Changes that you would do to "improve" your langu

<<I really thought you had made a mistake in writing 'depurated', as in all my time as a native English speaker I have never heard that word,>>

I use to check the words that I write if I'm not sure about its correct spelling or existence with an electronic dictionary in my computer but curiously I didn't do it with that word and I know it because it is not in it. I'm almost sure that I saw it somewhere before and easily was assimilated in my mind since its equivalence in Spanish is "depurado". Sometimes such similitudes are tricky and it's quite easy for Spanish speakers unconsciously to made up Spanglish words.

<<The plural of you (second person formal) was ye. The plural of thou (second person informal) was thee.
In the South of the USA, y'all is used as a second person plural>>

Fascinating and strange how such words were lost. The thou and thee made think about foot-feet, tooth-teeth. Then "you" is still felt as singular then the tendency is to pluralize it. Fascinating.

By the way, what was the conjugation of verb "to be" for old you-ye-thou-thee ?

The previous post is mine.

That's wrong.

"Thou" is is a subject pronoun, while "thee" is an object pronoun. That's the difference between the two, not plurality. "Ye" was the subject pronoun, while "you" was the object pronoun. "Thou" and "thee" were singular, and "ye" and "you" were plural. However, the plural "ye" and "you" were used as formal signular pronouns, even though they were really plural. Eventually, they completely replaced "thou" and "thee".

This is not an "improvement" of the English language itself, but one of its orthography, going beyond simple halfassed "spelling reform" schemes. Rather the idea is to essentially create a new orthography from scratch with a crossdialectal basis going back to the time just before the general split between North American and non-North American English dialects came to be.

Within such a model, matters would be divided into sets of phonemic distinctions that are simply subsets of greater numbers of phonemic distinctions and arbitrary phonemic mappings. In the former case, the aim would be to basically have the most conservative set of phonemes and positional phonemic distinctions possible, out of those extant at the time of the American-British split. In the latter case, such would be chosen out of what was most prevalent at the time of the American-British split or out of what is most prevalent today, depending on what is most appropriate for creating an orthography representing a consistent phonology internally which fits English dialects crossdialectally today well (but which may be far more conservative than most English dialects today).

Note that such would likely require a quite complex orthography, due to representing far more distinctions than are present in most English dialects today. Furthermore, also note that such would not necessarily clearly reflect any standard forms today; for example, it would have /O/ in words like "all" and "already", instead of the /Q/ that Received pronunciation has or the /A/ that General American has (of course, this is one on which I am biased, since my dialects has /O/ in such positions, but the matter is that such clearly fits Early Modern English phonology, with /O/ being a more conservative form). It would not obsolete spelling bees and like, as it would still represent a very conservative phonology which most English-speakers today would have to learn due to it not being necessarily obvious from their own native dialects' phonologies or from those of spoken standard forms. At the same time, it would have the advantage of producing a new orthography which can truly serve English in general, whatever the dialect in question may happen to be, rather than simply codifying some standard or compromise between standards as so.

Guest

No, you were right, it does appear in the online dictionary
www. dictionary.com

tr. & intr.v. dep·u·rat·ed, dep·u·rat·ing, dep·u·rates
To cleanse or purify or become cleansed or purified.

Yes Aquatar I wrote the correct word almost by coincidence since I din't check it because possibly I saw it somewhere before.

Perhaps that was misunderstood, although I got what he/she was trying to say, because unlike some people... I have overcome my nastalgia.

I prefer to use the numbers too, but it makes me feel a little out of place because it makes me sound less natural when i'm around Spanish speakers. So, like I do in English, I use "quarter to", "quarter after", etc.

Thanks for setting me straight, guest. I do have a question, though: What of the phrase "Hear ye"? Did the command form use the object?

Thou conjugations in the present tense usually ended t (like for the German du)

are-->art
have-->hast

These are the only ones I'm sure about. For more examples, look in the book of Psalms in an older English language version of the Bible.