However, I still maintain that English spelling, as crazy as some words are, actually does a pretty good job considering the demands placed on it. Also, we never notice the times when things are very consistent. Sure, "i" doesn't have a continental value in a word like "time," but it makes sense according to English spelling rules. We tend to notice the crazy exceptions and not the 85% of the time when things are actually more or less consistent (once learning the basic rules of English spelling you'd never doubt how to pronounce whole legions of words like "pod" "tuck" "cat" "tanned" "station" etc.).
>>However, I still maintain that English spelling, as crazy as some words are, actually does a pretty good job considering the demands placed on it. Also, we never notice the times when things are very consistent. Sure, "i" doesn't have a continental value in a word like "time," but it makes sense according to English spelling rules. We tend to notice the crazy exceptions and not the 85% of the time when things are actually more or less consistent (once learning the basic rules of English spelling you'd never doubt how to pronounce whole legions of words like "pod" "tuck" "cat" "tanned" "station" etc.).<<
The reasons why I'd be more for keeping the current orthography in practice is more a matter of the fact that
1) Trying to actually replace such with something that serves all of English well will be very hard at best.
2) Simply trying to replace such with *anything* is practically next to impossible at this point.
3) Trying to replace such will only get harder as dialects diverge and it becomes harder to create an orthography that effectively serves most dialects well.
At this point, it just seems to me like putting in place new orthographie(s) in this context will only truly become possible once English actually fragments into a group of distinctly separate languages, which will be most likely several centuries off. Even then, the classical English literary language may *still* stay in place as a literary language, like Latin during the period from the Middle Ages through the Early Modern period. In that case, classical English's daughter languages may very well remain only seldom written or even unwritten altogether, like many High German "dialects", such as many Alemannic and Austo-Bavarian dialects, which are only considered to be the same language as each other due to sharing a single formal literary language, standard Hochdeutsch.
The reasons why I'd be more for keeping the current orthography in practice is more a matter of the fact that
1) Trying to actually replace such with something that serves all of English well will be very hard at best.
2) Simply trying to replace such with *anything* is practically next to impossible at this point.
3) Trying to replace such will only get harder as dialects diverge and it becomes harder to create an orthography that effectively serves most dialects well.
At this point, it just seems to me like putting in place new orthographie(s) in this context will only truly become possible once English actually fragments into a group of distinctly separate languages, which will be most likely several centuries off. Even then, the classical English literary language may *still* stay in place as a literary language, like Latin during the period from the Middle Ages through the Early Modern period. In that case, classical English's daughter languages may very well remain only seldom written or even unwritten altogether, like many High German "dialects", such as many Alemannic and Austo-Bavarian dialects, which are only considered to be the same language as each other due to sharing a single formal literary language, standard Hochdeutsch.
"That unimportant island "
The largest island in Europe; the 8th largest in the world; the 4th largest economy in the world and soon to be bigger than Germany; there would be no United States today if it wasn't for Britain (that's one bad thing the British gave the world; the country that, a century ago, was the world's richest and most powerful country; the country, a up until the 1920s, accounted for 50% of all the world's foreign investment; a country that, until the 1930s, was the 2nd largest economy in the world after the United States; a country that manufactured more goods than Germany and France combined until as late as the 1960s; a country that was the 8th largest country in the world, by population, as late as the 1960s.
The largest island in Europe; the 8th largest in the world; the 4th largest economy in the world and soon to be bigger than Germany; there would be no United States today if it wasn't for Britain (that's one bad thing the British gave the world; the country that, a century ago, was the world's richest and most powerful country; the country, a up until the 1920s, accounted for 50% of all the world's foreign investment; a country that, until the 1930s, was the 2nd largest economy in the world after the United States; a country that manufactured more goods than Germany and France combined until as late as the 1960s; a country that was the 8th largest country in the world, by population, as late as the 1960s.
"It's a wonder that Adam has not suggested the idea of the English being paid copyright fees for the use of the English Language outside the borders of England! "
In France, it's against the law for French people to converse with each other in English.
In France, it's against the law for French people to converse with each other in English.
"[T]here would be no United States today if it wasn't for Britain..."
Or for France, for that matter!
Gee Adam, you seem awfully crabby about the US.
And yet those 298 million English-speaking Americans up the ante for the primacy of English worldwide.
Or for France, for that matter!
Gee Adam, you seem awfully crabby about the US.
And yet those 298 million English-speaking Americans up the ante for the primacy of English worldwide.
"And yet those 298 million English-speaking Americans up the ante for the primacy of English worldwide. "
It was Britain that took English worldwide, not the US. English is spoken as a native language in lots of former British colonies, so the US played almost no part in the language's expansion.
It was the British, not the Americans, who took English to Australia, New Zealand, India, Ireland and many other places.
And if it wasn't for Britain there would be no United States. The United States got its independence from Britain, not France. The US only acquired formally French-governed states after it declared its independence from Britain.
It was Britain that took English worldwide, not the US. English is spoken as a native language in lots of former British colonies, so the US played almost no part in the language's expansion.
It was the British, not the Americans, who took English to Australia, New Zealand, India, Ireland and many other places.
And if it wasn't for Britain there would be no United States. The United States got its independence from Britain, not France. The US only acquired formally French-governed states after it declared its independence from Britain.
=>The United States got its independence from Britain, not France.<=
Doesn't this sentence give a wrong image? As if Britain just GAVE independance...
A better sentence would be:
"The United States kicked Britains ass, not France's."
Doesn't this sentence give a wrong image? As if Britain just GAVE independance...
A better sentence would be:
"The United States kicked Britains ass, not France's."
Ce qui est curieux, Adam, c'est que tu oublies de mentionner l'existence, pendant plusieurs centaines d'années, de la Grande-Bretagne francophone. Comme tu oublies de parler du sous-développement absolu du Royaume-Uni dans les années 70 que la France, émue par tant de malheur, est venue atténuer en autorisant ce pays miséreux à rejoindre la CEE. Ce qui est bizarre aussi c'est que tu oublies de mentionner le vrai taux de chômage au Royaume-Uni : 13 % de la population « active ». Mais le plus étonnant c'est que tu semble ne plus te souvenir des 13 millions de pauvres (dont 3,5 millions d'enfants et 2 millions de vieux) qui survivent dans ton pays.
"A better sentence would be:
"The United States kicked Britains ass, not France's."
The US lost two-thirds of the battles in the War of Independence, and you had the help of the French who are very good at losing wars.
Remember, the Americans fought against one-tenth of the British army. We were more concerned abour fighting Napoleon. If we brought more troops to fight you, you would have been given a good hiding.
"The United States kicked Britains ass, not France's."
The US lost two-thirds of the battles in the War of Independence, and you had the help of the French who are very good at losing wars.
Remember, the Americans fought against one-tenth of the British army. We were more concerned abour fighting Napoleon. If we brought more troops to fight you, you would have been given a good hiding.
"Ce qui est curieux, Adam, c'est que tu oublies de mentionner l'existence, pendant plusieurs centaines d'années, de la Grande-Bretagne francophone. Comme tu oublies de parler du sous-développement absolu du Royaume-Uni dans les années 70 que la France, émue par tant de malheur, est venue atténuer en autorisant ce pays miséreux à rejoindre la CEE. Ce qui est bizarre aussi c'est que tu oublies de mentionner le vrai taux de chômage au Royaume-Uni : 13 % de la population « active ». Mais le plus étonnant c'est que tu semble ne plus te souvenir des 13 millions de pauvres (dont 3,5 millions d'enfants et 2 millions de vieux) qui survivent dans ton pays. "
Why the hell don't you speak English?
The French must be the most irritating and annoying people on Earth.
Why the hell don't you speak English?
The French must be the most irritating and annoying people on Earth.
"Why the hell don't you speak English?"
why the hell don't you speak other language than english ?
why the hell don't you speak other language than english ?
Adam, if Britain was so great, why didn't it send in more troops later? I guess they were shown and understood they were not wanted there. Then, your empire started to fall apart and only Great Britain remained. Even the Irish won independence, followed by devolution of power in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Doesn't look to me as if GB had bright future.
=>The US lost two-thirds of the battles in the War of Independence, and you had the help of the French who are very good at losing wars.
Remember, the Americans fought against one-tenth of the British army.<=
That's no excuse: YOU LOST.THEY WON
=>We were more concerned abour fighting Napoleon. If we brought more troops to fight you, you would have been given a good hiding.<=
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T !!!
Napoleon was 6 years old when the American war of independence began!The French revolution hadn't even happened!!!
YOU ENORMOUS MORON !!!
Remember, the Americans fought against one-tenth of the British army.<=
That's no excuse: YOU LOST.THEY WON
=>We were more concerned abour fighting Napoleon. If we brought more troops to fight you, you would have been given a good hiding.<=
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T !!!
Napoleon was 6 years old when the American war of independence began!The French revolution hadn't even happened!!!
YOU ENORMOUS MORON !!!
"It was Britain that took English worldwide, not the US... so the US played almost no part in the language's expansion."
The English language is a global language for the simple reason that the last two back-to-back imperial superpowers - the British Empire and the United States - were both English-speaking. The role of the US in the expansion of English is hardly debatable. It has nearly five times as many English speakers as the UK.
Five times! You're delusional, Adam.
"The United States got its independence from Britain, not France."
The US received considerable help from France in achieving independence. At Yorktown, French participation was decisive, dear Adam. The French provided over half the troops arrayed against the British there. The French fleet effectively prevented British reinforcement.
Do read more history when you have the chance.
The English language is a global language for the simple reason that the last two back-to-back imperial superpowers - the British Empire and the United States - were both English-speaking. The role of the US in the expansion of English is hardly debatable. It has nearly five times as many English speakers as the UK.
Five times! You're delusional, Adam.
"The United States got its independence from Britain, not France."
The US received considerable help from France in achieving independence. At Yorktown, French participation was decisive, dear Adam. The French provided over half the troops arrayed against the British there. The French fleet effectively prevented British reinforcement.
Do read more history when you have the chance.
Previous page Pages: 1 2