PDA

View Full Version : Runes for Modern English/Spelling Reform?



Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 03:43 AM
I was reading Wikipedia, and I stumbled upon this beauty:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Anglosaxonrunes.svg/531px-Anglosaxonrunes.svg.png

According to Wikipedia, the predecessor of English (Anglo-Saxon/Old English/Englisc) used these symbols as its alphabet.

Since many other languages use multiple alphabets alongside one another, what would you guys think of this being an alternative to the basic Latin alphabet that English uses?

I really think it would be kinda cool to have two alphabets. It would also be a way to somewhat reclaim English's Germanic language heritage.

I also think that this could be quite beneficial to English. If we had this alphabet fully adapted to Modern English, then we could fix many of those messed up pronunciations in English, due to the fact that we would have a "fresh start", or so to speak.

Of course, I am fully open to fixing English using the already extant Latin alphabet. Such as scrapping Q and C's regular sounds, and swapping their phonetic values to those of Ð and Þ. Because, to be honest, Q is redundant due to K, and C is redundant due to S and K.

I've talked to many people with English as a second language who have said that English's biggest problem is the pronunciations.

For those who don't believe English is messed up, I present the word:

Ghoti

It looks like it would be pronounced "go tee", right? Wrong, it's actually pronounced as the following:

Gh as in laugh
o as in women
ti as in action

Put it all together, and you get: "Fish"


English seriously needs to be fixed.


Thoughts?

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 04:03 AM
Runes, along with the Latin alphabet come from the same source anyway (the Phoenician and other Semitic 'Alef Bet' or abjad scripts from the MIddle East), via Greek. So Runes are probably not as authentically Germanic as you might like to think.

Personally think it's a bad idea, kids have enough to learn without an archaic alphabet being tossed into the equation. Would be much better to teach them a second language than a dead second alphabet.

Chronon
July 30th, 2009, 04:23 AM
For those who don't believe English is messed up, I present the word:

Ghoti

It looks like it would be pronounced "go tee", right? Wrong, it's actually pronounced as the following:

Gh as in laugh
o as in women
ti as in action

Put it all together, and you get: "Fish"


English seriously needs to be fixed.


Thoughts?

I don't think you should claim that it's "actually" pronounced any way since it isn't a real word. It's a constructed example used to show the ambiguous mapping between graphemes and phonemes (i.e. a particular grapheme [letter] does not correspond to a unique phoneme [sound]). There is no rule that says that "ghoti" must be pronounced as "fish". It's simply one of many transcriptions that a listener could use when they hear that combination of sounds.

I would like to see English become more of a phonetic language (which is the point usually being promoted by using the "ghoti" example).

MasterNetra
July 30th, 2009, 04:25 AM
English is complicated as it is. Doesn't need any more complication, if anything we need to simplify it more.

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 04:28 AM
Runes, along with the Latin alphabet come from the same source anyway (the Phoenician and other Semitic 'Alef Bet' or abjad scripts from the MIddle East), via Greek. So Runes are probably not as authentically Germanic as you might like to think.


Well, every component of a language comes from somewhere originally. IIRC, some of the original sources of the Phoenician alphabet were the Egyptian Hieroglyphics.



Personally think it's a bad idea, kids have enough to learn without an archaic alphabet being tossed into the equation. Would be much better to teach them a second language than a dead second alphabet.

The same thing could really be said about cursive, though. Out of all of the students who went to school and learned cursive in this decade, how many of them actually use it?

By the way, the second alphabet wouldn't really be dead if someone came up with some nice, readable fonts for it on the computer. That's really one of the reasons why cursive isn't very popular among younger generations - a lack of immersion, so to speak.

shadylookin
July 30th, 2009, 04:46 AM
I don't think English can be reformed by a governing body, rather it must evolve naturally. Any idea to bring it back to a more ancient form will fail. 26 letters is enough for me to have to remember anyway.

Lavaeagle
July 30th, 2009, 04:49 AM
OP is from texas he doesn't know real english.
"Howdy yall" = ???

Every read beowulf?

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 05:00 AM
I don't think English can be reformed by a governing body, rather it must evolve naturally. Any idea to bring it back to a more ancient form will fail. 26 letters is enough for me to have to remember anyway.

Not necessarily. English has been reformed in the past. American English's pronunciations evolved naturally, but our spellings have been manipulated. One such famous person to do so was Noah Webster. He was the one who managed to remove the unnecessary and unpronounced "u" from many of our words.

Colour -> Color
Behaviour -> Behavior

Infact, I'd really say that grassroots operations are the best ones, as they start with one person, slowly branch out, and become more popular. However, people always have an affinity to be like the ruling class. Hence the reason why when William of Normandy conquered England, much Norman and French entered the English language. Although, the new migrations of Norman people into England probably also contributed to that much more than William making the official language of the court French.


OP is from texas he doesn't know real english.
"Howdy yall" = ???


How redundant. Here is a proper English version of your post:


The original poster is from Texas, so he doesn't know real English.
"Howdy y'all" = ???

Ever read Beowulf?

Check, checkmate.

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 05:02 AM
Well, every component of a language comes from somewhere originally.

Perhaps, but I was just pointing out that Runes are no more authentically Germanic than the Latin script.


IIRC, some of the original sources of the Phoenician alphabet were the Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Nope, there is no known source for it.


Scholars at first believed that the script was a direct variation of Egyptian hieroglyphs. This idea was especially popular due to the recent decipherment of hieroglyphs. However, scholars could not find any link between the two writing systems(Wikipedia:Phoenician_Alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet#History))

In contrast, anyone who knows Greek and at least one Semitic language (Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic etc) will see a direct correlation between the alphabets. In fact the word alphabet itself is a contraction of the first two letters in pretty much all Semitic languages, Alef Beh (in Arabic).

Anyway that's not the point, just that Runes shouldn't really hold any extra value because they happened to be superseded by Latin. In fact this idea that they should, only really gained momentum under the mythology of the Nazis, since they wanted to re-construct a purely Germanic reality of the world and their history.

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Colour -> Color
Behaviour -> Behavior

I'm all for spelling simplification myself, but removing that 'u' was pretty cosmetic.

They should become kular and behayvyar to really make it simple :)
Or even drop the barely pronounced 'r' off the end.

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 05:21 AM
Nope, there is no known source for it.

(url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet#History]Wikipedia:Phoenician_Alphabet[/url])


Actually, many of our letters are indeed Egyptian at their base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X

Major contradiction on Wikipedia's part, no?



In contrast, anyone who knows Greek and at least one Semitic language (Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic etc) will see a direct correlation between the alphabets. In fact the word alphabet itself is a contraction of the first two letters in pretty much all Semitic languages, Alef Beh (in Arabic).


The English word for "Alphabet" comes from putting both of the first letters of the Greek alphabet together.

Alpha + (Beta - a) = Alphabet

But no doubt, the ultimate origin of the first Greek letters' names came from the ones you mentioned.



Anyway that's not the point, just that Runes shouldn't really hold any extra value because they happened to be superseded by Latin.


Well, some linguists say that English's many silent letters came from the original transcribing of Runic to Latin.

When the original transcriptions were being done, the words were written how they were pronounced in the speaker's dialect. Therefore, letters would become silent, graphemes would shift their phonetic values, etc.



In fact this idea that they should, only really gained momentum under the mythology of the Nazis, since they wanted to re-construct a purely Germanic reality of the world and their history.

Let's not stray into that territory.

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 05:39 AM
I'm all for spelling simplification myself, but removing that 'u' was pretty cosmetic.

They should become kular and behayvyar to really make it simple :)
Or even drop the barely pronounced 'r' off the end.

Out of curiosity, what dialect do you speak? Around here, it's more like, "kuhler" and "Behayvier"

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 05:45 AM
Major contradiction on Wikipedia's part, no?

Although there's obviously some link back to hieroglyphs, the link is nowhere near as clear as it is between Greek/Latin and Phoenician. Aleph and Alpha are almost identical, Beth and Beta again, almost identical. Daleth becomes Delta and so on. You'd have a hard time making the same kinds of matches with hieroglyphs. Also the fact that hieroglyphs are like pictographs whereas all Semitic alphabets are pretty much purely phonetic makes me doubt very much how close the link is.


he English word for "Alphabet" comes from putting both of the first letters of the Greek alphabet together.

The Greek pronunciations of the first two letters of almost all Semitic alphabets, yes. Basically all they did was shift the vowel from after the first consonant to after the last one, so Aleph becomes Alpha. The letter names are borrowed almost verbatim into Greek, and then into Latin and then into the modern European languages, so they originate in the Semitic languages, not in Greek. In fact in most Semitic languages today, the word beth (ie. bethlehem 'house of bread' in Hebrew) or bayt in Arabic, still have the same meaning of 'house'. In Greek they have no meaning, other than that they were letter names borrowed from the Middle East.

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 05:48 AM
Out of curiosity, what dialect do you speak?

Strine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strine).

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Although there's obviously some link back to hieroglyphs, the link is nowhere near as clear as it is between Greek/Latin and Phoenician. Aleph and Alpha are almost identical, Beth and Beta again, almost identical. Daleth becomes Delta and so on. You'd have a hard time making the same kinds of matches with hieroglyphs. Also the fact that hieroglyphs are like pictographs whereas all Semitic alphabets are pretty much purely phonetic makes me doubt very much how close the link is.

There's no way that you can deny the letter A came from hieroglyphs.

Egyptian: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/EgyptianA-01.svg/64px-EgyptianA-01.svg.png

Proto-Semitic Ox Head: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Proto-semiticA-01.svg/64px-Proto-semiticA-01.svg.png

Phoenician Aleph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/PhoenicianA-01.svg/64px-PhoenicianA-01.svg.png

Greek Alpha: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Alpha_uc_lc.svg/65px-Alpha_uc_lc.svg.png

Etruscan A: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/EtruscanA.svg/39px-EtruscanA.svg.png

Latin A: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/RomanA-01.svg/60px-RomanA-01.svg.png

Modern A: A

Despite the fact that proto-semitic is a reconstructed language, even without it I can see plenty of ways that ox head could've been misconstrued into a Latin A.



In fact in most Semitic languages today, the word beth (ie. bethlehem 'house of bread' in Hebrew) or bayt in Arabic, still have the same meaning of 'house'. In Greek they have no meaning, other than that they were letter names borrowed from the Middle East.

What's interesting about that is that the Runic letters' names have meanings, just like the semitic ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_alphabet#Script_variants

MikeTheC
July 30th, 2009, 06:14 AM
While it may in fact be true, good sir, that our forebearers did once use such Celtic linguistic arrangements as runes, might I suggest you harken unto the advice given ye anon in this thread? For sooth, we have not one but myriad score languages as contributors to English. Yea, and many more upon which we have lately influenced, none of which might take too kindly to our regression to other, earlier methods of inscription.

Sublime Porte
July 30th, 2009, 07:49 AM
There's no way that you can deny the letter A came from hieroglyphs.

Agreed, the "A" seems fairly obvious, but for most others it's not, and neither is the name of the letters, which seems to originate from Semitic words/semantics, rather than Egyptian ones.


Despite the fact that proto-semitic is a reconstructed language...

When mentioning Semitic languages, I was not referring to the hypothetical proto-Semitic, but merely the Semitic family, of which all members pretty much unanimously use these letter names, well the members of the family I'm familiar with anyway. The Semitic languages are a pretty close-knit family and share a lot more in common with one another than say the Indo-European languages with one another. Therefore I often speak of them in general, since they are quite similar.


What's interesting about that is that the Runic letters' names have meanings, just like the semitic ones.

Yes they do, but it's not really obviously related to the "Alef Beh" scripts, in meaning.

Anyway back to the original suggestion, I don't think it'd be a good idea to return to using these characters. They are nice to know about for their historical value, but would just confuse kids I think, if taught in schools. As I said, learning another language would be a much better investment, opening up possibilities for trade and cultural exchange etc.

I especially think non-European languages should be taught as a second language. Learning French or Spanish is of no real great value for either of those two things. Learning Chinese, Arabic, Swahili or Hindi would be a much better idea I think. Something very different from the same old Romance languages that many English schools teach as a second language.

thisllub
July 30th, 2009, 09:08 AM
Of course, I am fully open to fixing English using the already extant Latin alphabet. Such as scrapping Q and C's regular sounds, and swapping their phonetic values to those of Ð and Þ. Because, to be honest, Q is redundant due to K, and C is redundant due to S and K.


Ch ?

Sh doesn't work.

I am a bit of a traditionalist with language. Americanisation of English has cut it from its roots and obscured the meanings of words.

In the 80s when some American ISO committee decided to replace ae with e (e.g. pedophile instead of paedophile) I was most offended and protested that I would change my name to Michel for no one.

lisati
July 30th, 2009, 09:18 AM
Colour or color? Centre or Center? Zed or Zee (for the last letter of the alphabet)? Aluminium or aluminum? Teasing or not? I think I shall adjourn from this thread, having agreed that what commonly passes as "English" has its complications and that there may be challenges involved introducing a reform.

Grenage
July 30th, 2009, 09:38 AM
I fail to see how:

Colour/color
centre/center
behaviour/behavior

Have the same phonetic makeup at all. I would pronounce both the original and their counterpart differently. Don't confuse this with some demented 'American bastards changed our language' rant, I fully appreciate that we too have changed plenty of our work spellings; they're obviously no longer the same language.

Yay for colloquialisms and where they take us.

schauerlich
July 30th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Didn't we already go through this?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=967275
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=968568

Didn't we already decide it was horribly annoying?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=975244
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6121998&postcount=161

Didn't you try it revive thorn usage a little while later and then have people tell you to stop because it was annoying?

koleoptero
July 30th, 2009, 11:19 AM
English is complicated as it is. Doesn't need any more complication, if anything we need to simplify it more.

I'd rather we roll back to a previous release of English with those "Thee"s and "Yonder"s. They're quite amazing in my humble opinion.


The Greek pronunciations of the first two letters of almost all Semitic alphabets, yes. Basically all they did was shift the vowel from after the first consonant to after the last one, so Aleph becomes Alpha. The letter names are borrowed almost verbatim into Greek, and then into Latin and then into the modern European languages, so they originate in the Semitic languages, not in Greek. In fact in most Semitic languages today, the word beth (ie. bethlehem 'house of bread' in Hebrew) or bayt in Arabic, still have the same meaning of 'house'. In Greek they have no meaning, other than that they were letter names borrowed from the Middle East.

That's because Greek as a language existed for thousands of years before borrowing the letters of middle-Eastern alphabets. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just making an addition).



Phoenician Aleph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/PhoenicianA-01.svg/64px-PhoenicianA-01.svg.png

Greek Alpha: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Alpha_uc_lc.svg/65px-Alpha_uc_lc.svg.png


Wow, so in Greek we took the Phoenician letters and straightened them. Amazing...


Didn't we already go through this?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=967275
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=968568

Didn't we already decide it was horribly annoying?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=975244
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6121998&postcount=161

Didn't you try it revive thorn usage a little while later and then have people tell you to stop because it was annoying?

You're off topic. :P

Grenage
July 30th, 2009, 11:52 AM
I love it when people use average words, but then occasionally throw in a much grander one to show vocab skills.

It's so cute.

Grant A.
July 30th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Ch ?

Sh doesn't work.


Well, as I said before, there are some obsolete letters in the alphabet. I don't see any reason why ç or ĉ couldn't replace that sound. Do you?




In the 80s when some American ISO committee decided to replace ae with e (e.g. pedophile instead of paedophile) I was most offended and protested that I would change my name to Michel for no one.

Names are different. You don't *have* to change a name. A guy from Russia would still be called "Mikhail", not "Michael".


Agreed, the "A" seems fairly obvious, but for most others it's not, and neither is the name of the letters, which seems to originate from Semitic words/semantics, rather than Egyptian ones.

Well, the A didn't really have a name in Egyptian, that we know of. It's really just "Ox head" to us. Perhaps something more will be found in the future?




When mentioning Semitic languages, I was not referring to the hypothetical proto-Semitic, but merely the Semitic family, of which all members pretty much unanimously use these letter names, well the members of the family I'm familiar with anyway. The Semitic languages are a pretty close-knit family and share a lot more in common with one another than say the Indo-European languages with one another. Therefore I often speak of them in general, since they are quite similar.


There are many sub-groups of the Indo-European languages that are quite close knit. Speakers of romance languages can sometimes understand one another. Speakers of Anglo-Frisian languages can also understand each other, to an extent.

You'd really be hard pressed to find languages closer to one another than English and Scots, Danish and Norwegian, Spanish and Italian, or most of the Slavic languages.



Yes they do, but it's not really obviously related to the "Alef Beh" scripts, in meaning.

True.



Anyway back to the original suggestion, I don't think it'd be a good idea to return to using these characters. They are nice to know about for their historical value, but would just confuse kids I think, if taught in schools. As I said, learning another language would be a much better investment, opening up possibilities for trade and cultural exchange etc.


I understand that, but you definitely can't deny that English does need some sort of spelling reform, especially Strine and American English.



I especially think non-European languages should be taught as a second language. Learning French or Spanish is of no real great value for either of those two things. Learning Chinese, Arabic, Swahili or Hindi would be a much better idea I think. Something very different from the same old Romance languages that many English schools teach as a second language.

Whoa, hold on there. Romance languages and Germanic languages need to be taught in the Americas, because every country in the Americas uses a language from one of the two language groups as their official language.




Yay for colloquialisms and where they take us.

Colloquialisms and slang eventually lead to the creation of a new language. :)


Didn't we already go through this?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=967275
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=968568

Didn't we already decide it was horribly annoying?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=975244
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6121998&postcount=161

Didn't you try it revive thorn usage a little while later and then have people tell you to stop because it was annoying?

If you actually read the topic, you'll notice that no where did I suggest using the thorn. Indeed, I suggested using C or Q instead of the thorn, because it's already on standard English keyboards.


I'd rather we roll back to a previous release of English with those "Thee"s and "Yonder"s. They're quite amazing in my humble opinion.

While that is sarcasm, I think that reverting to "thee" would quite damage the language, as when "thou" left, "you" permanently took its place, and "y'all" took you's old place.



That's because Greek as a language existed for thousands of years before borrowing the letters of middle-Eastern alphabets. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just making an addition).

Excellent point.




Wow, so in Greek we took the Phoenician letters and straightened them. Amazing...

We didn't really "straighten" them. Letters like that evolve over time from sloppy handwriting, and the such.




You're off topic. :P

Well, the topic is about spelling reform.

koleoptero
July 31st, 2009, 12:12 AM
What I said about the "Thee"s and "Yonder"s wasn't sarcasm. I do indeed love them. :D

MikeTheC
July 31st, 2009, 12:15 AM
"Whereupon I slew yon dragon and didst repose in the sun-filled ante-noon 'til twas time for mead."

thisllub
July 31st, 2009, 12:25 AM
Well, as I said before, there are some obsolete letters in the alphabet. I don't see any reason why ç or ĉ couldn't replace that sound. Do you?

Hardly any point getting rid of English characters then having to adopt some from other languages.

I like the connection to the original language. I was discussing the word "angst" with a German friend the other day.
He was complaining that the pronunciation of the a as in ran should be a as in arm.

German words have been in English for a very long time.




Names are different. You don't *have* to change a name. A guy from Russia would still be called "Mikhail", not "Michael".



Of course but I still don't see any valid reason to lose the Greek connection.

lisati
July 31st, 2009, 12:34 AM
Ch ?

Sh doesn't work.

I think I hear you: "ch" in English represents one thing. Then there's the "ch" in words like "loch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch)" (as in "Loch Lomond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_lomond)"), which is another sound that many people I know would have trouble saying.
My real surname, which is of Dutch origin, has a "g" in it which when correctly pronounced is nothing like the usual pronunciation(s) in English. Not hanging round Dutch speakers that much during my life (English was the usual language at home), I sometimes struggle a bit getting it right myself!

Grant A.
July 31st, 2009, 12:42 AM
Hardly any point getting rid of English characters then having to adopt some from other languages.

Besides, why not keep the ch digraph? As already illustrated in English, digraphs do not have to sound like the two letters that make them up, at all. "Gh" can have the same phonetic value as "f", "th" can have the same phonetic value as either "þ" or "ð". And, of course, we already know that ch is in a world of its own.

We can quite keep the ch digraph, even if the phonetic value of c changes.
I was also thinking, who says that th needs to be done away with completely? Maybe th could just represent Ð (the th as in that, the, them, etc.), and Q could represent Þ (the th in thick, thermostat, etc.). Then, we would still have c left over, in which case, we could use it to replace the digraph "ch".

kwite interesting, don'tca qink?

By the way, the ch as in loch, would be replaced by a k.



I like the connection to the original language. I was discussing the word "angst" with a German friend the other day.
He was complaining that the pronunciation of the a as in ran should be a as in arm.

Well, the a in angst may sound like the a as in ran in British English, but it sounds like aay in American English.



German words have been in English for a very long time.


Well, we're only a Germanic language. Are you going to tell me that the ocean is really wet, next? :P




Of course but I still don't see any valid reason to lose the Greek connection.

Who said that you're losing it? Just because a word goes from sulfur (Latin and American English spelling) to sulphur (British English spelling), doesn't mean that you lose the etymology. Quite, spelling doesn't change the origin of a word. Knight isn't spelt cniht anymore, but it is still considered to be the rightful descendant of the word.

Sublime Porte
July 31st, 2009, 12:50 AM
Well, we're only a Germanic language. Are you going to tell me that the ocean is really wet, next?

Although I agree with your sentiment here, English is a Germanic based language, and so most German words would not just have been there a "long time" but were probably part of the original language, regarding 'angst' it is not the case. It's a recent borrowing into English from German. Also English is today much more of a Romance language (vocabulary wise) than a Germanic language. The vast bulk of our language originates from Latin or Norman French.

Sublime Porte
July 31st, 2009, 12:51 AM
Of course but I still don't see any valid reason to lose the Greek connection

Why stop at Greek, it's a Hebrew word originally, so perhaps return back to the original Hebrew pronunciation.

MikeTheC
July 31st, 2009, 01:00 AM
I'll not entertain any arguments here about English being a dynamic language and that we should lower our standards because some people are too lazy to learn the rules for proper grammar and spelling.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if two things *did* happen to English:

1. Real honest-to-God English Language scholars got together and formalized and ratified (and got consensus from the people) an official, defined version of English, just like the French have done. (It's one thing I actually *do* agree with the French on.)

2. The official version of English got rid of the useless junk that was inserted into English by foreigners from the era of the beginning of the printing press (silent "k" in knight, for instance.)

Grant A.
July 31st, 2009, 01:10 AM
Although I agree with your sentiment here, English is a Germanic based language, and so most German words would not just have been there a "long time" but were probably part of the original language, regarding 'angst' it is not the case. It's a recent borrowing into English from German. Also English is today much more of a Romance language (vocabulary wise) than a Germanic language. The vast bulk of our language originates from Latin or Norman French.

Although 50% of our vocabulary may be Latin/Norman/French based, its still 23% German (23% of 999,999 words is a LOT). Most of our most basic words are Germanic in origin. The influence Germanic sources have had on our language are enormous. Words such as, they, them, he, you, it, sky, window, dog*, s---, **** (*** in en-us), cat, fire, fast.

*Dog is a word of unknown origin at its base, but it definitely started its life as docga in Old English, making it a Germanic word.

Our syntax is also unmistakably Germanic.

We can't be classified as "Romance", because that's not how the language originated. We're a Germanic language, with a lot of Romance influences. It's like running WINE on top of Linux. No matter how hard you try, your computer will not be Windows at the core. It will forever be Linux. No matter how much you patch it up, it was always Linux at the start.

Note: The average person only uses 30,000 words. Therefore, if you looked at the used vocabulary, you'd probably see that Germanic words have an equal influence as latin-based words.

EDIT- Mike, Knight was a Germanic word, the K sound was originally pronounced in Old English. That's a native mistake.

lisati
July 31st, 2009, 01:22 AM
By the way, the ch as in loch, would be replaced by a k.


Hmmmm...... Perhaps someone with a closer connection to Scotland can jump in and help out here, but I always thought the correct pronunciation for the ch in "loch" was a sound somewhere in between a C and an H, not a K (which seems to me to be a simplification for the benefit of those whose native tongue doesn't have the ch sound).

MikeTheC
July 31st, 2009, 01:36 AM
EDIT- Mike, Knight was a Germanic word, the K sound was originally pronounced in Old English. That's a native mistake.
Oh, sorry, I typed that but I'm thinking I meant "knife". However, in either case, it wouldn't bother me at all if such a theoretical "official" version of English eliminated those silent letters.

Grant A.
July 31st, 2009, 01:44 AM
Hmmmm...... Perhaps someone with a closer connection to Scotland can jump in and help out here, but I always thought the correct pronunciation for the ch in "loch" was a sound somewhere in between a C and an H, not a K (which seems to me to be a simplification for the benefit of those whose native tongue doesn't have the ch sound).

In American English, its phonetic value is the same as a ck, like in lock.

In Scottish English, it's most likely an exasperated h after the c, making it sound like lokh. Scottish English is a bit more "guttural" than the British Received Pronunciation.

Speaking of which, loch is not an English word. It's a Scottish Gaelic loanword, meaning lake.

Also, I forgot to mention, Mike, there are two standardized forms of English. They are, General American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American) and the British Received Pronunciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Received_Pronunciation). Most people do not speak in these, though, but rather speak vernaculars. For example, people in the southern U.S. may speak in Southern American English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English), rather than General American. General American is that raspy, scratchy accent that you hear telecasters speak in. They all just wish that they could utter my accent's godly vowel and consonant sounds. :lolflag:

Sublime Porte
July 31st, 2009, 01:45 AM
We can't be classified as "Romance", because that's not how the language originated

I wasn't suggesting English would be classified as a Romance language, it cleary is not. But it is a very hybridised language, and could barely be called Germanic anymore. It's lost so much of the Germanic features and syntax that English speakers learning German is just a nightmare.

In fact, as a native English speaker, I find Spanish or French much easier to learn than German, indicating that the influence of the Romance languages has been much more than just vocabulary. Again, not suggesting that means English is a Romance language, it is not.


It's like running WINE on top of Linux. No matter how hard you try, your computer will not be Windows at the core

It's a bit different. If you remove Wine, Linux still functions fine. If you stripped out the Romance influences, there wouldn't be much left of English :) The result certainly wouldn't be 'bootable'.

thisllub
July 31st, 2009, 03:21 AM
I think I hear you: "ch" in English represents one thing. Then there's the "ch" in words like "loch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch)" (as in "Loch Lomond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_lomond)"), which is another sound that many people I know would have trouble saying.
My real surname, which is of Dutch origin, has a "g" in it which when correctly pronounced is nothing like the usual pronunciation(s) in English. Not hanging round Dutch speakers that much during my life (English was the usual language at home), I sometimes struggle a bit getting it right myself!

Coming from the land of the long flat vowel can't have made that any easier. ;)

lisati
July 31st, 2009, 03:28 AM
Coming from the land of the long flat vowel can't have made that any easier. ;)
Ha ha it's the land of the wrong white crowd! I think I'll go back to my fush and chups! How's Seed-knee?

thisllub
July 31st, 2009, 03:38 AM
Well, we're only a Germanic language. Are you going to tell me that the ocean is really wet, next? :P



About 60 metres of it is quite dry. Frozen in fact.

Words from a number of languages have made it into English in waves. German is one of them.
Although I am sure I don't need to tell you this the vowel sound is always the first thing to change when a word migrates.
Listen to newsreels from WW2 and every accent has changed significantly in a couple of generations.
Even Kennedy's "man on the moon" speech was delivered in an accent I haven't encountered.

Grant A.
July 31st, 2009, 03:54 AM
I wasn't suggesting English would be classified as a Romance language, it cleary is not. But it is a very hybridised language, and could barely be called Germanic anymore. It's lost so much of the Germanic features and syntax that English speakers learning German is just a nightmare.

What are you talking about? English's syntax is so Germanic it's not even funny.

Germanic Features:


Prefixes that work as adjectives [x]
Suffixes that work as adjectives [x]
Weak and strong verbs [x]
Inflections [ ]
SVO (Generally) [x]
VSO (In some questions) [x]
Suffix to indicate possession [x]
Adjective Gender [ ]
Noun Gender* [x]
Nouns after adjectives [x]
Guttural Consonants [ ]
Stress-based pronunciations [x]
Court Marshal** [x]
Separate, neutral pronoun [x]
Þþ and Ðð's phonetic values [x]
Only nouns have to be plural, not adjectives [ ]


*English has a handful of nouns that are a specific gender. However, they are not uniform, and have no special cases.

**English is primarily of Court Marshal language, as opposed to Marshall of the Court. However, the latter is accepted, albeit not as often used.

Romance Features:


VOS (In some questions) [x]
Adjectives after Nouns [ ]
SVO (Generally) [x]
Drop-pronoun [ ]
Uniform Noun Gender [ ]
Uniform Adjective Gender [ ]
Uniform Definite Article Gender [ ]
Uniform Indefinite Article Gender [ ]
Definite Article Required Before All Nouns [ ]
Marshal of the Court [x]
Syllable-based Pronunciations [ ]
"of"-based possession [ ]
Formal and Informal "You" pronoun* [ ]
Contractions [x]
Infinitives required after another verb was already used before it [ ]
Both nouns and adjectives must be plural [ ]
Latin Idioms [ ]


*English at one time did have a clear separation, but "you" eventually became singular, and both formal and informal.

If you can come up with more characteristics, then please do so. Those are only the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.



In fact, as a native English speaker, I find Spanish or French much easier to learn than German, indicating that the influence of the Romance languages has been much more than just vocabulary. Again, not suggesting that means English is a Romance language, it is not.

Well, it's not exactly that cut and dry. Look at some of these odd-ball features, which have never touched English:

¿Eres guapo tú?

(Literally: Are handsome you?)

As opposed to:

Are you handsome?

(That sentence structure came from Old Norse, believe it or not. In any case, that is still Germanic.)


Puedo hablar Español

(Literally: I can to speak Spanish)

As opposed to:

I can speak Spanish.

(Germanic!! <3)

Yo te amo

(Literally: I you love)

As opposed to:

I love you

(Germanic!! <3)


En aréas públicas

(Literally: In areas publics)

As opposed to:

In public areas

(Germanic!! <3)


Romance languages are easy because:


They are Indo-European languages, which are closely related to the Germanic languages, but still somewhat distant.
Uniform gender changes
Simple, and uniform, conjugations (Except for Romanian. D: )
Non-guttoral, and no extra sounds
Uniform Pronunciations
Vocabulary
Immersible programs and books that circulate through Anglophone countries.



Reasons why German is hard:


The change from Elder Fuþark to the Latin Alphabet resulted in major pronunciation issues, much like it did for English, when it moved from the Anglo-Saxon Runic Alphabet. This is the biggest problem in any Germanic language. Especially for the North Germanic languages, who used the Runic alphabet the longest.
3 Genders, and not all of the words are uniform.
Extra sounds no longer present in English (Ü in für)
The difficult to remember, and to find, ß
Guttural and Hard consonants
Less immersible material circulating in Anglophone countries.




It's a bit different. If you remove Wine, Linux still functions fine. If you stripped out the Romance influences, there wouldn't be much left of English :) The result certainly wouldn't be 'bootable'.

Not entirely correct. We would have a few gaps in our vocabulary, but our syntax would be pretty much unscathed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglish


This is a pretty good conversation. :popcorn:

Sublime Porte
July 31st, 2009, 05:51 AM
Grant, you've made some nice lists there, and I applaud your enthusiasm, but there's quite a few glaring omissions you've made.

The German case markers are much much more complex than modern day English. They pretty much free German from having to adhere to any strict word order whatsoever.

The four cases, 3 genders and plural in the German language mean that for instance the word "the" in German can appear in many different forms and must fit the case, number and gender of the sentence. Same for the indefinite article. Also you don't really seem to have mentioned the vast differences in pronoun usage between English and German, you only compared the languages based on the fact they both use a neuter pronoun. The differences in pronouns are vast...

Also you don't consider Latin idioms to be part of English? There are many short Latin phrases & idioms that are considered to be pretty much a standard part of English.

schauerlich
July 31st, 2009, 06:04 AM
The German case markers are much much more complex than modern day English. They pretty much free German from having to adhere to any strict word order whatsoever.

The four cases, 3 genders and plural in the German language mean that for instance the word "the" in German can appear in many different forms and must fit the case, number and gender of the sentence. Same for the indefinite article.

Quoted for truth.

Chronon
July 31st, 2009, 06:21 AM
I'll not entertain any arguments here about English being a dynamic language and that we should lower our standards because some people are too lazy to learn the rules for proper grammar and spelling.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if two things *did* happen to English:

1. Real honest-to-God English Language scholars got together and formalized and ratified (and got consensus from the people) an official, defined version of English, just like the French have done. (It's one thing I actually *do* agree with the French on.)

2. The official version of English got rid of the useless junk that was inserted into English by foreigners from the era of the beginning of the printing press (silent "k" in knight, for instance.)

Written language tends to be a lot more standardized, which is a good thing as I see it. It means written information has a longer shelf life than daily speech, which tends to get peppered with colloquialisms. Still, written language follows the average trends of spoken language -- you might say that it averages over the fast variations in the spoken language to produce a running average form of the language.

Every spoken language is a dynamic language. The only static languages are those that aren't spoken anymore. They are also called dead languages.

Regarding 1: It's a useless goal, in my opinion. English has many homes now. The Americans will not reinsert extraneous (in our opinion) "u"s back into certain words. Who owns the language? Who gets to decide what words belong? Who is going to stop me from using words that are already in my vocabulary? The cat's out of the bag and it's not going back in without a fight. ;)

Regarding 2: I believe that it is only since the proliferation of printing presses that spelling achieved any sort of tangible standardization. I think you are chasing a kind of a myth here.

Grant A.
August 1st, 2009, 04:00 AM
Grant, you've made some nice lists there, and I applaud your enthusiasm, but there's quite a few glaring omissions you've made.

The German case markers are much much more complex than modern day English. They pretty much free German from having to adhere to any strict word order whatsoever.

The four cases, 3 genders and plural in the German language mean that for instance the word "the" in German can appear in many different forms and must fit the case, number and gender of the sentence. Same for the indefinite article. Also you don't really seem to have mentioned the vast differences in pronoun usage between English and German, you only compared the languages based on the fact they both use a neuter pronoun. The differences in pronouns are vast...


Sorry for forgetting about that, but comparing the lists even with your additions, seems to show a heavy slant towards a "simplified" Germanic syntax. English would still be "bootable", but we would just have to fill in the word gaps with pre-roman occupation of the British Isles words from Old English. Also, as I stated before, Germanic words make up a large portion of the basic vocabulary of any English speaker. Latin/French/Norman really makes up the majority of obscure and "high-level" vocabulary words. Words which, most likely, have a Germanic counterpart somewhere in the dictionary. Those "charts" are quite unfair, as most of the words audited would never be used by an English speaker. Those charts should really only look at high-frequency and medium-frequency words.



Also you don't consider Latin idioms to be part of English? There are many short Latin phrases & idioms that are considered to be pretty much a standard part of English.

By Latin idioms, I really meant some of the sentence structure, rather than phrases. Latin loanwords and loanphrases are indeed heavily existent, albeit not that often used.

When I meant idioms, I meant the ways in which sentences like this are interpreted in modern romance languages:

Spanish: "Tengo calor"

(Literally: I have heat)

English: "I am hot"

(Germanic)



Do you have any suggestions for how we could improve the English language using the existing Latin alphabet? I think sharing some ideas might be quite beneficial. :)

schauerlich
August 1st, 2009, 04:07 AM
English: "I am hot"

(Germanic)

German for "I am cold": "Mir ist kalt"

Literally: "Me is cold"

Although Ich bin kalt/heiß is also acceptable.

Grant A.
August 1st, 2009, 04:08 AM
German for "I am cold": "Mir ist kalt"

Literally: "Me is cold"

Although Ich bin kalt/heiß is also acceptable.

Well, that's still along the same lines as the English version, it just uses a different pronoun and verb.

Dullstar
August 1st, 2009, 04:57 AM
English seems easy enough...

Jimleko211
August 1st, 2009, 05:06 AM
English is easy to native speakers because we grew up with it, it's second nature to us (or first, depending on how you want to go). However, to the outside world, it's hell. Because it's irregular, so different! I'm learning Latin right now, and I swear I learned more about proper English grammar through learning a different language, than learning English.

English needs standardization, badly.

MikeTheC
August 1st, 2009, 05:43 AM
Gentlemen, I'll have you know I am suitably impressed by this unexpected yet delightful scholarly discussion of English, German, Latin and Romance Language in general. I am your student here; speak, I pray you, and I shall learn.

My interest in languages (apart from my own native one) has always been academic in nature, so I am very sincere when I tell you I am enjoying every bit of this latest discourse. Keep it up!

Jimleko211
August 1st, 2009, 06:10 AM
Gentlemen, I'll have you know I am suitably impressed by this unexpected yet delightful scholarly discussion of English, German, Latin and Romance Language in general. I am your student here; speak, I pray you, and I shall learn.

My interest in languages (apart from my own native one) has always been academic in nature, so I am very sincere when I tell you I am enjoying every bit of this latest discourse. Keep it up!
+1 I find this thread fascinating.

Sublime Porte
August 1st, 2009, 06:12 AM
Also, as I stated before, Germanic words make up a large portion of the basic vocabulary of any English speaker.

Agreed, most of the more basic words of English are Germanic in origin, although some it might be hard to tell, as their etymology might be listed as proto-Indo-European, in which case it'd be hard to know whether it came to English via the Latin or Germanic route.

I would say however, that at least 1/4 of the words we are using right now have their origin in Latin. And that's a very large % for borrowed words into a language. Also a lot of the prefixes and suffixes we use on the Germanic-based words, also have an origin in Latin.


English would still be "bootable", but we would just have to fill in the word gaps with pre-roman occupation of the British Isles words from Old English.

I don't agree with this. Pretty much our entire scientific vocabulary for instance is completely Latin/Greek based. We'd have to completely re-coin our entire scientific body of knowledge. Also if you look at a language like Turkish, which underwent a similar 'purification' process during the Ataturk era, you'll see that it is almost impossible. Modern Turkish is still littered with Arabic and Persian borrowings.


Do you have any suggestions for how we could improve the English language using the existing Latin alphabet?

Sure, I think the first thing we need to do is move towards a more phonetic spelling, modern English spelling is a fairly recent thing anyway, so continued development really shouldn't be impeded by sentimental reservations. Also to standardise the grammar more. I know lots of non-native English speakers, and their main gripe is with the excessive number of exceptions to rules.

But I'm not really a big fan of the Latin alphabet anyway. I don't think it suits phonetic spelling that well. I personally find the abjad alphabets (the original alphabets) to be a much better system. The exclusion of vowels from written language is really a very efficient way of writing, and doesn't impede readability at all. Does steepen the learning curve a little though.

schauerlich
August 1st, 2009, 07:15 PM
Sure, I think the first thing we need to do is move towards a more phonetic spelling, modern English spelling is a fairly recent thing anyway, so continued development really shouldn't be impeded by sentimental reservations. Also to standardise the grammar more. I know lots of non-native English speakers, and their main gripe is with the excessive number of exceptions to rules.

Most of the weirdness involved in modern spelling is because of etymology. Many words (such as those with silent "gh"s) preserve those funky spellings so that their origins are more easily understood. Take for example "night", whose German cognate is "nacht", and "laugh", cognates with "lachen". There are many more examples, but you get the point.

Another argument in favor of current english spelling is that related words that are pronounced differently will no longer be orthographically related, obscuring their common origin.



But I'm not really a big fan of the Latin alphabet anyway. I don't think it suits phonetic spelling that well.

It works fine for Spanish, Italian, German and a number of other languages.

Dimitriid
August 1st, 2009, 07:46 PM
I've talked to many people with English as a second language who have said that English's biggest problem is the pronunciations.


To an extent, but I think is more of a cultural issue. Because of my job I've talked in english ( a second language to me, 100% self taught ) for the past 4 or 5 years on a daily basis. When I was dealing with american customers at first, my grammar was never an issue but my accent was. When I traveled to Vancouver, B.C. however, almost every single person I've met complemented my on my english, but that was because people over there are used to talk, on a daily basis, to people from infinitely diverse backgrounds all of them with their own accents.

So I think that a completely new structural change to pronunciation is not needed really, a better disposition that involves more patience to non-native speakers is all that is needed. Your proposed changes do sound intriguing nonetheless but I just wanted to point culture as the main issue with understanding, not pronunciation.



English seriously needs to be fixed.


Well yes and no, maybe just expanded enough. To me it seems a bit limited when I compare it to my native spanish and its much more expansive grammar rules.

Hallvor
August 1st, 2009, 08:00 PM
Here is a page about runes and their development. Written in Norwegian, but ran it through google translate.

Norwegian:
http://www.home.no/norron-mytologi/diverse/runeskrift.htm

English, sort of:
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=no&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.home.no%2Fnorron-mytologi%2Fdiverse%2Fruneskrift.htm&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=

bruno9779
October 18th, 2009, 03:38 PM
LOL !! Grant_A always has very twisted ideas about language.

How was the other one? Foreign words have an impact on the national spending of US government... :lolflag:

Dear Grant_A, maybe you should travel the world a bit before having this sort of opinions about it....

benj1
October 18th, 2009, 04:03 PM
these kind of conversations always remind me of this



Standardised European English

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, 's' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly,this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard 'c' will be dropped in favor of the 'k'. This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome 'ph' will be replased with the 'f'. This will make words like 'fotograf' 20% shorter!

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expected to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double leters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing 'th' with 'z' and 'w' wiz 'v'. During ze fifz year ze unesesary 'o' kan be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou' and similar changes vud of kurs be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After ze fifz yer ve vil hav a rali sensibl ritn styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evriun vil find it ezi tu undrstand ech ozer.

Zen Z Drem Vil Finali Kum Tru!!

etnlIcarus
October 19th, 2009, 04:39 AM
LOL !! Grant_A always has very twisted ideas about language.

How was the other one? Foreign words have an impact on the national spending of US government... :lolflag:

^ This. I just saw the, "Foot down", thread. Rationalising it by invoking the taxation bogey man was really the cherry on the parfait.

Exodist
October 19th, 2009, 04:59 AM
I was reading Wikipedia, and I stumbled upon this beauty:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Anglosaxonrunes.svg/531px-Anglosaxonrunes.svg.png

According to Wikipedia, the predecessor of English (Anglo-Saxon/Old English/Englisc) used these symbols as its alphabet.

Since many other languages use multiple alphabets alongside one another, what would you guys think of this being an alternative to the basic Latin alphabet that English uses?

I really think it would be kinda cool to have two alphabets. It would also be a way to somewhat reclaim English's Germanic language heritage.

I also think that this could be quite beneficial to English. If we had this alphabet fully adapted to Modern English, then we could fix many of those messed up pronunciations in English, due to the fact that we would have a "fresh start", or so to speak.

Of course, I am fully open to fixing English using the already extant Latin alphabet. Such as scrapping Q and C's regular sounds, and swapping their phonetic values to those of Ð and Þ. Because, to be honest, Q is redundant due to K, and C is redundant due to S and K.

I've talked to many people with English as a second language who have said that English's biggest problem is the pronunciations.

For those who don't believe English is messed up, I present the word:

Ghoti

It looks like it would be pronounced "go tee", right? Wrong, it's actually pronounced as the following:

Gh as in laugh
o as in women
ti as in action

Put it all together, and you get: "Fish"


English seriously needs to be fixed.


Thoughts?


Runic is still commonly used by many pagan religions and although very un orthodox many of us actually do use it for the english language.



Another script you may enjoy is Aridia shown below.