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

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

Actually, arpgme already figured out that I had not used the copula in my post. Eliminating the copula encourages clear thought. Why? I present one example and invite readers to figure things out for themselves.

It prevents one from saying "this orange is sour". Instead, one says "this orange tastes sour [to me]" which shows one's actual intention.

reply to post by arpgme


So the answer to the fact that people in England are getting dumber and falling behind with English is to bring the educated in line with the larger majority of the population who are failing and re-educate them to spell and read and write the same as those who are currently uneducated, thus solving the problem of people being behind in English?

Why can we not just get better teachers?

reply to post by Tadeusz


Exactly. It give much more expression.


I am happy.
I feel happy.

It is better.
It seems better [to me] - since "better" is just an opinion based on a person's personal intentions and goals.

Even "I am." can be written as "I exist."

I like this suggestion very much and I will make an effort to use the "copula" less. Perhaps this type of speaking will lead to some insights and will allow me to have more clarity where I once seemed ambiguous.

The use of the word "will" to indicate future tense, appears as the only exception to this rule. Otherwise, I think it will work, indeed.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Now THAT was hilarious.

Point taken I hope.

I don't see how changing a language can be done other than by the street. That's where the language is used and there the change will come from. No amount of telling people how they should speak or write is going to be.

The last time whitecoats tried to change my language they created a new dialect... theirs.

English being not my native tongue, I would not like it to change to become more easy. Poetry goes when you downgrade a language. Don't force it, let it happen naturally. If a language needs change, it will.

reply to post by arpgme


Kinda reminds me of the us office episode where Kevin decides to stop using words he doesn't need to save time.

Needless to say it was a silly idea

I know of a small change that will highly increase literacy. Ready for it? Here it is. Children must be exposed to high level vocabulary from a young age. Studies have been done. One can see the effects of this, especially if it is lacking. If a person has a limited vocabulary, then they will not be truly literate.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Why is that exactly?
Why was it considered a "silly" idea?

How about small changes that will increase the childs chance to keep the money he earned.
Instead of teaching the Websters version of english teach the Black's legal version of english.

Literacy is nice but not being treated as a sheep to be fleeced is nicer.

I like your suggestion.your suggestion is best.

Language is a living thing and changes with the people who use it - the rules mean little to most and all that is required to understand what most folk say in your given tongue is some patience and brain power. Anyways, i'm about to have a boiled egg - pass me the sledgehammer would you?

reply to post by arpgme


We don't need to change the English language. It's fine the way it is. What we need to do is watch the way we use it. Sometimes we need to get back to the basics. Here's an example of what I'm seeing more and more of these days, and it's an improper use of pronouns:

The person that ran the fastest won the race.

The word "person" there is supposed to be followed by the relative pronoun "who". These pronouns should only be used in sentences that denote people. The word "that" is also a relative pronoun, but it should be followed or preceded by an object . "The woman who is smart", "The man who programmed that computer", "The computer that ran slow".....etc.

I think people confuse the two unintentionally because in the sentence about a man programming a computer, people will use the pronoun "that" when indicating the person, because they're thinking about the computer, or the act of programming, and not the man. It's an honest mistake I think, and it just goes to show how complex this language is. But changing it? No. I don't think that's a good idea.

www.schoolwork.org...

www.lessonsnips.com...

www.grammar-monster.com...

reply to post by arpgme


Because it takes him just as long and no one knows what he's talking about

reply to post by arpgme


Lol what do you think about the usage of "words" such as "lol" and "lmao"?

I agree, this would make the English language much more approachable by other cultures too!

reply to post by arpgme

The changes seem alright.

Newspeak is doubleplus good!But seriously, I think the English language is fine as it is. Only brain dead Americans can't master it.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by arpgme

 

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "w" by " v".

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru.


Source/writer unknown, found on the internet and never forgotten since I read it years ago.

I had no idea what the hell you just wrote. I understood it, just could not read it properly. At the same time its hilarious

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

This is very interesting. There is a passage in 1984 where Winston is chatting with a co-worker who is writing a dictionary of newspeak. He tells Winston how Big Brother wants to simplify, condense and change the meaning of words. The whole purpose of the ministry of truth in that worthy novel was to control the population through propaganda and to promote ignorance and obedience.
' Politics and the English Language' is one of Orwell's greatest essays and he says in it that since governments have control over the media they try to shape language to their ends. This proposition to alter the English language seems rather insidious to me. There is now an effort to ignore the conjugation of the word 'fail' in the fluff news sites. This is a clear example of Big Brother at work, literate people wince at the substitution of fail for failure. If you understand the fact that the U.S. government is actively involved in shaping thought you look for this stuff.
English has the largest vocabulary of all the world's languages, it allows us to elucidate more explicitly, to conceptualize more new ideas and express more human experience than any other. It is healthy for a language to expand according to it's rules of grammar and thereby improve it's effectiveness and we should be very skeptical of efforts to alter the meaning of words. Primarily because language is thought and if the Bush administration taught us nothing else it screamed it's desire to control what we think.

reply to post by Jameliel

Originally posted by Jameliel
Lol what do you think about the usage of "words" such as "lol" and "lmao"?

If it will be an obstacle and make the language harder to master, I think we can just replace that with smiley faces.

I like these kinds

(^_^) happy , (-_-*) disappointment/annoyed/anger , (o.0) surprised, (^_^#) happy but embarrassed

(x_x) pain/hurt,

(! _ !) or (Y_Y) or (T_T) cry/sadness


These seem more like pictures that the side ways happy faces : ) : (


reply to post by Avgudar

Originally posted by Avgudar
Newspeak is doubleplus good!But seriously, I think the English language is fine as it is. Only brain dead Americans can't master it.

It's almost like a conspiracy. Any time ideas of making the language easier is talked about people seem to think "Newspeak".

I don't think we should limit the words in the language to stop people from expressing themselves with more greater absract words, just using compounds to express bigger words, in this way, even if you never seen a word before there is a chance that you can guess what it means. It will make the language easier for natives and foreigners and will increase literacy rates.


These are simple examples but it does illustrate a point:

lore - knowledge, study of


Geology (the meaning has to be learned) as compared to Earthlore (Earth + Lore)

Biology compared to Lifelore


Take a look at "Osteology", most will not know what that means,
but when you see "Bonelore" it makes it easier.

You can use common sense
"Earthlore" means "study of the Earth (Geology)", "Lifelore" means "Study of life (Biology)"

"Osteology" you wouldn't know what that means until you learn the definition" , but with "Bonelore" , now you can guess that it is the study of bones (having to do something with "bones").

Take a look at this list, and you will see, most of the time the compounds are easier:

List of "-lores" , "-ologies" (Anglish)