ENGLISH, GRAMMAR & ACTION

[Guest pyell]

English will evolve all by itself, whether or not we try to simplify it. If simplification is demanded, it will occur by the linguistic equivalent of market forces.

 

One of the great strengths of the English language is that we don't have a pedantic body of purists like the Academie Francaise trying to regulate the language. English adapts and changes despite the best efforts of Fowler and legions of English teachers to stem the tide.

 

So there is no point in urging spelling reform. If spelling needs reform it will occur naturally. If it doesn't, it's probably because it's easier to leave it as it is.

 

Changes are happening all around us, in meaning and in structure. The shall/will distinction is a good example, which has virtually disappeared. One of my pet hates is "literally", which now means something quite different from its original meaning, but it's far too late to do anything about it. Ditto "decimate" and a host of other words and spellings.

 

30 years ago we all whistled "If I were a rich man" from "Fiddler on the Roof", without being aware that we were using the increasingly archaic subjunctive mood. Today the subjuntive has all but vanished from English, and if the song was to be written today it would be written "If I was a rich man" (and note that I've used the past tense instead of the subjunctive in writing "if the song was to be written today" without it jarring).

 

Need I go on? Let the language evolve by itself. Enjoy its curiosities and revel in its depth of meaning. And if there are eccentricities, live with them. Either they'll change by themselves, or they'll stay as a charming quirk of the world's greatest language.

[+ Charlie]

Within my lifetime, "normalcy" rather than "normality" seems to have become the norm, even in literate speech and writing. This is surely the most important effect that Warren Harding has had on history.

[bluenix]

>More dramatically, English has abolished gender in nouns.

>Gender almost invariably follows the gender of the object or

>person (with a few rare exceptions like a ship being "she").

>But in German, for example, the word for a young girl is

>neuter gender ("das Madchen"), and French is equally absurd,

>with the gender of the noun often bearing no relationship

>whatever to the thing itself.

 

A interesting contemporary example of the English preference for neutral gender is 'guys.' We probably think of males when the word is used, but it isn't awkward anymore for a woman to address a group of women, "Hey, you guys." Give it a hundred years and 'guys' will be synonymous with 'people.'

 

Still, archaic rules can have contemporary usefulness. A speaker wanting to elevate her diction for, say, a speech, or a eulogy, sounds a little bit loftier using older forms. "This country and her citizens...." "This ship and her crew...."

[Guest Merlin]

The world very much needs a universal second language. English is overwhelmingly the language of choice, but we could hasten the day of its universiality by some simplifications. I certainly agree that it will evolve and is evolving with time. The evolution, however. comes from people violating the rules because the rules are too complex to remember. All such evolution comes over the objections of those who are, as random was who started this thread, "appalled" at the improper grammar and spelling. Apparently many on this thread would say that the rules of grammar and spelling are unimportant, to be violated at will, because any such anomaly is just language in the process of evolution. I would say that language will and should evolve, but in the process it is still important, for clarity of meaning, that rules of grammar and spelling be adhered to. Such adherence and clarity could be facilitated by simplification.

[phage]

>The only other thing I'd point out is the lack of ability to

>edit posts should earn everyone a little extra slack. I know

>I've noticed stupid mistakes right after hitting post quite a

>few times.

 

It’s really very simple to clip the post into a word processor, write your response, and then paste it back into the posting window. I would venture to guess that many of the people who consistently produce posts that are almost error free use this method.

 

Which brings up another point. Spell checkers. I have never been a particularly good speller, and with the advent of spell checkers I haven’t had to put any effort into improving. I would assume that, pre-computers, anyone who wrote much would constantly improve their spelling. These days…I rely on constantly improving spell checkers to catch my mistakes. (Now if they could just get better at checking punctuation.)

 

I suppose this could be viewed as another nail in the coffin of literacy in the world, but I don’t have a problem with it. Many of us with just average intelligence can only remember so many things. Being freed from the details of how every word in my vocabulary is spelled allows me to focus on the message and not get bogged down in the mechanics. If I was limited to using the words I could actually spell unassisted, I would make even out most guttural posters seem like English professors.

[Trixie]

RE: Who's doing Whom in Hooville

 

I might also point out that knowing the differences between "may" and "can", or when to use "whom" instead of "who" comes in very handy when one is learning a foreign language. In most European languages, such distinctions are still very much in use. Becoming familiar with the correct use of one's own language aids in the learning of another. Likewise, learning a foreign language (at least a Germanic or Romance language) will help one more fully understand the labyrinth of English.

La Trix

[Guest random]

Again, my post wasn't intended to be a comment on those just in the message center. I view the diminishing art of communication as a national issue.

 

When I created the original post I said to myself that this will fall to the bottom of the forum without much notice. I just want to take a moment to thank all who have added their thoughts. Many have been quite informative.

 

On a different topic ... Some here have commented about the ability to edit posts here. The software does allow the ability the admin has the feature turned off. If this is important to you I suggest you post your request in Daddy's forum and possibly he'll activate the feature.

[Guest pyell]

There is no single "right" way to simplify English. Some things that we think are difficult are actually very simple - for example, nobody seems to have the slightest difficulty adding an "s" to the third person singular form of the verb, even though there really is no logical reason why we should single out that particular form of the verb to make our one solitary declension change. I see no push from any quarter to change that, and I suspect it will remain for a long time to come.

 

Changes are happening, and they're happening because we get used to them and end up accepting them. I continue to encourage people not to try to impose change, but let change happen as and when it will. If it's pointlessly complex, it will change. If it's superficially complex but actually not too hard, it probably won't.

 

Apostrophes, for example, are pointlessly complex and are on their way out, disappearing under a hailstorm of misused apostrophes that only serve to demonstrate how pointlessly complex apostrophes really are. But many of our supposedly complex and illogical spellings of words are continuing to survive in reasonably good shape, surprisingly enough. Perhaps they're not as complex as we think, and people cope with them better than we imagine.

 

As the Beatles sang, let it be, let it be.....