There. If we get rid of the W, it makes it so much easier. Wait, why does that sound like some kind of political slogan? -monkey
Of course, how stupid of me... I must learn more about how to write like a retard.... thank you monkey...
I failed higher English, people that didn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" came out with better grades than me; it's just not what the subject's about any more. I can remember when senior management took a class just to make sure everyone knew how to use an apostrophe, very few did. A sad state of affairs, but it's the schools that are to blame, and dumbing down the language isn't the solution.
This is all effed up. I'm not even from the UK, but this really blows. You just can't tear up a language and make "becumming" from "becoming". That's sick Besides, everyone is claiming to be dyslexic these days, just to have a reason to write as simple as possible. What, was there supposed to be a comma there? Nice, let's write this as if it's one entire sentence. And let's make it simplified... I don't think so...
I have a word recognition disorder - it's taken me most of my life to get to my current level of literacy, and changing everything now will put me at least fifteen years behind. If this goes through, I demand a large amount of compensation from the government and those responsible for implementing the change.
As has been stated before, you can't just take a big chunk of a language and simply change things around. Language naturally evolves; however, like evolution in the natural world, it takes time. Also, as has been stated, local dialects and colloquialisms offer up interesting twists. For example (courtesy of Google News): There's nothing odd about that headline over in the Phillipines. Over here, well, you get the idea. -monkey
But George knew better: Examine this text, which in my opinion deserves the same status as any play by Shakespeare. Not just one of the most important documents ever written in terms of human civilisation, but also a work of literary art: In those days, people knew how to write. Would it be possible to convey the same complexity of meaning as beautifully and cogently in a "simplified" English? I think not. Language is thought. Thought is language. To simplify language is to simplify the mind.
Nice quotes Nexxo Words are the handles of the mind with which we can manipulate things too big for our hands to grasp, thoughts too big to have physical expression. And yet, they can point things which are very real, from the extremely mundane to the magnificently extraordinary. Anyway, that was (almost) off topic. Change country to world and you'd be right on (though, as you said, spellings would vary within countries also)
There are niche uses for simplified languages (eg, Seaspeak for spoken English especially against a noisy background and between foreigners, text speak for written to reduce typing on a crude keyboard) but they are niches and for the vast majority of ppl will remain largely so IMO, m8.
I luv teh wai this trhead is teh onley won peepol are bothewring to spell wright and punktuate wright in.... Doing that is pure doublespeak.... to carry on the Orwellian theme...
LOL@cpemma's quote Even when texting I tend not to use text speak - usually there's enough room for me to say what I want to say in standard english in a single message, if not, every phone nowadays has the option to span two texts. Or, shockingly, you can call the other person!! For people with computer keyboards there's no excuse not to talk in standard english.
The original deceleration of independence is all very nice: But some of the language is a little tired these days and it isn't totally fluid to read, I think this would be a modern day "real English" equivalent: If i knew how to use semicolons I'd try and make a better list but we never got taught that in school and I didn't fancy teaching myself right now! Of course we could right it in the apparent language of tomorrow, simple speak: Its shorter, but that's about all its got going for it! I agree with many that sudden forced change is a bad thing, but i am also happy to watch some of the same changes happen slowly over time, if in 100 years we're all writing "shud" instead of "should" I won't be too upset.
Matkubicki, the founding fathers said it better As Nexxo said, thought is language. People are welcome to simply the language they use personally but I take offence at anyone trying to simplifiy the language I use, it is an attack on all of our minds.
I wasn't trying to say it "better" just trying to make it a more readable and modern text. I think more people today would understand my text and therefore i think my version is a more useful text today, not better. There's no point trying to write in a style we see as beautiful if very few people can grasp its full meaning.
I don't see why not. Considerable numbers of our population are functionally illiterate, the majority only a little above the lowest level we consider acceptable (being able to read the Sun). I don't see why we should cater to the lowest common denominator when it will inevitably require those of us who can utilitse language properly to lose something.
