Deniz Martinez

One more point that needs to be made is that, as far as written
language systems go, English sucks! We have a phonemic alphabet
system, right? Ideally, this would mean that each letter-symbol would
represent a single sound. Except, many letters have more than one
possible sound, and when you put two letters together you get
digraphs that represent different sounds, and even then there is more
than one possible way for those to sound. LOL! Sometimes I wonder how
any of us figured this crazy system out!

The problem is that English is not an original language, but a highly
derivative one. It is in fact a truly hodge-podge language, with
words from all different other languages thrown together. And for
some inexplicable reason, when words did come from other languages,
instead of being transliterated into a common "English" spelling
system, they were pretty much allowed to keep their original
spellings, and since those other languages were based on different
phonemic systems we now have a language where some words are
following French rules, some German, some Latin, some Greek, etc.
etc...

All of this makes the English language "code" extremely difficult to
crack, because what you end up with are so many exceptions to
the "rules" that the rules become almost meaningless. Not even the
infamous "i before e except after c" rule is foolproof--neighbor and
weigh and sleigh, LOL!!

I love the concept behind modern written Turkish, invented in the
1920s to replace the old Arabic script based system. Each letter has
one and only one possible sound, one letter for each sound present in
spoken Turkish, and there are none of those pesky digraphs and weird
stuff like silent letters. Why can't English be like that?? Let's
just do what the Turks did and throw out this old written system that
doesn't represent our spoken language well and come up with a better-
tailored set of symbols, and a more reliable batch of spelling and
pronunciation rules to go along with them, LOL!!

On a more serious note, The beautiful simplicity of the modern
written Turkish scheme allowed literally millions of previously
illiterate citizens to learn to read in a matter of months. It was
one of Ataturk's lasting achievements, to bring mass literacy to a
land that had previously been largely illiterate. Even today, Turkish
children spend far less time learning how to read than American kids
do. I guarantee you that if written English made as much sense as
written Turkish does, that more kids would learn to read faster and
sooner, and that levels of dyslexia and other related "reading
disabilities" amongst children would drop dramatically.

But of course, barring a fullblown revolution like what happened in
Turkey in the 1920s, I suppose nobody is going to be changing our
system anytime soon, so we just have to deal with it. Just remember
that many people who have difficulty with spelling and reading are
actually really bright--their problem may just be that they are
highly sensible, and written English just doesn't make sense
sometimes!! ;)

Regards,
Deniz

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 2:45:32 PM, denizmartinez@... writes:

<< English sucks! >>

Amen.

<<The problem is that English is not an original language>>

Few-to-none are.

<<It is in fact a truly hodge-podge language, with

words from all different other languages thrown together.>>

Packrattery.

<<we now have a language where some words are

following French rules, some German, some Latin, some Greek, etc.

etc...

>>

Spanish, Japanese, Hindi...

<<

All of this makes the English language "code" extremely difficult to

crack, because what you end up with are so many exceptions to

the "rules" that the rules become almost meaningless. Not even the

infamous "i before e except after c" rule is foolproof--neighbor and

weigh and sleigh, LOL!!>>

Weird.

Yet I have three children who learned to read English without "being taught."

If unschooled kids can figure ENGLISH out, other languages must be SIMPLE!

Sandra

Deniz Martinez

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:

> <<The problem is that English is not an original language>>
>
> Few-to-none are.

There are quite a number of languages that are defined by linguists
as "original" languages, not meaning that they are pure unevolved
languages, but just meaning that they can't be directly traced to
another distinct language. My favorite language Turkish is a prime
example of this. Unlike with English, where you can go back and
directly trace Old English to Germanic, when you trace back the
development of Turkish language you find only older and older
versions of Turkish. I think that Chinese and Japanese also fit this
definition, but I'll have to double-check that. There are also dozens
of languages which are classified as "isolates", because not only can
they not be directly traced to another language, they can't even be
linked to one of the theoretical "proto-languages" that are used to
put languages into families. Korean is the most notable example...

> Yet I have three children who learned to read English
>without "being taught."
>
> If unschooled kids can figure ENGLISH out, other languages must be
SIMPLE!

Languages vary greatly in their degree of complexity. English
certainly ranks up there as amongst the most difficult, but there are
other languages which are even harder to learn. I think that Arabic
and Chinese are both more difficult, for instance...

That reminds me--what do you think of this??

Brain buzz that proves Chinese is harder to learn than English
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,987745,00.html

Deniz

Fetteroll

on 8/13/03 8:57 PM, Deniz Martinez at denizmartinez@... wrote:

>>> The problem is that English is not an original language, but a highly
>>> derivative one. It is in fact a truly hodge-podge language, with
>>> words from all different other languages thrown together.

>> Few-to-none are.

> There are quite a number of languages that are defined by linguists
> as "original" languages, not meaning that they are pure unevolved
> languages, but just meaning that they can't be directly traced to
> another distinct language.

But that doesn't mean "original" languages themselves are different from
modern ones. All it means is that our knowledge about them is less.

If we went back in time, wouldn't we be able to see that Turkish was also a
"truly hodge-podge language, with words from all different other languages
thrown together."

Joyce

[email protected]

denizmartinez@... writes:
> . Why can't English be like that?? Let's
> just do what the Turks did and throw out this old written system that
> doesn't represent our spoken language well and come up with a better-
> tailored set of symbols, and a more reliable batch of spelling and
> pronunciation rules to go along with them, LOL!!

I think we are, kinda. When I spell tho on an e-mail, I don't spell it
though. I know it drives some people crazy, but that's a perfect example of the
insanity that is the English language. Lanquage, why not just tho a w in there
instead-lanqwge...nah, that won't work, now I wanna throw a d in there,
lanqwdge, which makes less sense, heheheh, but you get my idea.

Heard the (probably urban legend) about the kid who wrote his whole "What I
Did Last Summer" essay in IM speak? Teacher couldn't read it. lol But every
one of his friends could.

I love that.

~Aimee




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tim and Maureen

My thots exactly hehehehe

Tim T


I think we are, kinda. When I spell tho on an e-mail, I don't spell it
though.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Deniz Martinez

--- In [email protected], Fetteroll
<fetteroll@e...> wrote:

> But that doesn't mean "original" languages themselves are different
> from modern ones. All it means is that our knowledge about them is
> less.
>
> If we went back in time, wouldn't we be able to see that Turkish
> was also a "truly hodge-podge language, with words from all
> different other languages thrown together."
>
> Joyce

No, not really, that's the point. Old English is a direct descendent
of Germanic. Turkic (which is really the term I should be using here)
is a direct descendent of...older and older forms of Turkic. The only
thing that can be said about Turkic is that it can be presumed to
have originally branched off from a theoretical "proto-Altaic"
language, hence it is grouped into the Altaic language family with
Mongolian and Tungus. "Original" languages can be tied to theoretical
proto-languages; other languages such as Korean are true
language "isolates", not fitting into any of the established language
families at all.

English isn't a direct descendent of a proto-language, it's further
down the evolutionary scale so to speak. All evidence we have seems
to suggest that Turkic is in fact a direct offshoot of a proto-
language. That's the difference I was trying to state.

Now obviously, Modern Turkish has been heavily influenced by
neighboring languages such as Arabic and Persian. So in that respect
at least, one can certainly say that Turkish is a bit hodgepodgey.
But we're not talking about prevalence of loan words here, we're
talking about the actual "genetic" makeup of the languages, the basic
grammatical structure and core vocabulary. In that respect again,
Turkic languages are a much "purer" languages than English ones are.

Of course, as you pointed out, nobody knows any of this stuff about
language evolution *for sure*, just like we don't know the exact path
of human evolution *for sure* either; but, based on what knowledge
and reseach we have available, both evolutionary theories are the
best that we've got to work with at this time.

Cheers,
Deniz

[email protected]

> When I spell tho on an e-mail, I don't spell it
> though.
>

Ooooh good one, I always write "nite." I once wrote an email to several
friends and included my mom and sister. Well needless to say, my mom called me on
it. She thought I was having major brainfarts and asked what was wrong with me.
She wasn't being mean, I have these odd memory/neurotransmitter dysfunctions
and she was concerned. LOL

Then there is that ...LOL. Around here, when someone makes a "not at all
funny" funny, we say L-O-L. As in it really isn't "laugh out loud" funny.

Lastly, about a month or so ago, my sister was at our mom's house, online,
researching something, when I IM'd her. Something was said by them and I typed
in "ROFLMAO." You'd have thought we were doing "who's on first." I kept typing
it as I was really laughing hard and thought I'd pee my pants. So when they
asked what it meant I said, "Rolling on Floor, Laughing My Ass Off" They told
me they were laughing to, but what was "ROFLMAO." We went back and forth
probably 10 times, only causing me to laugh harder. Little sis told me to stop being
such an internet bitch, and just explain the acronym!!! At that point in time
I did fall out of my chair. I was laughing so hard, tears were flowing from
my eyes. Then Phil and the girls came in to find me on the floor, crying. They
all got hysterical and thought I was stroking. Even remembering it now makes
me laugh all over again. They were just about to call 911, when I stopped
hyper-venthilating enough to tell them I was laughing. They were really pissed. So,
I had DH and DD's mad at me in my bedroom and my mom and sister mad at me at
mom's house, all over internet lingo. Finally I called my mom and explained. I
told them to go back to the first time I explained the acronym and seconds
later, I could hear the two of them ROFLTAO - Rolling on floor laughing THEIR
ass' off.

Maybe you had to be there, but that was the time that internet language got
my ass in trouble!!!

Rhonda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

RJHill241@... writes:
> >When I spell tho on an e-mail, I don't spell it
> > though.
> >
>
> Ooooh good one, I always write "nite."


I do too, any shortcut I can take.

There's a list of Net acronyms somewhere, let me see if I remember where and
find it, send it to your family, so they don't miss anything good ;-)

~Aimee


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]