Easy English
- Thread starter ZenMonkey47
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.ThrobbingEgo said:
Plus, English as we know it now is constantly evolving. The language reflects its Latin, Germanic, and Romance roots. Because it's based in so many different archaic languages, its structure and grammar has some variations. 500 years from now the language won't resemble its current form. Look at Shakespeare--the real manuscripts mind you, where the letters looked a bit different than they do now and the words meant different things. English has, in a sense, been dumbed down already. It doesn't need help in the creation of new slang and grammar.
kill slayer_2
I say that one's grammer is fine as long as I can comprehend it and I have very good comprehension abilities.
I also like to decipher 1337 5|>34|<.
I think that the most useful way to help others learn English is to explain grammar points and subtleties in the most straightforward fashion. Attempting to change it will only confuse things; languages evolve on their own, and there's no reason to force that.
With all due respect, the two are possessing of possibly different meanings. "Child" could indicate either "a child" or "the child", in other words either "one child" or "a particular child". It's a pretty subtle, but rather important, distinction.ZenMonkey47 said:
Ah, leet. The most pointless cypher ever. It's two uses are bypassing spam filters and being a dick. There might be some overlap.
You (or rather Orwell) make a valid point.ThrobbingEgo said:
Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the rough parts smoothed out. For example c always pronounced like cat and s always pronounced like sell. None of this cinema garbage.
Most of the quirks in the English language come from it's varied roots (Anglo-Saxon/Frankish/Latin primarily). In contrast, French is primarily Frankish/Latin, Spanish is Visigoth/Latin and Italian is Lombard/Latin, leading to fewer contradictions in the rules governing the language.
That said, there is no need to have two different indefinite articles (a and an), but one must retain a single indefinite article and the definite article.
To illustrate:
The Ship - refers to a very specific ship
A ship - refers to any number of ships
Ship - unknown if the word is, in and of itself referring to a specific ship or any ship.
To better illustrate:
Ship travels across ocean - is this a statement of purpose of ships? Is it perhaps a reference to a single ship that is traveling across a large, open expanse of salt-water? One can make it more clear if they write something like:
Passenger ship, named "Titanic", travels across North Atlantic.
this says essentially the same thing as:
The "Titanic", a passenger ship, travels across the North Atlantic.
While both messages convey the same message, ommitting articles requires the reader to pay more attention to adjectives and other qualifying remarks to determine how general or specific a reference is.
And on the subject of phonetic spelling - the answer is just simply no. Unless there was a single and accepted phonetic spelling for each and every word, the only result would be an increase in complexity in the language (just look at Arabic/English translations, which are all done phonetically and therefore you end up with a dozen ways to spell "Mohammad" for example). I'm not opposed to "Chevrolet" being spelled "Chevrolay" as a rule, so long as there is an accepted rule. But one must also consider the irreparable damage that would be done to that proud tradition of the spelling bee, if contestants were no longer required to memorize the reams of data regarding the different root and suffix rules from all the possible sources for English words.
That said, there is no need to have two different indefinite articles (a and an), but one must retain a single indefinite article and the definite article.
To illustrate:
The Ship - refers to a very specific ship
A ship - refers to any number of ships
Ship - unknown if the word is, in and of itself referring to a specific ship or any ship.
To better illustrate:
Ship travels across ocean - is this a statement of purpose of ships? Is it perhaps a reference to a single ship that is traveling across a large, open expanse of salt-water? One can make it more clear if they write something like:
Passenger ship, named "Titanic", travels across North Atlantic.
this says essentially the same thing as:
The "Titanic", a passenger ship, travels across the North Atlantic.
While both messages convey the same message, ommitting articles requires the reader to pay more attention to adjectives and other qualifying remarks to determine how general or specific a reference is.
And on the subject of phonetic spelling - the answer is just simply no. Unless there was a single and accepted phonetic spelling for each and every word, the only result would be an increase in complexity in the language (just look at Arabic/English translations, which are all done phonetically and therefore you end up with a dozen ways to spell "Mohammad" for example). I'm not opposed to "Chevrolet" being spelled "Chevrolay" as a rule, so long as there is an accepted rule. But one must also consider the irreparable damage that would be done to that proud tradition of the spelling bee, if contestants were no longer required to memorize the reams of data regarding the different root and suffix rules from all the possible sources for English words.
The only syntactical error (apart from the capitalization) you made was not splitting your first sentence with a question mark.dmase said:
"Why should it be a necessity to dumb down a language? This is our heritage. No other culture would randomly decide to drop a bit just to make sure that immigrants and college students can better understand it. Plus I thought that's how foreigners used English already."
So, no. I don si wut yu did thar.
Caveman speak jokes aside? No joke- that is caveman speak! You can't open the door of the clown car and not expect them to jump out.ZenMonkey47 said:
Aside from the random "It's our heritage" yelling (Why is it any more your heritage than caveman language?), the reason we don't dumb languages down is because doing so makes it harder to express certain feelings.
I'm Dutch, and our language is by default less rich than the English, French and German ones (mainly a residue due to the fact that Holland never knew serious im- and expressionism). Already I feel the need to use words from other languages to convey some very specific messages/emotions - "Überhaupt" is a very common Dutch word, while the word in fact isn't in the Dutch dictonary at all; it's German.
Eventually, we might get a universal language all across the globe, but even that one will be extremely sophisticated. It's just that the less additions and words a language has, the harder it becomes to express more and more feelings and messages with it.
I'm Dutch, and our language is by default less rich than the English, French and German ones (mainly a residue due to the fact that Holland never knew serious im- and expressionism). Already I feel the need to use words from other languages to convey some very specific messages/emotions - "Überhaupt" is a very common Dutch word, while the word in fact isn't in the Dutch dictonary at all; it's German.
Eventually, we might get a universal language all across the globe, but even that one will be extremely sophisticated. It's just that the less additions and words a language has, the harder it becomes to express more and more feelings and messages with it.
No it does not. The words A, An and The convey a lot of information--they particularize or generalize terms. AN apple is quite a different thing from THE apple--if it's AN apple, you know it is one of many, it is a general object. If it is THE apple, it is singular, particular, possibly even unique.ZenMonkey47 said:
Variety of capital and lower-case letters make it easier to read. This is also why I don't like sans serif fonts--the serifs actually make the font easier to read.
No. The reason why English orthography is such a mess is because a good 65% of the words in the language were borrowed from OTHER languages. The only way to keep the language halfway sensible is to leave the orthography the way it is (despite the difficulty this adds in spelling for newcomers) because the nature of the spelling gives you clues as to the source and meaning of the word.
And, for newcomers: yes, English is a pain to learn. Just remember that you're not really learning English, you're learning bits and pieces of a hundred tongues all smooged together in an inelegant but surprisingly expressive heap.
Long-time English speakers should also consider that there are benefits to having a complex language. Groups of people often go out of their way to erect walls of mutual incomprehensibility to establish camaraderie and exclusivity. Lowering the bar would probably only serve to spur the slang-generation to new and undreamed-of heights. As it stands, by the time you can speak English with great proficiency you can communicate with pretty much any English-speaker ANYWHERE regardless of slang and pronunciation differences. The investment pays off.
just coz he used capital letters doesnt mean he's shouting! <----- OMG i'm shouting without using capital letters...NeutralDrow said:
i dont care if i made mistakes in my spelling and grammar im tired and dont give a shit.
i like the english language the way it and why change now?
Oh, come on! That's not necessarily shouting, that could be simple emphasis! This is shouting!TriSarahTops said:
Gah, sorry 'bout that. I hate shouting at people. Have some <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qus3Bn3ppP8>soothing music as an apology.
