Conquer Club

Someone stated it was in another thread. I deny this 100%. My reasons:

Ever expanding vocabulary
Hundreds of new words are added to the language each year, loan words appear from other languages and developments in technology contribute massive amounts.

Words shift meanings
Thus "gay" has added meaning now cf 200 years ago, but has kept it's original meaning too.

Number of countries speaking English
600 years ago English was only spoken in one country. Now it is an official language in over 70 countries and widely spoken in many more. Each region has changed English grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary, adding to the complexity. What is a dunny, a toque, mashing a cup of tea for example?

New technology has created new English lol

That's enough to start.

The spelling is complicated and has little to do with how a word is pronounced, you practically have to learn it by rote.

Leave out a single word or swap two around and you may change the meaning of a whole sentence.


No, English is not becoming simpler, it is becoming more of an analytic language than a synthetic.

MeDeFe wrote:The spelling is complicated and has little to do with how a word is pronounced, you practically have to learn it by rote.

Leave out a single word or swap two around and you may change the meaning of a whole sentence.


No, English is not becoming simpler, it is becoming more of an analytic language than a synthetic.

I agree with your sentiments. However, one point - English spelling is surprisingly regular. There are only just over 400 words that are completely irregular. They are unfortunately some of the more frequently used words so tend to crop up a lot (such as are, do, of for example). This gives the impression that English is more chaotic than it really is.

xelabale wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:The spelling is complicated and has little to do with how a word is pronounced, you practically have to learn it by rote.

Leave out a single word or swap two around and you may change the meaning of a whole sentence.


No, English is not becoming simpler, it is becoming more of an analytic language than a synthetic.

I agree with your sentiments. However, one point - English spelling is surprisingly regular. There are only just over 400 words that are completely irregular. They are unfortunately some of the more frequently used words so tend to crop up a lot (such as are, do, of for example). This gives the impression that English is more chaotic than it really is.

flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation. Or how about this one letter:

hall - hare - father - baker


Even compared to German the pronounciation is irregular to a fault, and compared to a language like Finnish it's outright haphazard.

Yeah, you could say it is getting simpler.

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:Yeah, you could say it is getting simpler.

This is a case of what I mentioned, 'simpler' is one word made up of two morphemes (higher morpheme/word ratio: synthetic), while "more simple" is two words of one morpheme each (lower morpheme/word ratio: analytic)

MeDeFe wrote:

xelabale wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:The spelling is complicated and has little to do with how a word is pronounced, you practically have to learn it by rote.

Leave out a single word or swap two around and you may change the meaning of a whole sentence.


No, English is not becoming simpler, it is becoming more of an analytic language than a synthetic.

I agree with your sentiments. However, one point - English spelling is surprisingly regular. There are only just over 400 words that are completely irregular. They are unfortunately some of the more frequently used words so tend to crop up a lot (such as are, do, of for example). This gives the impression that English is more chaotic than it really is.

flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation. Or how about this one letter:

hall - hare - father - baker

Even compared to German the pronounciation is irregular to a fault, and compared to a language like Finnish it's outright haphazard.

There are historical reasons for different pronunciation of letters in words, to do with the donor language and good old Caxton, but they are still regularly spelled, though. I agree that English is not phonetically spelt, though.

There are spelling rules and we can predict. We don't learn by rote every word. English seems more chaotic than it really is.

PS Actually I pronounce the ou in those 3 words the same! (I would say route both like out and boot 50/50 I think, depending on who I"m talking to), but I take your point!

the.killing.44 wrote:Yeah, you could say it is getting simpler.

.44

lol I wondered when someone would mention that - just goes to show...

I know the reasons, xela, English linguistics major and all that...

feel - ceiling - binge

MeDeFe wrote:I know the reasons, xela, English linguistics major and all that...

feel - ceiling - binge

I know what you're saying, I don't need more examples, applied linguistics masters and all that...

From AID, the International Dyslexsia Association:
The English spelling system is not crazy or unpredictable. It can be taught as a system that makes sense. Nearly 50% of English words are predictable based on sound-letter correspondences alone (e.g., slap, pitch, boy). An additional 37% of the more common words are almost predictable except for one sound (e.g., knit and boat).

Other information, such as the language from which a word came (e.g., Old English, Latin, Greek, or French) and word meaning, also helps explain the spellings of words. Only 4% of English words are truly irregular and may have to be learned through whole word methods, such as tracing and saying the letters while the word is being memorized. Thus, it is possible to approach spelling instruction with confidence that the system by and large makes sense-an encouraging observation for students who have great difficulty forming memories for words.


Anyway, English is not getting simpler as a language, we agree.

Engish git simple. Engish git rl simple.

MaleAlphaThree wrote:Engish git simple. Engish git rl simple.

Who are you calling an English git?

MeDeFe wrote: flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation.

Your overall point may be valid, but this is not illustrative of it since those are all pronounced the same. Just as out, about, bout, snout, sour, hour, and flour are pronounced.

A "git" is what gangsters from the late 1920's and early 30's called their escape plan from a robbery, usually of a bank.

The "git" was also used to describe the overall plan, but most commonly referred to the getaway map.

StiffMittens wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation.

Your overall point may be valid, but this is not illustrative of it since those are all pronounced the same. Just as out, about, bout, snout, sour, hour, and flour are pronounced.

You may be confusing 'route' with 'rout'

MeDeFe wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation.

Your overall point may be valid, but this is not illustrative of it since those are all pronounced the same. Just as out, about, bout, snout, sour, hour, and flour are pronounced.

You may be confusing 'route' with 'rout'

You may be confusing English with American

xelabale wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: flout - route - dour

Same combination of letters, different pronounciation.

Your overall point may be valid, but this is not illustrative of it since those are all pronounced the same. Just as out, about, bout, snout, sour, hour, and flour are pronounced.

You may be confusing 'route' with 'rout'

You may be confusing English with American

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/route

Main Entry:
route
Pronunciation:
\ˈrüt, ˈrau̇t\

it could be argued that the English language is getting simpler or more complex, depending on the context and your point of view.

Certainly the spread of English media and the internet has dumbed down the language to become more of a universally accessible, 'lowest common denominator' language. This same thing was happening to French in the 20th century as a result of colonial expansion, but instead of embracing the language's role as a global language there was a effort to keep French mor pure (as well as disdain toward anyone who spoke a dialect, to the point where it has been argued that Canadians don't speak "French"). So the majority of written and spoken English used in the world has been simplified to reach a wider audience, such as the audience I am addressing right now. No need to use tone in my writing when I can use a smily.

On the other hand, the spread of English over every continent has made the language more rich. Vocabulary is growing faster, dialects and pidgins intermingle, new words become standard, old words fade away.

English spelling has always been a disaster... when you consider all of the groups that have conquered/settled the island - Romans, Celts, Angles, vikings, Normans - it's no wonder we lack standard spelling conventions. Pick any vowel sound and there are half a dozen ways to spell it. And why do we need four different ways to spell the /f/ sound? "f" "ff" "ph" "gh"

All languages tend to get simpler.

Just compare Latin with Romance languages, Greek with Modern Greek, Sanskrit with Hindi. Languages, for some reason or other, tend to contract.

Is English becoming simpler: It depends what you mean by English and what you mean by simple.
And Englsih can never be phonetic (despite Shaw) because different people pronounce words differently.

I encountered an interesting one in the supermarket at the queue for the checkout: We were being fgiven advice on the TV from "Produce Pete". It was only when I saw it spelt that I understood what the first word was meant to be.
In the US this is pronounced "PRO-duss". I (and other English persons) would pronounce it "Prod-JUICE".

And Paula Deane (a TV cook and a southerner) can get three syllables out of the word "Mint" or "Shrimp". "Mee-ah-unt", and "Shree-uh-ump".

jonesthecurl wrote:I encountered an interesting one in the supermarket at the queue for the checkout: We were being fgiven advice on the TV from "Produce Pete". It was only when I saw it spelt that I understood what the first word was meant to be.
In the US this is pronounced "PRO-duss". I (and other English persons) would pronounce it "Prod-JUICE".

"duss"? Weird.

I grew up hearing it and saying it as PRO-deuce.

I hope you limeys pronounce deuce the same way, or else my phonetic thing will completely fail.

I'd have realised that was just a different accent/emphasis I think. I was hearing this as, maybe "proteus Pete", I thought he could change his shape or something.

Oh, and by the way, I've only heard it pronounced as "PRO-deuce" when talking about things like vegetables and legumes.

If, say, one was talking about producing a movie or a play, it would "pro-DEUCE".

Weirdness, I know. But we haven't exactly been using the Queen's English for a couple centuries now...

Yes. I wondered whether the Broadway hit should be the PROdussahs...

pimpdave wrote:Oh, and by the way, I've only heard it pronounced as "PRO-deuce" when talking about things like vegetables and legumes.

If, say, one was talking about producing a movie or a play, it would "pro-DEUCE".

Weirdness, I know. But we haven't exactly been using the Queen's English for a couple centuries now...

PROduce = noun

ProDUCE = verb