Jupiter Images
In my opinion, the main problem of English is that it is not a phonetic language.
I would not have written this letter, if I had not been struck by the following text, from one of the leading persons in Entrepreneurship, Prof. Peter F. Drucker:
"Everyone agrees that non-phonetic spelling is a major obstacle to learning a language, forces schools to devote inordinate time to the reading skill, and is responsible for a disproportionate number of reading disabilities and emotional traumas among children (I would like to add adults too). The knowledge of phonetics is a century old at least. Means to achieve phonetic spelling are available in the two languages where the problem is most acute: any number of phonetic alphabets for English, and the much older, forty-eight-syllable Kana scripts in Japanese. For both countries there are examples next door of successful shift to phonetic script. The English have the successful model of German spelling reform of the mid-nineteenth century; the Japanese, the equally successful phonetic reform of the Korean script." (Drucker, P.F., Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and principles, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 2001, page 117).
There is no doubt that English presents many advantages in comparison with other languages. For example, the future and past tenses are much simpler than those of my mother tongue Portuguese, or the similar ones in French or Spanish. There are not the terrible declinations of German. The second person is ‘you’, without the subtle ways of approaching found in Japanese or German. It is already the third most spoken language, behind Chinese Mandarin and Hindi, just due to the large population of China and India. Why not then start an entrepreneurial effort to make English also phonetic?
![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)
Login or Register to post comments
Global English
Dear Sir,
In my opinion, the main problem of English is that it is not a phonetic language.
I would not have written this letter, if I had not been struck by the following text, from one of the leading persons in Entrepreneurship, Prof. Peter F. Drucker:
"Everyone agrees that non-phonetic spelling is a major obstacle to learning a language, forces schools to devote inordinate time to the reading skill, and is responsible for a disproportionate number of reading disabilities and emotional traumas among children (I would like to add adults too). The knowledge of phonetics is a century old at least. Means to achieve phonetic spelling are available in the two languages where the problem is most acute: any number of phonetic alphabets for English, and the much older, forty-eight-syllable Kana scripts in Japanese. For both countries there are examples next door of successful shift to phonetic script. The English have the successful model of German spelling reform of the mid-nineteenth century; the Japanese, the equally successful phonetic reform of the Korean script." (Drucker, P.F., Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and principles, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 2001, page 117).
There is no doubt that English presents many advantages in comparison with other languages. For example, the future and past tenses are much simpler than those of my mother tongue Portuguese, or the similar ones in French or Spanish. There are not the terrible declinations of German. The second person is ‘you’, without the subtle ways of approaching found in Japanese or German. It is already the third most spoken language, behind Chinese Mandarin and Hindi, just due to the large population of China and India. Why not then start an entrepreneurial effort to make English also phonetic?
Yours, faithfully,
Richard Stephan
Re: Global English
After studied and used English for some time, I understand what really is. It is a kind of primitive language which have taken a lot of worlds from another languages in order to be complete. For example, there's the verb "to see", but something which can be seen is "visible". There's no coherency between the worlds.
Its importance is based on the economy, just because USA has been the richest country in the world for several decades. There's no other reason.
Re: Global English
What does "coherency" mean? Just because Earth has life-sustaining capabilities, does that mean that all life can be immediately transferred to the amazingly-similar Mars?
Rome was the the dominant economic force for half a millennium, the later Italian for over a century. Why, then, don't at least the stunningly erudite, stylish bankers & fianciers have a thorough grounding in Latin and Italian?
What does the use of English as commercial lingua franca have to do with the publication of "Das Kapital"? Or with Sartre?
Re: Global English
While we don't say "seeable", we certainly say "foreseeable".
Re: Global English
English is definitely not a "kind of primitive language", (there's no such thing anyway, but I won't go into that now). The language is a reflection of the British people and their history. Prior to the Norman invasion we spoke Anglo Saxon, a Germanic language. That remained the language of the people, while the elite spoke Norman French and Latin. Over the centuries English emerged as a hybrid of these, becoming what we now speak. That includes taking lots of words from other languages, to make it richer and more expressive. Hardly makes it primitive-quite the opposite in fact.
Visible is from a Latin root- same as vista, view, vision, visibility etc, etc. "To see" is from Germanic. There's no reason why we shouldn't say "seeable"- which is a perfectly logical form, but we don't- or maybe we did once, and it was dropped from the language.
We can "look for" something, we can also "search for", (from French- chercher), or "seek", (from zoeken/suchen- Germanic). They mean roughly the same thing, but express subtle differences.
All languages absorb words from others given the chance. A French person can "faire le shopping" at "le weekend" after "le job en marketing"- even if they have to "prendre le car ferry" to get there. And they don't have to speak any English to do it, any more than we have to speak French to eat an hors d'oeuvres in a restaurant. Languages are like that.
You are certainly right Alex in saying that the current importance of English is more to do with American economic and political dominance than anything else. Certainly not because it's inherently superior to any other language, but again languages are like that, and in our global village a common means of communication is pretty much a necessity. Once we used Latin in the same way. French also became important as did Portuguese among others- now we use English, but no doubt should the eco-political situation change we'll all need to learn Armenian or something, (that's a joke!).
Nick P
Re: Global English
It's very true that English spelling is a confusing mess, and this is a real obstacle to learning the language. I understand that dyslexia is far less prevalent in the Hispanic world, or countries such as Turkey or Finland because their languages are more phonetic and logical in their written form.
However our spelling just reflects the history of written
English. Early texts showed huge variations in how words were spelt- not just by different authors, but sometimes by the same author even within the same text. Eventually a standard was agreed, and this often as we know to our cost wasn't the most obvious, and certainly not the most phonetic version. These were later formalised by the early dictionaries, and that is more or less what we are now stuck with. Starting from a blank sheet, no doubt we would do it very differently, but I would suggest that it's a bit too late to change now. It could be done, but would be such a monumental exercise that I doubt it would be. And anyway we'd have to agree on the new standard before we even started. Can you imagine that?
I don't think that English has any inherent advantages over other languages. Its current dominance is an accident of history, and although it is without doubt a rich and adaptable language so are many others.
However any language has difficulties for a non native speaker. Some English tenses are simpler than your example of Portugese, but the present tense is more complex. And you have ser and estar- two forms of "to be"-a real minefield for us- etc etc, and to be repeated in every other language in the world.
There are no simple or primitive languages,(leaving aside artificial inventions such as Esperanto). Even the so called pigins develop within a few generations a complex and fully expressive vocabulary and syntax, to express the full range of human thought.
That's all part of the miracle of human existence.
Nick P
Re: Global English
Not strictly true, plenty of dislexics in Spain, Turkey, Israel, Russia, really true dyslexia has little to do with how phonetic an alphabet it is.
Re: Global English
English is a monstrous entity that has a life of its own and will resist all attempts to tame it.the language devours other words from any other language it sees fit and moves on to the next victim.besides the french try to control their language and it is fast becoming archaic and stuck in the past.how boring would english be if we spoke like shakespeare for all eternity,english will become the dominant language of the planet.
Re: Global English
It would actualy be more interesting if we did. Shakespear's idea of English was exceptionally rich and flamboyant.
Re: Global English
Shakespeare's written and dramatised use of English was inarguably "exceptionally rich and flamboyant" butI'm very sure it'd take a very great deal to convince many (including myself certainly) that he spoke that way in the bars and businesses he frequented in 'real' life.
Re: Global English
Ei agri that Inglesh iz a skruy lengwej bat wei mes with it nau?
It'd jast konfyuz everywan.
Re: Global English
For those who'd like to try out my phonetic spell checker please visit http://www.GandJLawrence.co.uk/Werdz
If you drop your aitches then it will still have a go at trying to spell a word - try 'ejog' or 'ospittle'.
If you have any suggestions for improvements please let me have them.
Re: Global English
This one will run and run! It's been around for a very long time, and so far every attempt to reform English spelling has fallen by the wayside -- apart from some American reforms; many of the original proposed changes have been abandoned too. A dead 'oss, I reckon.
Re: Global English
Everyone seems to agree that language is something that continually evolves and that the English spoken today differs somewhat from that spoken in centuries past. US English still contains some words from Olde English which are no longer spoken in the UK - such as "faucet" for "tap". It seems that in the US, some official efforts have been made to update the language similar to what is happening now in Germany with their language. But I do not know of any official efforts made in the UK. Perhaps it's something that simply develops like new words do. Had anyone heard of "Chav" a decade ago?
I think with global media, the language will evolve more quickly. I for one have long taken the conscious decision to use the word "airplane" instead of "aeroplane". Yet speaking to friends, I notice that other words have changed subconsciously. When I asked a friend why she was saying "pants" instead of "trousers", she looked at me totally blankly and said "that's because that's what they are!"
Re: Global English
Richard's suggestion is an interesting one. It has been made before - there was, for instance the prize left by the author George Bernard Shaw for the creation of a new alphabet which would represent English phonetically. (It was won some years ago, so it's too late to try for it now, unfortunately). Anyone interested in reading about earlier attempts at spelling reform in English will find a useful chapter in one of the books on the 'word4word' reading list, 'English: history, diversity and change' edited by Graddol, Leith and Swann, chapter 2. One of the main problems with introducing a new system is the complexity of the symbolic system required; there's also a great deal invested in the use of the present system, both financially and in other senses, so there would be considerable opposition.
The second message also raises a significant point - which English would be chosen to have its pronunciation phonetically represented: British, American, Australian or that of any of the other countries where English is a first language? There's the further issue of differences in pronunciation within varieties, which I'm sure future 'word4word' programmes will take up. If, for instance, Standard (southern) British English was chosen, it would not represent the speech of a Northern or Scottish child.
Pronunciation also changes over time, so would a phonetic spelling need regular updates to keep in touch with it? What do others think - is it time to make the spelling of English phonetic, and is it feasible?
Diana
Re: Global English
There was a feature on last night's Newsnight on this very subject, including a debate between a representative from the Simplified English Spelling campaign and Peter Hall.
If you missed it, you can watch Newsnight again online for 24 hours after the broadcast - that's up until 10.30pm on the 5th August for this particular report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
Re: Global English
Dear Milton,
Thank you for your suggestion. I am very happy to be informed about the "Simplified Spelling Society (SSS)". Their web page is very well organized and should be visited: http://www.spellingsociety.org
Sincerely,
Richard
Re: Global English
But you can't suddenly change the way the language works just to make it easier - and would it be easier, anyway, suddenly throwing the last three hundred years of printed words away?
Added to which, although it's called English, it's not owned by any one nation anymore - so who would be in charge of such a change?