Al la enhavo
Respondi

10 Reasons why English is Weird

de Alkanadi, 2015-aprilo-30

Mesaĝoj: 90

Lingvo: English

Christa627 (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-08 14:58:07

Bemused:
Christa627:
orthohawk:
Tempodivalse:
kaŝperanto:Their is no weigh you wood bee able to convince the grammar nazis to disarm themselves, though.
Or, in my preferred orthography, something like:

--> Ther iz no wey yoo wud bee aybl to convins the gramr natsees to disarm themselvz, thou.
No, no! MINE!!!! okulumo.gif

Dher is no wa yuu wood be aybl to convins the grammur natseez to disaarm dhemselvz. Am I rite? Just rite down yur rispons heer.
Noo! Riit it liik dhis!

>Dher iz noo waa yuu wud bee aabl tuu kunvins dhu gramr notseez tuu disorm dhemselvz, dhoo.

Singgl vawel foor shoort sawnd, dubl vawel foor long; udhr sawndz ii kan eksplaan laatr.
Christa627 yuu get mii voot.
Just wun kwestion, whii dhe dubl g in singgl?
Berkuz it haz aa ng sawnd and dhen aa g sawnd.

apalmer27516 (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-09 00:50:32

Dmitry Orlov's Unspell project created an entire new character set with an Esperanto-like set of easy pronunciation rules just so that beginning English speakers/readers could bypass the particularly hard part of spelling and properly sounding out words.
--Abraham

lagtendisto (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-09 10:48:35

Mustelvulpo:In some cases pronunciation can differ within a relatively small area.
In my opinion rural areas tend to scrunch syllables contrary everyday life at bigger cities constrains to speak more phonetic than inside rural areas. The more people move into some city the more onsite used phonetics gets one letter one sound like. Unfortunately that way local dialects die off, too. At least that seems to be situation of German language.

ChuckWalter (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-10 21:15:52

The only problem with reforming English spelling is that all old texts would be fifty times harder to read. I can currently read a King James Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or The Red Badge of Courage and still understand it, but if I've only ever learned phonetic spelling then all of that raw literature would be lost to me. We could still translate them, but that is a lot of work and many books would never be reprinted. I would have to take an “Old English” class in school in order to enjoy historical literature.

zaragorti (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-10 21:50:06

oreso:These are nice features! ridulo.gif English's ability to take words 'as they are' and use them as nouns or verbs or whatever
With the possible exception of number 2 in the original post's jpeg ( 'farmers produce produce' ) none of these are nouns made from verbs. While they are homonyms they do not have a common meaning or root. They really are just horrific examples of how confusing English can be. When it comes to making verbs from nouns and vice-versa, Esperanto is the most versatile language I know of.

Enkimesch (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-11 02:37:37

Alkanadi:And don't forget: 'I' before 'E' except after 'C' unless the word is "weird".
Ha! And I though science was weird!

orthohawk (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-11 04:26:44

ChuckWalter:The only problem with reforming English spelling is that all old texts would be fifty times harder to read. I can currently read a King James Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or The Red Badge of Courage and still understand it, but if I've only ever learned phonetic spelling then all of that raw literature would be lost to me. We could still translate them, but that is a lot of work and many books would never be reprinted. I would have to take an “Old English” class in school in order to enjoy historical literature.
I'm sure there are spellcheck programs that one could use. Copy and paste and voila! same text in the new spelling.

Alkanadi (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-11 07:35:15

ChuckWalter:I can currently read a King James Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or The Red Badge of Courage and still understand it, but if I've only ever learned phonetic spelling then all of that raw literature would be lost to me.
This is a direct copy-and-paste from the original King James Version of 1611:
"And whosoeuer shall giue to drinke vnto one of these litle ones, a cup of cold water onely, in the name of a disciple, verily I say vnto you, hee shall in no wise lose his reward."
Source

I prefer phonetic spelling. I am sure that with the power of technology we can update these old texts.

Tempodivalse (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-11 13:36:19

Alkanadi:This is a direct copy-and-paste from the original King James Version of 1611: ...
Very old texts (Early Modern English, e.g. Shakespeare-era) will tend to be more phonetic.

Even in post-reform, you will still be able to guess at the meanings of the old words most of the time. It'd be kind of like reading pre-1750 texts in Russian, when the alphabet still had 40 letters and a bunch of odd archaisms we would chuckle at today. Discernible, and with a modicum of study it gets easier.

robbkvasnak (Montri la profilon) 2015-majo-11 15:42:21

The weirdest thing about English is that there are people who think that if you don't speak English you are uneducated. You may speak five languages fluently but if English isn't one of them, then you are shamed by these people into thinking that you are some how handicapped. This is part of the hegemony of the English speakers and they have convinced many others to believe this - especially those in their past colonies but also many Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians. I find this out and out WEIRD!

Reen al la supro