<<<<There are no more keys left on the typewriter.>>
Other languages have managed to adapt the keyboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout
There are also some unnecessary letters which could be replaced: Q, Y, X, C.>>
Outlander, then, you need to adapt your mind by replacing parts of your brain, too!
Relearning basic skills isn't really possible, you will end up destroying your previous skills but never really able to master the new ones.
<<<<And even if we were to make it more based on phonetics, who's phonetics would we be using, exactly?>>
We could use the pronunciation of some specially chosen person. We could vote about who it should be.>>
Even one and the same person never pronunces a word the same. You'll never agree which person to choose.
Lord Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:47 pm GMT:
<<<<I'm sorry but this all seems quite silly to me. Why on earth should native English speakers augment their writing system in order to make it easier for foreigners to learn the language? Its lunacy!>>
You're missing the point. Of course NATIVE speakers aren't going to do it. The point is that NON-native speakers might change English in order to make it easier for THEMSELVES to learn the language.>>
Then you end up with another language!
<<Don't forget that it's predicted that in the future 3 billion people will know English. 2.5 billion non-natives vs 500 million natives, who will be calling the shots? Not to mention that English speaking countries are declining in importance.>>
If so, why bother about learning English? Rape your own mother tongue!
Lord Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:00 am GMT:
<<<<And yes, perhaps non-native speakers will outnumber native speakers some day. But if English-speaking nations are allegedly declining in importance, then why would there be masses of people even bothering to learn the language at all?>>
As the language of international communication. Remember Latin? It was used right up until the 1700s for technical writing, used by people like Isaac Newton. By that time, it waas long dead as a spoken language.
The decline of English speaking nations would probably even increase the use of English, as it would become even more 'neutral' and 'acceptable' by the world.>>
English is already the language of international communication. If you rape it, it'll loose this status. English is also used for technical writing, but still alive and well. Did Isaac Newton actually speak Latin?
English is in a certain sense the most ''neutral'' natural language. If you want to be really neutral, then there are some constructed languages claiming to be really neutral. But I doubt they are.
LexDiamondz Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:03 pm GMT:
<<I'm sorry but this all seems quite silly to me. Why on earth should native English speakers augment their writing system in order to make it easier for foreigners to learn the language? Its lunacy!>>
Yes, it's quite silly! I even doubt it it would get easier to learn the language if the writing system will get ''augmented''. A written word isn't just a phonetical mapping of the spoken one. The latter may be quite similar to another word. So, for better recognizability, it's quite good if the written form is somewhat more distinct.
<<And even if we were to make it more based on phonetics, who's phonetics would we be using, exactly? Which accents would be deemed "suitable" to be used as the template? General American? Recieved Pronunciation? Broad Australian, perhaps?>>
If the proponents of that kind of reform would think first, they would easily see that. But they are in love with their silly ideas, so they're blind for practical issues.
<<I say just leave the language as it is and let it develop naturally, as it has for the last two millenia. I learned how to spell more or less adequately, so why reform the entire language to please people who can't even speak it?>>
I second you!
<<I say just leave the language as it is and let it develop naturally, as it has for the last two millenia. I learned how to spell more or less adequately, so why reform the entire language to please people who can't even speak it?>>
Is it not natural for non-native speakers to say "hey, this is fricking boring learning these stupid spelling rules, I think we should spell it how we want"?
Is it not natural for a non-native speaer to say "English is already so bland, what difference does it make if we remove the 's' for 3rd person singular conjugations"?
Seems pretty natural to me.