Which are: 1) adding -ed instead of exceptions (like swum, stood) and 2) not adding -s -es to he/she/it. Simple rules, nothing lost, less to learn.
..exceptions. I'm not saying each word should be assigned a shorted string of letters so we use all combination for 3-letter words, 4-letter, etc. But these 2 changes are not hard.
So Esperanto will always be a better option for a simple language. But it doesn't mean that English shouldn't improve. I'm not saying there should be major changes. Just get rid of
Yeah it would be cool to incorporate these rules in normal English. Because why not. I agree with Esperanto being simpler. It's awesome that it was created. But it's not as common.
I also think that it's useless to make an exception for he/she/it. Why not just "He go to a shop." or "He like spending time reading books."? What is the use of adding -s and -es?
..current English and informing that they mostly can use -ed. Employers would choose which version their workers would use. It's only a minor change. Unlike phonetic ortography.
People complained because they were teached too much for too little time. Some teachers didn't understand what they had to teach. I see no problem with teaching in public schools..
Frankly, changing teaching topics is way different than what I propose. From what I read on Wiki there were a lot of problems with new math, none of which would work with Eng 2.0.
I never said ppl should be forced to use Eng 2.0. But imo eventually they'd choose this lang, finding it superior. Foreigners who wanted to learn fast would 1st be teached Eng 2.0.
Meaning of single words is a whole new topic. If you want to learn 1 word, you'd have to learn it, no matter what meaning it has. Rules on the other hand concern more than 1 words.
Of course not. Of course people should speak however they like and they always will. But introducing the new standard would make English easier to learn in the future.
Then some companies will follow. And slowly it will become a new standard. I never said it won't take a few generations for the new language to stick. But the effort is worth it.
They introduced reform. Ppl didn't like it. Some of it was revoked but some sticked and German is epsilon better now. The 1st step is to make the official lang better.
I think it is achieveable via centralized reform. Obviously, it won't go smoothly as ppl don't like changes. But a better solution will win sooner or later. Take a look at Germany.
Esperanto didn't fail yet. A lot of software is still translated to Esperanto. There are also E meetups in many countries. It's not widely used but that's people's fault, not E's.
Server side validation. Will this poll go through?
Server side validation. Will this poll go through?
Server side validation test. Will this poll go through?
| yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes |
0 votes
· 0 satoshis
|
| no |
0 votes
· 0 satoshis
|
Creating...
Broadcasting...
It would be awesome if we started adding "ed" at the end of past verbs instead of using the exceptions. Of course only privately, as our bosses rightfully demand official lang.
We could save additional time if English 2.0 replaced all other English dialects. en-US, en-GB, en-AU, en-CA, etc. People wouldn't have to translate projects to all these langs.
Imagine how much time collectively by the world was wasted to learn all these exceptions. What could have been done with that time. And what could be done with that time.
Instead of "made" why not "maked"? Instead of "thought" why not "thinked"? Instead of "understood" why not "understanded"? I agree that "beed", "doed" and "goed" would sound bad.
English has a lot of exceptions. Irregular verbs are some of them. I think we should get rid of most of the exceptions.
Language is just a tool for sharing information. As a tool, it should improve. One way it could improve is becoming easier to learn. For learning rules are good and exceptions bad.
