Can We Simplify The 'ENGLISH LANGUAGE'?

English is regarded as one of the difficult language around the world. Despite its wide spread use, people learning foreign language has "English" and English speaker's find it difficult to spell the word in English.

Some words which are said the same way have different spellings for different meanings, like "to", "two" and "too", so evidently there are many cases in which English seems to be illogical and unnecessarily difficult.

I like to know whether imposing a new set of phonetically-orientated rules would be preferable to the current system? Or this will lead to new problems Posted in: #Coffee Room

Bernard Shaw had the same problem. He bequeathed money in his will for creating a new alphabet. I learnt it ages back. Penguin Publishers brought out Shaw's 'Androcles and the Lion' in this alphabet side by side with the regular alphabet. I bought the book the day it was released in India. It has been handled so much that every page has separated from the covers.
Here is a write up on this:
https://weblog.noahburney.com/language-scripts/the-shavian-alphabet/
https://www.newenglishalphabets.com/original_shavian_alphabet/index.html

I have this:

bioramani

Bernard Shaw had the same problem. He bequeathed money in his will for creating a new alphabet. I learnt it ages back. Penguin Publishers brought out Shaw's 'Androcles and the Lion' in this alphabet side by side with the regular alphabet. I bought the book the day it was released in India. It has been handled so much that every page has separated from the covers.
Here is a write up on this:
https://weblog.noahburney.com/language-scripts/the-shavian-alphabet/
https://www.newenglishalphabets.com/original_shavian_alphabet/index.html

I have this:

bioramani .What do you think sir? If English is been simplified means, whether it will lead to another problem?

I've had long conversations about this with several people who've studied and have read vast amounts of literature available around about this topic. Sanskrit seems to be the language with perfect grammar (or near perfect?) that leaves nothing to draw interpretations. My knowledge on the topic is very limited and I don't know Sanskrit.

Now, I'm not sure how would the language be simplified. More rules would basically lead to more confusion. That's what I think.

Changing the whole language is going to take a long time in order to make a complete change. Even if the English speaking nations agreed on a method of simplifying the language there would be millions who would need to unlearn some of what they were taught. The new simple form of English would be taught in schools so that the next generation and subsequent generations would grow up knowing it.

I had done some study of this subject. Any language survives only if used. Otherwise it becomes a dead language, like Latin, Sanskrit etc. English has remarkable survival skills. Old English is almost unintelligible to us. It has evolved, having a great capacity to absorb words from other languages.
During the English occupation of India, many Indian origin words have got into the Oxford English Dictionary. (Tiffin, Cummerbund, Mulligatawny Soup - actually from the Tamil மிளகு தண்ணி )
For all its illogical nature and peculiarities, it is an enduring language.
Consider this: How many are aware of the Shaw Alphabet? How many learn it? Where is it used?
The same fate befell Esperanto, an artificially created language. Esperanto has only sixteen rules. There are no exceptions.
In English a female lion is a lioness. Female of a bull is a cow not bulless. The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of spouse is not spice. In Esperanto if female of lion is lioness, the female of bull is bulless. Similarly for plurals.
I learnt Esperanto also. It is still used by some Science Journals for abstracts. Again, how many of us are aware of Esperanto and how many learn it?
I am afraid that simplifications have to come from ground up. The SMS lingo is part of such a change. I am not sure that it is really an improvement.

bioramani

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of spouse is not spice.

☕ Interesting. 😁

I think English will eventually be destroyed and new grammer will have to be developed in the form of SMS lingo. V vil sav lotta ink 4 d wrld.

The_Big_K

☕ Interesting. 😁

I think English will eventually be destroyed and new grammer will have to be developed in the form of SMS lingo. V vil sav lotta ink 4 d wrld.

A chap said that the plural of spouse must be spice, because that is what happens if one has more than one spouse.
OMG! Nt Tht!

aarthivg

English is regarded as one of the difficult language around the world. Despite its wide spread use, people learning foreign language has "English" and English speaker's find it difficult to spell the word in English.

Some words which are said the same way have different spellings for different meanings, like "to", "two" and "too", so evidently there are many cases in which English seems to be illogical and unnecessarily difficult.

I like to know whether imposing a new set of phonetically-orientated rules would be preferable to the current system? Or this will lead to new problems

English is certainly not that difficult to learn. There are far more difficult languages like Mandarin, Arabic, Japanese etc.. Actually, learning any foreign language that is not similar to your own native language is always a little difficult regardless of the language learnt. But you become accustomed to it as you progress in using the language.

Homophones and homonyms are a part of every language. Part of the charm of learning any language lies in such things. Besides, only computer languages are specified with such rigid structure. That is because we need the computer to do exactly what we need to be done. There should be no ambiguity. But in natural language, I think it is perfectly ok to have some ambiguity. Some pun, something whose meaning depends on the context, something open to interpretation etc. always adds to the appeal of the language.

Besides, English is an all-absorbing language. There is no set rules as such to how you should use it. Some pedantics and puritans might object to some practice citing tradition as the reason. But it's really upto the people to decide how it is used. I think English is sufficiently simple, as it is now. 😀

This seems to be a very Interesting but subjective topic.

People at UK and USA would definitely ask the question, can Hindi or Chinese be simplified?
My personal view is though both apple and orange are fruits but its not fair to compare them. Similarly it would not be fair to say that English is a tough language, forgot about the question of simplifying that.

-CB

The language has been changed in the past, and even in more recent times languages have been standardized and altered to make them simpler (from shake sphere's English to present English) . The scale of doing this for English would undoubtedly be massive, though the process wouldn’t have to happen quickly. With the advent of modern technology, we have seen English adapt and become phonetic all by itself in the form of text speak.

It would be horrible if Hamlet's famous line 'To be or not to be' becomes:
'2 b r nt 2 b'

i thi

aarthivg

English is regarded as one of the difficult language around the world. Despite its wide spread use, people learning foreign language has "English" and English speaker's find it difficult to spell the word in English.

Some words which are said the same way have different spellings for different meanings, like "to", "two" and "too", so evidently there are many cases in which English seems to be illogical and unnecessarily difficult.

I like to know whether imposing a new set of phonetically-orientated rules would be preferable to the current system? Or this will lead to new problems

i think nothing is difficult if we want to learn it ...english is no so much difficult language .as u are talking about some words like "to" and "two" then it will not create confusion if u will use it in right way and and at right place then any one can understand it clearly...it will not create confusion because spelling are same but meanings are different...we can easily learn the language of foreigners called english within 1 month...but a foreigner can't learn our hindi language within one month because number of hindi alphabet is more than english alphabet...so we can say that english is not a difficult language...

In linguistics, without heterograph (Different spelling ,same Pronunciation & different meaning), the whole Music industry will collapse ..... Bars & Rhyming will be hard as hell ....
I think English language is pretty cool ..... Those Heterograph, Homonym ,Homograph & Polyseme in English are reason behind enigma in Poems & songs.

nibhani

i thi
i think nothing is difficult if we want to learn it ...english is no so much difficult language .as u are talking about some words like "to" and "two" then it will not create confusion if u will use it in right way and and at right place then any one can understand it clearly...it will not create confusion because spelling are same but meanings are different...we can easily learn the language of foreigners called english within 1 month...but a foreigner can't learn our hindi language within one month because number of hindi alphabet is more than english alphabet...so we can say that english is not a difficult language...

No one speaks pure Hindi now a days. We mix up Hindi with English, So It will be easy to learn English. If you take up students who are studying in their mother tongue till 12th, I can able to write or learn English, Pronouncing the word and forming a sentence is quite difficult for them.

aarthivg

No one speaks pure Hindi now a days. We mix up Hindi with English, So It will be easy to learn English. If you take up students who are studying in their mother tongue till 12th, I can able to write or learn English, Pronouncing the word and forming a sentence is quite difficult for them.

Agreed ^
We speak Hinglish 😲

aarthivg

No one speaks pure Hindi now a days. We mix up Hindi with English, So It will be easy to learn English. If you take up students who are studying in their mother tongue till 12th, I can able to write or learn English, Pronouncing the word and forming a sentence is quite difficult for them.[/quote



practice makes a man perfect...if they will practice to speak then pronouncing and forming a sentence will not be difficult...it is also very easy for them.

nibhani, We need someone to get practiced. For Example,I know Hindi to learn and write only, But I don't no to speak. I need someone to practice it. Same happens for English too. In rural areas, Its difficult to get a person for practicing English.

This is a good resource:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/webcast/tae_betterspeaking_archive.shtml

my view is, mostly all indians are very very good in english than actually english speaking people. so my kind request is not to give much more importance to this topic
-RAQEEB

english is just a language. to get english we dont need to have knowledge, or wisdom or something else. it ll easily come to us when we try to practice it with the people who speaks it.

MOHAMMED RAQEEB

english is just a language. to get english we dont need to have knowledge, or wisdom or something else. it ll easily come to us when we try to practice it with the people who speaks it.

English is a foreign language. It will always be difficult to adopt something different from our own. But we still try and practice it.

MOHAMMED RAQEEB

my view is, mostly all indians are very very good in english than actually english speaking people. so my kind request is not to give much more importance to this topic
-RAQEEB

Can't accept this statement entirely.

i do not think so. the english language is beautifull the way it is .

and what's more, speaking the language induces some kind of broad-mindedness in the speaker.

In the area where i live , the local dialect spoken here is called tamil. just glimpse at this language and you will respecting english.

the consonants of this language does not have alphabets, which are the equivalents of the letters such as "J" "S" "x" "H" "G" "d" etc.

now if you want to spell a word in tamil, containing the letter "s" , lets for example take "sit". in tamil the word will be spelled and pronounced as "chit"

MOHAMMED RAQEEB

my view is, mostly all indians are very very good in english than actually english speaking people. so my kind request is not to give much more importance to this topic
-RAQEEB

I don't know what your definition of being good at English is, but certainly English is not known to all Indians. Statistics says that only one third of the people in India know English. I'm sure there are many among that one third, who in spite of 'knowing' English, are not very comfortable using it.

Anyway, this is not about India. This is about the English language and everyone who uses it, regardless of his/her origins.

P.S. : I still maintain that English is as simple as it needs to be, and any further simplification may reduce the overall beauty and appeal of the language.

zaveri

called tamil. just glimpse at this language and you will respecting english.the consonants of this language does not have alphabets, which are the equivalents of the letters such as "J" "S" "x" "H" "G" "d" etc. lets for example take "sit". in tamil the word will be spelled and pronounced as "chit"

That is irrelevant. Tamil grammar is self consistent. Words cannot begin with certain consonants like ra la and such. So Rama becomes Iraman, Lakshmi becomes Ilakkumi (there is no sha either).There is nothing illogical in that. The first consonant is hard Like ka pa and such. Subsequent consonants are soft. If a later consonant has to be hard, it has to be doubled. It is a different matter if you want to import words from other languages.
Tamil has a consonant 'ழ'. How will you write or pronounce this in any other language?

zaveri

i do not think so. the english language is beautifull the way it is .

and what's more, speaking the language induces some kind of broad-mindedness in the speaker.

In the area where i live , the local dialect spoken here is called tamil. just glimpse at this language and you will respecting english.

the consonants of this language does not have alphabets, which are the equivalents of the letters such as "J" "S" "x" "H" "G" "d" etc.

now if you want to spell a word in tamil, containing the letter "s" , lets for example take "sit". in tamil the word will be spelled and pronounced as "chit"

Ahh!!

A Czech proverb says:

You live a new life for every new language you speak. ​

If you know only one language, you live only once.​

Languages are different. They are meant to be. Unless two languages develop from the same source, they are bound to be different. You cannot compare languages in that way, at all..

Yes, there are 247 alphabets in Tamil, and only 26 in English. And yes, we have only one letter ச in Tamil that is used for producing 'cha', 'sa' and 'sha' sounds. The pronunciation depends on the context. That cannot be said as a reason that English is easier than Tamil in any way. My mother tongue is Tamil and I have never felt any difficulty whatsoever in learning Tamil. Similarly a native Chinese speaker will have no problem learning Chinese at all, but when he starts learning English, he sure will find it to be different, difficult and weird. That is only to be expected.

Any list attempting to list out the toughest languages in the world, will begin with the premise that the data is collected from foreign speakers of the language. So, when Mandarin sits at the top of the toughest languages list, it means that non-native learners of Mandarin find it more difficult than most other languages. It shouldn't take into account how difficult it is for a native Mandarin speaker to progress in it. In such a list, English comes quite at the bottom, meaning, non-native learners of English find it quite easy, compared to other languages like Arabic.

bioramani

Tamil has a consonant 'ழ'. How will you write or pronounce this in any other language?

how does that consonant sound in the first place ?

zaveri

i do not think so. the english language is beautifull the way it is .

and what's more, speaking the language induces some kind of broad-mindedness in the speaker.

In the area where i live , the local dialect spoken here is called tamil. just glimpse at this language and you will respecting english.

the consonants of this language does not have alphabets, which are the equivalents of the letters such as "J" "S" "x" "H" "G" "d" etc.

now if you want to spell a word in tamil, containing the letter "s" , lets for example take "sit". in tamil the word will be spelled and pronounced as "chit"

Every language is beautiful. I think, here there is no need to compare between English and Tamil😀

If you knew Tamil or Malayalam you would know. Even some Tamilians find it difficult to pronounce it.
Otherwise, there is no equivalent for it in the International Phonetic code.

This sentence in Tamil is supposed to test one's capacity to pronounce this consonant.
(I apologise, but there is no other way to put it up except in Tamil script)
வாழைப்பழம் மழையில் கொழ கொழவென்று அழுவி நழுவி கீழே விழுந்தது!
Believe me that is a tough one.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/06/20/english-lessons/

It reminds me about the unification of the Portuguese language.

I think wasn't useful to both Brazilians and Portuguese people. It changed a bit of the writing and everything at all.

When compared with many other languages like latin, greek, chinese, japanese, german, sanskrit, hindi, tamil, marati, telugu, kannadi, ENGLISH is already much simpler... I dont think a needs further simplification...

N.Gowtham Raj

When compared with many other languages like latin, greek, chinese, japanese, german, sanskrit, hindi, tamil, marati, telugu, kannadi, ENGLISH is already much simpler... I dont think a needs further simplification...

Every language has its style. Its difficulty is depended on the person who learns it. In English, we have certain problem in pronunciation. 'Two' and 'too'. Both sound similar.