I'm starting this from another thread which is going severely off topic.

I'm curious to know what others think about language reform in English. I know it has been tried on numerous occassions and had very limited success. Notable examples of American reformers include Noah Webster and Andrew Carnegie. I submit that their reforms were so neglible that they could almost be considered a joke.

In my humble opinion, I feel this is caused by the lack of a central language authority in English. I believe this lack is not due to attempts by reformers, but by the fault of the speakers themselves. English speakers (myself included) are a contentious lot who do not care to submit their words to a central authority. Hence, we ignore and outright mock most attempts at reform. Furthermore, I believe this explains part of the resistance to the Esperanto movement among English speakers. I would be curious to know others' opinions on the matter.

You could enjoy reading this thread first.

mnlg:You could enjoy reading this thread first.

Wow mnlg! I didn't see that thread. I've always known this was a contentious issue, but... Wow! I'm speechless! (My wife knows that doesn't happen often.)

I think spelling reform is a huge part of reforming English, but there are grammatical changes we could make to ensure the language was more flexible. (As it was orginally intended)

For example, when I was a child I was constantly corrected in school when I split an infinitive. Why? Who decided that this was wrong? English is one of the few languages that ALLOWS us to easily split an infinitive and I contend that there is nothing wrong with it. It makes our language unique and more interesting. Obviously, some booby decided many centuries ago that Latin was a superior language to my native one and, therefore, infinitives should not be split. What did he do to idiotically convince everyone else that this reform should be followed to the point that a 20th century instructor would continue to ridiculously teach it to her students?

This is just one example I could make and I'm done poking my finger into my grammar teacher's eye. I just don't understand how we follow stupid rules and can't engineer ones that make sense...

andogigi:I'm starting this from another thread which is going severely off topic.

I'm curious to know what others think about language reform in English. I know it has been tried on numerous occassions and had very limited success. Notable examples of American reformers include Noah Webster and Andrew Carnegie. I submit that their reforms were so neglible that they could almost be considered a joke.

I've tried by regularizing all the morphology (I speaked to my childs yesterday) but people keeped looking at me funny.

I'd say that 3 year old speak the most understandable English ever, because they are super regular.

As someone else said on another thread (might of been one I started), it would seem likely that the English language would have to split into different languages (or highly contorted dialects).

For instance, spelling phonetically (æ=cAt, ø=bIrd, c=CHin etc):

AUS: Helløu mæjts! Maj næjm iz Kriscin, æn ai kam from Ostræ:ilija. T'dæi woz a g'd wan, æn Ai woz taiping on maj kompju:tø

USA: Hellou meits! Maj nejm iz Kristcøn, æn ai kam fram Astre:ilija. T'dei waz a gud wan, æn Ai waz taiping an maj kampu:tør/kompu:tør.

Obviously it is impossible to spell English completely phonetically as a while. With differences like øu/ou, ei/æi, ø/ør etc, either we continue with the same spelling system or we divide the language.

Ay døunt thynk Ostræyliens wud maynd hæving a spellyng system that rezembels Dæynisc, we layk them eniwæy koz ðeh prynses yz æn Ostræylien. (Try reading this..)

Grammatically, there are all sorts of things we could do to improve English, but it puts older speakers at risk of being alienated. The most thorough way to 'reform' English would include changing the actual pronunciation of words and grammar rules, but this would make English like learning a new language for it's speakers.

Sorry I'm in a rush so if I spelt that badly my bad

There is also the method of reforming by going 'backwards', e.g. using older English that just about most English speakers know (Thou knowest, the usage of elde vocabulaire).

andogigi:For example, when I was a child I was constantly corrected in school when I split an infinitive. Why? Who decided that this was wrong? English is one of the few languages that ALLOWS us to easily split an infinitive and I contend that there is nothing wrong with it. It makes our language unique and more interesting. Obviously, some booby decided many centuries ago that Latin was a superior language to my native one and, therefore, infinitives should not be split. What did he do to idiotically convince everyone else that this reform should be followed to the point that a 20th century instructor would continue to ridiculously teach it to her students?

I've never personally encountered people/teachers who insisted upon not splitting infinitives, but know that that particular grammar "rule", is not one at all. It originated in a book by the Bishop Robert Lowth (Short Introduction to English Grammar), which instead of reflecting actual usage in English, based his treatsie on Latin grammar.

There are several other so-called rules of English that actually aren't.

ceigered:For instance, spelling phonetically (æ=cAt, ø=bIrd, c=CHin etc):

AUS: Helløu mæjts! Maj næjm iz Kriscin, æn ai kam from Ostræ:ilija. T'dæi woz a g'd wan, æn Ai woz taiping on maj kompju:tø

USA: Hellou meits! Maj nejm iz Kristcøn, æn ai kam fram Astre:ilija. T'dei waz a gud wan, æn Ai waz taiping an maj kampu:tør/kompu:tør.

Obviously it is impossible to spell English completely phonetically as a while. With differences like øu/ou, ei/æi, ø/ør etc, either we continue with the same spelling system or we divide the language.

Ay døunt thynk Ostræyliens wud maynd hæving a spellyng system that rezembels Dæynisc, we layk them eniwæy koz ðeh prynses yz æn Ostræylien. (Try reading this..)

At wun poynt in tiym Iy triyd too lurn Neyto English (http://www.angelfire.com/wa/derludwig/ingglic.html) for fun. It basically has standard digraphs, and removes 'c', and standardizes 'g' and 'j''s pronounciation.

Relatedly, I don't think one sound, one letter would be realistic for English, because it has so many sounds.

Oŝo-Jabe:At wun poynt in tiym Iy triyd too lurn Neyto English (http://www.angelfire.com/wa/derludwig/ingglic.html) for fun. It basically has standard digraphs, and removes 'c', and standardizes 'g' and 'j''s pronounciation.

Relatedly, I don't think one sound, one letter would be realistic for English, because it has so many sounds.

Ha that's cool (I was VERY impressed that they went that far), it reminds me more of the various Celtic languages than it does English. On that note I think one thing that is important for an English spelling system is that it feels English. Maybe we need to consider first what exactly does feel like English?

Taking a more scandinavian spelling system (e.g. Like Norwegian or Icelandic or Old English) would be better, but as you said the sheer amount of sounds and the regional variations of letters would make things quite hard.

Maybe I'll experiment around with this concept. I'm not sure how well English speakers recognise different accent letters...

Another thing that I think would be excellent for English would be the change from writing in English to writing in braille. Especially when you consider that braille is just as capable in written language, just as easy to read (if you've learnt it) and also accommodates for the blind.

Hand writing would be a different case, but I'm sure such things can be worked around.