Why not creating "Americanish"?

English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:01 pm GMT
Everyone knows English spelling is not good because its spelling and pronunciation are not cognate like German or French

So,i may consider why not creating "Americanish"?

USA can adopt "New England dialect" as standard Americanish and make a new spelling system (under basis of this New England dialect)to make spelling and pronunciation more cognate like French or German.

USA may not be independent because English still remains there. So, why not creating "Americanish" under this idea of "Spelling Reform"?
LAA   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:14 pm GMT
Because we don't want to abandon tradition. We are not self-conscious like the Romanians, where we have to completely reform our language to fit some precious ideal. And what do you mean by the "New England" dialect. There are no dialects in the U.S., merely differences in accents according to region.
Benjamin   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:16 pm GMT
« USA can adopt "New England dialect" as standard Americanish »

Why that one particularly?
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:17 pm GMT
« USA can adopt "New England dialect" as standard Americanish »

Why that one particularly?

Because it has large population
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:21 pm GMT
LAA Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:14 pm GMT
Because we don't want to abandon tradition. We are not self-conscious like the Romanians, where we have to completely reform our language to fit some precious ideal. And what do you mean by the "New England" dialect. There are no dialects in the U.S., merely differences in accents according to region.


1. USA become independent , so it needs a new language to fix her need for the national identity. Then why not USA unfying with UK now?

2.You can preserve your tradition in the museum, but you can't stop the reform of a language

3.New England dialect means "the dialect or accent spoken in Northeastern USA
zxczxc   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:24 pm GMT
You can stop the reform of a language but not accepting it. Easy. Just look at German: huge swarthes of people are unhappy with their spelling reform, and many newspapers don't even use it.
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:26 pm GMT
zxczxc Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:24 pm GMT
You can stop the reform of a language but not accepting it. Easy. Just look at German: huge swarthes of people are unhappy with their spelling reform, and many newspapers don't even use it.


At least, they have their courage to reform it, then why don't u guys have courage to reform it?
Guest   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:49 pm GMT
Since English is spoken in Canada and Jamaica as well, I suggest instead "gringish", more accurate.
LAA   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:50 pm GMT
"New England dialect means "the dialect or accent spoken in Northeastern USA "

No, a "dialect" is not synonymous with an "accent". They are two very different things.

And New England does not have a large population when compared to other areas. It is a small region geographically speaking. It's population is very dense, yes, but not necessarily larger than other regions like the West Coast, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania-etc. area.

English does not need to be reformed, simply because you don't like it. Do you realize what a huge, arduous undertaking it is to reform an entire language in a land of 300 million people?
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:54 pm GMT
Why not choose the standard dialect or accent to represent the standard "Americanish" through referendum?

English needs to be reformed.
You know its spelling and pronunciation are not cognate and this may slow down our learning speed.

If English pronunciation and spelling be cognate, we don't need to stick our childhood time to learn how to pronounce it and how to spell it ,we can spend our time in literature.
zxczxc   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 pm GMT
I never spent my childhood learning how to pronounce it, it comes naturally. Plus literature would be in a foreign language to future generations.
Dude Who Knows   Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:58 pm GMT
<<There are no dialects in the U.S., merely differences in accents according to region.>>

That's totally wrong. There are indeed many different dialects in the U.S. as well as accents. Accents are defined soley by relative differences in pronunciation among various groups of people. They can be defined by region, social status, age, occupation, ethnicity, and even social situations. Dialects, on the other hand, are defined not just by pronunciation, but also by grammar and vocabulary. They also tend to be differentiated mostly by region and class. It should be noted that one dialect can contain many accents.

<<So,i may consider why not creating "Americanish"?>>

Uh, wouldn't such a language just be called "American"?

<<USA can adopt "New England dialect" as standard Americanish and make a new spelling system (under basis of this New England dialect)to make spelling and pronunciation more cognate like French or German.>>

I have to second everyone who has already questioned a "New England dialect" as the standard in this hypothetical new language. The region may have a relatively large population, but it has very distinct accents from most other American regions. Midwestern speech is often defined as the closest to the idea of "General American".

<<USA may not be independent because English still remains there. So, why not creating "Americanish" under this idea of "Spelling Reform"?>>

Okay, so how serious are you about this? Should Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all adopt new spellings, or does the fact that they are members of the Commonwealth mean that don't need to sever ties to the English language?

In reality, the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no desire to differentiate their language from that of Great Britain. There's no point, and the logistics of actually implementing such a plan are near impossible. Just because the government would want everyone to adopt new spelling reforms and manners of speech does not mean that they would actually take hold among the general populace.

Finally, altering the spelling of words would not, in and of itself, be enough to make the language spoken something other than English. It would just be English spelled differently.
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:01 pm GMT
zxczxc Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 pm GMT
I never spent my childhood learning how to pronounce it, it comes naturally. Plus literature would be in a foreign language to future generations.


When you first came to school and got your book, most of you would feel upset. Oh, what's this word? How to read it? and why this "ou" pronounced by u-sound why another "ou" pronounced by "aw" sound?

U didn't spend it? You are lying!
LAA   Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:08 pm GMT
If any standard accent was to be devolped, I think it would be the West Coast accent. Hollywood and the media's "standard/normal American accent" is based on the California accent.

<<That's totally wrong. There are indeed many different dialects in the U.S. as well as accents. Accents are defined soley by relative differences in pronunciation among various groups of people. They can be defined by region, social status, age, occupation, ethnicity, and even social situations. Dialects, on the other hand, are defined not just by pronunciation, but also by grammar and vocabulary. They also tend to be differentiated mostly by region and class. It should be noted that one dialect can contain many accents. >>

That's just it. There are no distinct "dialects" in the U.S. English grammar does not vary from state to state or region to region. Vocabulary is no different. The only difference are regional accents. The English spoken in Texas is the exacts same English spoken in Maine.
English reformer   Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:08 pm GMT
Dude Who Knows Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:58 pm GMT


First of all, Canada,Australia still depends on their British master. but South Africa is independent.

I don't think it's reasonable to oppose this reform idea.
Why? Has this Reformed English been created and someone tries to use it? No! You guys don't have such an experience of using reformed English, then you guys shall not oppose it because you are not experienced.