Small changes that can be made to The English Language to highly increase literacy.

reply to post by jiggerj


Mister jiggerj, respectfully and politely, I love the word " whom " and even its even snobbier friend " whomsoever "

I don't use them very often, but I won't hear a bad word said against these old friends whom I dust off, and use occasionally !

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


Indeed, whomsoever can use this illustrious word to great effect, has surely mastered the nuances, of what is, a language which requires superior form of intellect and implied civility.

Any person whom disagrees with this statement, will, not surprising, have their legs cut off at the knee, with my cane-sword. Purely for being a spotty oik!!

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by arpgme

 

Seriously I just re-read your post. This has to be some satirical effort to convince people to write and talk like scallies??

Seriously it must be?

God I hope so!!

HAHAHA I seriously just laughed for like 3 minutes straight after reading this.

*Sighs* if people can't learn to do something properly, let's dumb it all down. People will actually defend that stance. This is why you will always be what you already are.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

 

At least the one I proposed still looks like English (if you do not follow the spelling reformation).

Still, we can continue to use the English language with only the grammatical changes I did suggest and that still, will make the English language more easy to understand.

To make the language really easy, we can make English and isolating language.

replace -er with more, so "easier" will become "more easy"
replace -s with some, so "houses" will become "some house"


good, better, best

good, more good, most good

This will make the English language more easy to speak, for both natives and not native speakers, or should I say " home born speakers" (word borrowed from Anglish).

Are you crazy?

"Better" is way easier than "more good."

Better is not a form of good, nor is it a form of best. They are descriptor words, independent of each other.

Your reforms sound like a disabled person.

Quit trying to mutilate English worse than it already is... how you propose the language should be, is how imports already speak it.

So we can understand them, yes? Good, no need for everybody to sound like a retard then... right?

reply to post by Syntagma


Glad I could be of service



2nd

all languages evolve, its a natural process

reply to post by DaveNorris

Evolution and butchery are two different animals.

reply to post by Laokin


Good, Better, and Best goes together just like Bad, Worse, and Worst goes together. You claim that learning these forms are more easy than using "more" and "most" and then you claim that it is being "dumbed down" and sounds like a "retard".

reply to post by aaaiii


either way, language changes, its gunna happen, noone can stop it

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by aaaiii

 

either way, language changes, its gunna happen, noone can stop it

You're English and you butcher your own language.

It's a noble language and you don't even bother to do it justice.

"By law, you should be taken out and hung
for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue."

reply to post by aaaiii


like ive said before, i beleive that if people can understand what you are saying then why does it matter how you spell, or use punctuation. if i wanted to i could write in the queens old english, but its much easier to just write how i do and everyone still gets the jist of what im saying

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by MrJohnSmith

 

Indeed, whomsoever can use this illustrious word to great effect, has surely mastered the nuances, of what is, a language which requires superior form of intellect and implied civility.

Any person whom disagrees with this statement, will, not surprising, have their legs cut off at the knee, with my cane-sword. Purely for being a spotty oik!!

Just whom do you think will do this leg cutting?

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by aaaiii

 

like ive said before, i beleive that if people can understand what you are saying then why does it matter how you spell, or use punctuation. if i wanted to i could write in the queens old english, but its much easier to just write how i do and everyone still gets the jist of what im saying

Then your level of writing becomes standard, with guys like you writing: lk I sed be4, I beleve if peple cn undastan...

reply to post by jiggerj


i didnt write like that tho, the simplist way is to use phonetics and write the way that you speak.

and even tho you made a complete hack job of text speak, i still understood it, so i forgive you

reply to post by jiggerj


Of course it shall be I, and whomsoever tries to stop me, shall be roundly slapped with a frozen haddock!

Originally posted by UKLionheart

What you are proposing isn't actually a new idea. In fact, Esparanto is actually Latin with all the verbs, plurals etc made regular.

To which you said....
The idea of an isolating English is not a new idea? I did much searching on the internet and I couldn't find people thinking of an isolating English where you would use "did", "will" , "do" instead of verb conjugations and the word "some" instead of the plural -s.

Please reread my post. The idea is not new, you are just doing it to English instead of Latin!

Lets not mess up a good thing.
I am for some Fonetics, and I frequently do spell them that way.
"Z" sounds should be spelled with the "z".
"F" sounds should be spelled the "f". The "ph" is archaic.
Words like "through" should be spelled "thru", I it is correct to use it this way in legal documents.
We still need threw to indicate which of the homonyms we mean.

Many people now writing on the message boards are writing grammar as they speak it and as they thought (thot)they heard it. Like the "would of, could of" example for "would have and could have".
Likewise I see "use to" instead of "used to".

We still need the final "e" on words to indicate that the vowel before it is to say its name.
We also still need the double "ee".

There are more things we need to keep than there are to discard.

I was one of those who never talked baby talk and was speaking in full sentences by age 2; correcting my mother's english when I was 4.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by aaaiii

 

like ive said before, i beleive that if people can understand what you are saying then why does it matter how you spell, or use punctuation. if i wanted to i could write in the queens old english, but its much easier to just write how i do and everyone still gets the jist of what im saying

People who write like you do are never taken seriously.
You have lost all credibility with your first 6 words.

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by aaaiii

 

like ive said before, i beleive that if people can understand what you are saying then why does it matter how you spell, or use punctuation. if i wanted to i could write in the queens old english, but its much easier to just write how i do and everyone still gets the jist of what im saying

People who write like you do are never taken seriously.
You have lost all credibility with your first 6 words.

im only not taken seriously on this thread, and thats only because its full of old prudes that are afraid of change... no offence.

Originally posted by Tadeusz
I have a small tip to offer. In this post I have avoided using a certain language feature which I believe -- while it has its place -- cheapens the language when overused. Can anyone guess what I avoided using?

I've been waiting a few days now to see if anyone would guess right, and nobody has.. sooo, why don't you just tell us?

Yes I really am that curious..