English is the most important lingua franca in the world and it still lacks a coherent spelling and pronunciation. Especially the former needs to be reformed. Since English has been introduced as a second language in so many countries, it often deteriorates in this regions. Then again not even the U.S.-Americans speak Oxford British English. They had to invent their own style for whatever reasons in the first place.
My suggestion is this: adopt the British spelling. U.S.-exclusive vocabulary should be included in the language. Only one English language should be taught in today's schools over the world.
Is it really so difficult to write harbour with a 'u'?
Didn't they invent their own style since Samuel Johnson wasn't adequate and the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't out yet?
Or to quote Mr. Noah Webster.
In 1789 Webster declared that “Great Britain, whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline”.
As for
What do you think?
I believe this thread is either troll or ban bait.
Extra u's in words be stupid. Plus, American English is part of this country's identity. It reminds the Brits every day that we are so awesome that we needed our own specialized language to convey this awesomeness.
also, there are hardly any kind of issues that arise from this. Mostly Brits or Americans telling one another that they spell like retards, that's about it. Either spelling is understood by either group
Yeah and make those damned Peruvians, Chileans, Argentineans, Paraguayans, Uruguayans, and members of dozens of other Spanish speaking countries speak REAL Spanish! Not their stupid made up dialects!
Countries change languages based on their own culture. Dialects are just natural and it's not possible to get rid of them.
I'm much more worried about 'payed' and 'layed'. It seems I see these abominations more regularly than I see the correct spelling recently and it makes me sad. Before we get to work on using just one set of acceptable spellings we should teach people to spell.
PART of the reason English does so well as a lingua franca, is because it has no "official" version, regional modifications and changes over time are perfectly ok and reasonable. Languages need to evolve. If by the year 3000, the southern term y'all has been widely adopted as the standard second person plural, that probably would be an improvement to the language, giving it more specificity.
People who learn English should learn the form that will best suit their uses. In German schools perhaps the British version might be best (and if the German government decides that is the best for their whole nation they can mandate that version in their state schools). In Mexico, the American version is probably best. (just like learning Mexican Spanish is probably better for an American than learning Iberian Spanish)
The issue is NOT if it is difficult to write harbour with a "u". The issue is if it is Better to write harbor with a "u", and that the individuals who use the language should decide.
I think that Grammar is considerably more important than spelling. English grammar is very complicated and most people don't even understand the basics and just assume that they are grammatically correct because it, "just sounds right."
On January 29 2011 00:25 Perscienter wrote: English is the most important lingua franca in the world and it still lacks a coherent spelling and pronunciation. Especially the former needs to be reformed. Since English has been introduced as a second language in so many countries, it often deteriorates in this regions. Then again not even the U.S.-Americans speak Oxford British English. They had to invent their own style for whatever reasons in the first place.
My suggestion is this: adopt the British spelling. U.S.-exclusive vocabulary should be included in the language. Only one English language should be taught in today's schools over the world.
Is it really so difficult to write harbour with a 'u'?
What do you think?
We've had a spelling reform in Germany not so long ago, remember? The goal was to simplify the language and to make it easier to learn and use for non-germans.
The result was a horrible failures. It's been 15 years and people in Germany/Austria/Switzerland still refuse to use the new version, schools were not sure how to handle things (and some still are). While it may have been made easier for some, it produced some linguistic abominations ("delphin" -> "delfin" comes to mind *shudder*).
Languages should develop naturally, and they're certainly not something that could be regulated. Let alone internationally.
On January 29 2011 00:39 nalgene wrote: There's no set rules for English pronunciation and you would only learn them later rather than early on.
Prefix/Suffix aren't taught with a set system either. [ VES ] instead of [ FS ]
Dys, Un, Im, Melan,
The 'u' does change the pronunciation.
The spelling does change it to a long vowel in [O] ---> [OU]
'payed' is wrong, but there's a different sound to 'paid'
I'm afraid that's just not true. English is NOT a phonetic language (whatever your teachers may tell you.) The pronunciation of words is not a direct function of spelling unlike in some other languages (Spanish I believe is close to phonetic).
Harbor (American) and Harbour (UK) should be pronounced the same.
Unless I am clearly mistaken about the intentions of the OP, I somehow think that a standardised spelling and pronunciation for the English language should not affect teaching English. Sentence structuring falls under the category of grammar not spelling or pronunciation.
With regards to standardising spelling, I feel that people who use English are able to recognise words used no matter the origin. Like neighbour or neighbor, I'm pretty sure that people from English speaking countries or people who have had a proper education on English should be able to recognise the words.
While I do agree that standardising pronunciation might allow a better understanding of the spoken English language, I think it's impossibly hard. Accents would, unavoidably, result in a barrier too hard to overcome. Like you mentioned, in regions where English is taught as a second language, a standard pronunciation would be hard to achieve due to the presence of the mothertongue (first language). Someone from China would most definitely pronounce words different from someone from India or the US or UK.
To me it's all good english... I don't even notice if some spells it color/colour, harbor/harbour etc. And sidewalk/pavement and alike are just two words for the same thing. Basically, as long as it's obvious what you mean, I don't really give a shit.
If you speak English this doesn't matter. Compared to some languages our writing system is very uniform and the rules are pretty much the same across the variants.
The only time this becomes an issue is when the spoken language has begun to break the standard rules and pronunciations of the standard language to such a degree that it isn't decipherable anymore, or there are a noticeable number of difficulties, like how Chinese has split up over the years and the pronunciation is no longer mutually intelligible and there are grammar differences. So when this happens it becomes difficult to teach people to read when the language they're learning to write has different rules to the one they are speaking. So when this happens languages split away and become distinct.
I suppose Russian/Ukrainian is sort of what I mean, similar, but there are easily enough differences to make it easier to just consider them seperate languages from a linguistic standpoint. Same applies to regional German languages and German/Dutch/Limburgish.
We don't have close to any of these problems in English and that's why it doesn't really matter. Most cultural stuff and learning materials you'll use will be American English though I'm betting.
The differences between American and British english are fairly slight, apart from differences in names of things, which results more from culture differences than actual language (see Australian English, compared to British).
Forcing uniformity now wouldn't accomplish much, since the languages will probably generate new minute differences anyway. (There are some words that could very easily be changed, I'll trade you judgment for tyres, actually, you can just have judgment.)