WuWeiWhat you are basically suggesting is toartificially drag the written standard of alanguage to the same level of its oralstandards. It can't be done. Written andspoken language have differents diachronicdevelopments.Written language DOES tend to slowlychange towards the current standards ofspoken language, but it takes A LOT of time.There is no institution to decide this, at leastnot for the English languague. It's just historytaking its course, as I said before. That is why
spelling thru instead of through will becomeincreasingly acceptable, but spelling kristmasprobably won't.Also, you have to consider that the lesscommon a word is, the harder it is to modifyits spelling. Intellectual words which arerarely used in spoken language tend to meMUCH more conservative than commonwords. That is why the words which comefrom greek will probably take a lot of time tochange their spelling, if they ever do.Chiasmus is simply not common enough to bealtered in everyday use. \"Thru\" is.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
04-18-2010, 09:32 PM #10OrphanPip OrphanPip is offlineDance Magic DanceOrphanPip's Avatar Join DateOct 2009LocationKuala Lumpur but from CanadaPosts4,063Blog Entries25Send a message via MSN to OrphanPipNot to mention dialectical differences in the
English language.Like the different in pronunciation of vowelsbefore the letter \"r\" between Canadians andAmericans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian \"soro\"and American \"saro.\"It would be impossible to create a phoneticEnglish alphabet that addressed all Englishlanguage dialects.Last edited by OrphanPip; 04-18-2010 at09:40 PM.\"If the national mental illness of the UnitedStates is megalomania, that of Canada is
paranoid schizophrenia.\"- Margaret AtwoodReply With Quote Reply With Quote04-19-2010, 07:56 AM #11Madame X Madame X is offlineRegistered UserJoin DateApr 2009LocationThe NetherlandsPosts146Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View
PostNot to mention dialectical differences in theEnglish language.Like the different in pronunciation of vowelsbefore the letter \"r\" between Canadians andAmericans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian \"soro\"and American \"saro.\"It would be impossible to create a phoneticEnglish alphabet that addressed all Englishlanguage dialects.Nonetheless, both Benjamin Franklin andGeorge Bernard Shaw (through a decree in
his will at least), among others, made valiantattempts to rectify this messy concatenationof Latinate letters known as English. Through,Bendhamin Franklinz fonetik alfabet, andShavian, respectively. Although I’m not surehow necessary such proposed reforms aresince a great many -even educated- nativespeakers seem to prefer their own particularorthographic arrangements when writinganyway. Just look at your average email.04-19-2010, 04:05 PM #12Wilde woman
Locationgrad school in upstate NYWhat you are basically suggesting is toartificially drag the written standard of alanguage to the same level of its oralstandards. It can't be done. Written andspoken language have differents diachronicdevelopments.Agreed.You simply cannot change a language toaccommodate the needs of one segment ofthe speaking population. Even France, with its
ultra-conservative Academie Francaise, hasnot completely succeeded in keeping itslanguage \"pure\", because there is no suchthing. Through its contact withEnglish-speaking countries, French (like manyother languages) has become increasinglyAnglicanized.Maybe the changes you describe will occur inEnglish if the US and England haveincreasingly open contact with MiddleEastern countries. But it is highly unlikelybecause English simply does not have some ofthe phonemes you describe. It's not naturalfor English speakers to voice those sounds. So
even if English-speaking countries haveextended exposure to Middle Easternlanguages, it is more likely than not that thelanguage will reject assimilating thosephonemes which don't occur naturally inEnglish.It's not unheard-of for people to trysystematically to change their languages. Butlanguage has a mind of its own and it isalways a crapshoot to see whether or not themajority of language speakers will accept a anew word, much less a new spelling of anestablished word.
I read something recently from Umberto Ecowhich illustrates this point perfectly. Hespeaks about the development of the Italianlanguage and different parties' efforts (andfailure) to forcefully and systematically effectchange in the language:By definition language goes its own way; nodecree from on high, emanating either frompoliticians or from the academy, can stop itsprogress and divert it towards situations thatthey claim are for the best. The Fascists triedto make Italians say mescita instead of bar,coda di gallo instead of cocktail, rete insteadof goal, auto pubblica instead of taxi, and our
language paid no attention. Then it suggesteda lexical monstrosity, an unacceptablearchaism like autista instead of chauffeur,and the language accepted it. Maybe becauseit avoided a sound unknown to Italian. It kepttaxi, but gradually, at least in the spokenlanguage, turned this into tassi.He continues his discussion by talking aboutat least one person who was successful intransforming the Italian language - Dante -but cautions that even his vernacular tookcenturies to really take hold. Since then,other attempts (the Fascists' and thefuturists') to change the Italian lexicon haveeither failed or have had only piecemeal
The sometimes ridiculous attempts at alteringthe language made by the Fascists have beenmade fun of over and over and they're apretty good example of how you simplycannot tamper with the stuff people sayeveryday.But, while we are at it, it's also interesting tosay that some of the linguists who worked atthis bizarre project were nothing short ofgeniuses and sometimes came up with prettyinventive solutions that stuck with thelanguage (a spectacular example is the word\"tramezzino\" which replaced \"sandwich\" ineveryday use and has become absolutely
common ever since).Gabriele D'Annunzio himself was notsurprisingly involved in this and is responsiblefor some of the most creative words whichwere introduced into italian at the time.A lot of italian intellectuals were in favor ofthis \"italianizations\", since a movement called\"Purism\" had existed in linguistics forcenturies, advocating a ban on all foreignwords. If you're interested in that debate,there's a wonderful essay by MelchiorreCesarotti (poet, translator and essayist in thelate 18th century) about it.
04-20-2010, 12:36 PMAnnamariah LocationHelsinki, FinlandHaha. If only all languages were like Finnish(written phonemically), then there would beno use for this discussion. Even the differencesin our dialects can be spelled out - a textwritten in \"literary language\" (as opposed tocolloquial language - Finnish has a standard\"literary language\" that is used in formalsituations) is read aloud pretty much thesame by everyone. Our dialects differ from
each other mostly in vocabulary andinflecting words, not in pronunciation per se.04-20-2010,LocationKuala Lumpur but from CanadaSometimes the government can succeed inforcing the use of a couple words.Here in Quebec they managed in a few yearsto cast out the anglicizations computer and
email to replace them with ordinateur andcourriel.The regis du langue francaise has legal powerto enforce word use in Quebec though Youcan be fined for using English on signs.\"If the national mental illness of the UnitedStates is megalomania, that of Canada isparanoid schizophrenia.\"http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?52190-Sound-sheen-is-very-commen-in-the-world-languages&s=ce6908b6e06f4c301ac84f97713b5469
An interesting talk over language sounds maqsood hasni Abuzar Barqi kutab'khana Oct.2016
Search
