Reparation of English

In addition to spelling reform, do you think that English should propose other needed reforms, such as those affecting inconsistencies in grammar and usage?

Here are some instances where I think English could benefit:
1). Remove ambiguity in the second person pronoun 'you' (sing.) vs 'you' (plural) as in 'How are you?' (singular or plural???). Perhaps re-installing 'thou/thee/thy/thine' and 'ye/you/your/yours(*yourn)'?

2). Remove ambiguity between present participle ending '-ing' ['Pusuing girls can be fun' {i.e. girls who pursue}] and gerund ending '-ing' [Pursuing girls can be fun' {i.e. the pursuit of}]. Suggest returning present participle '-ing' to '-ind'(alt. '-and') to avoid confusion [*'Pusuind/Pursuand girls {i.e. girls who pursue} can be fun'].

3). Make clearer the distinction between singular and plural in the genitive (possessive) case, eg. 'the partner's input' (sing.) vs 'the partners' input' (plural). I suggest returning to the plural possessive marker -'n (alt. -en) rendering *'the partner'n input' for clarification. This would also affect plural possessives like 'ours', 'yours' (plur.) and 'theirs' making them 'ourn', yourn' and 'theirn' for logical consistency.

4). Plural reflexive pronoun 'that' ['The books that are new have arrived.']. Compared to a statement like 'Those books are new' the form 'that' is illogical and incorrect (although correct in Modern usage)...these forms should match [*'The books those are new have arrived.' OR an alternate form *'The books tho are new have arrived'.].

These changes have valid basis, as they were the forms used in older forms of English (Middle English), but in the transition to Modern English they were unfortunately lost. Would bringing them back remove confusion and enhance clarity and precision to the language?

No. But neither am I for spelling reform, though I'd have less objection to spelling reform than these changes.

For most Americans, there is a clear distinction between singular and plural "you". I have "you" for singular and "you guys" for the plural. So most Americans have gotten rid of the ambiguity without having to reinstall the Old English singular forms.

I am not for "re-installing" those old-style thou's thee's but I am for distinguishing between the two of those

And I have always found that to be confusing, a smoking jacket and a smoking jacket - a jacket on fire

>>I am not for "re-installing" those old-style thou's thee's but I am for distinguishing between the two of those<<

The matter is that *very* many (and I would guess most) English dialects have already done just that; the only thing is while they have consistently shifted "you" to being purely singular, they do not agree on what to replace "you" with for the plural. Thus you get a range of dialects with things such as "you guys", "y'all", "you lot", "youse", "you'uns", and even "ye".

<<Plural reflexive pronoun 'that' ['The books that are new have arrived.']. Compared to a statement like 'Those books are new' the form 'that' is illogical and incorrect (although correct in Modern usage)...these forms should match>>

The verb should also agree: "(The books) ***that are*** (new have arrived)"...only here can you say "that are" rather than "that is"...it makes no sense.

I'm all for it!
Spelling reform too!

Norwegian and French guide their languages (some to a greater extent than others...); why shouldn't we?

As far as I know, grammar reform NEVER works. Spelling reform in English will probably never happen (at least in the short term), but it's got a lot more chance than grammar reform. But I assume this is an at least partly hypothetical discussion, so...

<< 1). Remove ambiguity in the second person pronoun 'you' (sing.) vs 'you' (plural) as in 'How are you?' (singular or plural???). Perhaps re-installing 'thou/thee/thy/thine' and 'ye/you/your/yours(*yourn)'? >>

This never causes problems. People already make that distinction when necessary ("you all", "you guys", "the three of you", etc.).

<< 2). Remove ambiguity between present participle ending '-ing' ['Pusuing girls can be fun' {i.e. girls who pursue}] and gerund ending '-ing' [Pursuing girls can be fun' {i.e. the pursuit of}]. Suggest returning present participle '-ing' to '-ind'(alt. '-and') to avoid confusion [*'Pusuind/Pursuand girls {i.e. girls who pursue} can be fun']. >>

Here I can see more of a point, but you've already pointed out that the ambiguity can be avoided if necessary: "Girls who pursue can be fun"; "The pursuit of girls can be fun". Also, this ambiguity exists mostly in writing: if you say "pursuing girls" but mean "girls who pursue", you will likely stress the first two words differently. Moreover, a much more conservative reform that would be just as effective is using the infinitive more like a gerund, as is done in Romance languages: "To pursue girls can be fun" -- which already makes sense in modern English -- restricting "pursuing girls" to mean "girls who pursue".

<< 3). Make clearer the distinction between singular and plural in the genitive (possessive) case, eg. 'the partner's input' (sing.) vs 'the partners' input' (plural). I suggest returning to the plural possessive marker -'n (alt. -en) rendering *'the partner'n input' for clarification. This would also affect plural possessives like 'ours', 'yours' (plur.) and 'theirs' making them 'ourn', yourn' and 'theirn' for logical consistency. >>

This is a problem more often, although the ambiguity can still be avoided ("the input of the partner" versus "the input of the partners"). The particular solution of attaching an "n" sounds ugly to me, though. I would rather use a different plural marker altogether (e.g., appending an "e"), whether or not the word is possessive, and tack the possessive 's' on top of that. But that also sounds kind of ugly. Can't really win there, I don't think.

<< 4). Plural reflexive pronoun 'that' ['The books that are new have arrived.']. Compared to a statement like 'Those books are new' the form 'that' is illogical and incorrect (although correct in Modern usage)...these forms should match [*'The books those are new have arrived.' OR an alternate form *'The books tho are new have arrived'.]. >>

That's a relative pronoun, not a reflexive pronoun. Reflexive pronouns in English end with "-self", like "itself". Anyway, I fail to see why this is a problem. Inconsistent, perhaps, but no ambiguity at all is created, and as far as I know, it doesn't pose significant problems for language learners. Moreover, it can be argued that the relative pronoun "that" and the demonstrative adjective "that" are really two different words, though they share a common origin. This one gets a complete thumbs-down from me for being entirely unnecessary and arguably making things more complex (by requiring number agreement) rather than simpler.

- Kef

<<That's a relative pronoun, not a reflexive pronoun.>>

Ooops, yes, you are correct. My mistake. Thank you!

was a long night : )...

>>>>Plural reflexive pronoun 'that' ['The books that are new have arrived.']. Compared to a statement like 'Those books are new' the form 'that' is illogical and incorrect (although correct in Modern usage)...these forms should match [*'The books those are new have arrived.' OR an alternate form *'The books tho are new have arrived'.]. <<<<

Why not just say "The new books have arrived". You're working far too hard at this.

<<Why not just say "The new books have arrived". You're working far too hard at this. >>

that's not the same sentence/meaning...

<<Here I can see more of a point, but you've already pointed out that the ambiguity can be avoided if necessary: .... Also, this ambiguity exists mostly in writing: if you say "pursuing girls" but mean "girls who pursue", you will likely stress the first two words differently. Moreover, a much more conservative reform that would be just as effective is using the infinitive more like a gerund, as is done in Romance languages: "To pursue girls can be fun" -- which already makes sense in modern English -- restricting "pursuing girls" to mean "girls who pursue". >>

Seems easier to change the "g" to "d", -ing > -ind. The way it's pronounced wouldn't be different because it's usually "-in'" anyway. Benefits would outweigh the cost I think, this is *technically* the more conservative form from an historical standpoint.

Weird that "you" is now normal as the singlular instead of the other way around.
Same with -ing: it's suggested above to be used as the present progressive ending which is contrary to it's original use as the verbal noun indicator.

<<<<Moreover, it can be argued that the relative pronoun "that" and the demonstrative adjective "that" are really two different words, though they share a common origin.>>

Yep. They're even pronounced differently for me. The relative pronoun is [DE?] ("thet") in its strong form, and [D1?] in its weak form, while the demonstrative is always [Da?]. >>

In Old English, the relative pronoun had to agree in gender, number and case with the noun it modified. It was this way until it became unstressed as 'the' for all instances. It is from unstressed 'the' that 'that' has emerged as the universal pron. However, German still preserves this feature fully as in 'Mein Bruder, **der** ist alt, kann nicht schell laufen' (My brother who is old cannot run fast), versus 'Meine Brueder **die** sind alt koennen nicht schnell laufen' (My brothers who are old cannot run fast).

I saw a couple of posts on another thread stating that German was more "elegant than English" and "sharper and clearer". Perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

On both the plural you and the plural possiesive, there's very little use in a change. There'd *still* be an ambiguity if there were more than 2 "you"s or partners. An ambiguity that is more easily solved by saying "both of you", "you all", "you three over there" than tampering with the grammar. As for the chances of a reform actually working, there are Enmglish speaking areas where thou and thee still exist. Do you imagine nobody else has a stubborn side.

<<As for the chances of a reform actually working, there are Enmglish speaking areas where thou and thee still exist. >>

Correct. And most, if not all Modern English speakers are familiar with Thou and Ye, either through the King James bible or through literature, and expressions still used like: Hear ye, Hear ye; Fare thee well; Holier than thou; know thyself; etc so such a transition would not be unthinkable.

AJC's point was that people are resistant to change. That's exactly why such a transition would be unthinkable, because *any* forced change to fundamental grammar would be unthinkable.

<< However, German still preserves this feature fully as in 'Mein Bruder, **der** ist alt, kann nicht schell laufen' (My brother who is old cannot run fast), versus 'Meine Brueder **die** sind alt koennen nicht schnell laufen' (My brothers who are old cannot run fast).

I saw a couple of posts on another thread stating that German was more "elegant than English" and "sharper and clearer". Perhaps this is one of the reasons why. >>

I still fail to see what's more elegant, sharper, or clearer about requiring agreement of relative pronouns. It seems to me all it would do is introduce an unnecessary complication. My own idea of an elegant language is one that reduces agreement, not adds to it.

- Kef

<< It seems to me all it would do is introduce an unnecessary complication. My own idea of an elegant language is one that reduces agreement, not adds to it.
>>

Perhaps then English Reformation should be in the other direction,,,remove the remaining unnecessary inflections like 3rd person singluar -s ("he make" instead of "he makes")...

Conform all strong/irregular verbs to regular: I rided (rode), I seed (saw), I have beed (been),,,

Spelling still needs work though...