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.
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.
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.
Esperanto failed because Zamenhof failed to understand that language is at its essense organic. Trying to engineer a natural human language like English is a waste of time.
This is particularly true of attempts to revise grammar. Simplifying spelling is a more reasonable goal, but not really achievable via centralized reform.
English will adapt to its speakers' needs naturally. Linguists should focus on cataloging this natural process rather than trying to interfere with it. Description > prescription.
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.
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.
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 Some of it was revoked but some sticked and German is epsilon better now.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.
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.
You might say that, but I think a lot of the more structured rules of language evolved when it was used only by organized subsets. In English, one needs look no further
than the recently changed definition of the word 'literal' to mean 'figurative' to see this. Is it really the place of government to combat these, though annoying, natural changes?
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.
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.
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.
Reminds me a bit of new math in current U.S. education system. Sound reasoning but people prefer common and comfort. Glad to see you practice what is preached (prought?) as well.
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.
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..
..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.
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?
There is already many different types of simplified English for specific domains, like pilot manuals. There are also field specific vocabulary and conventions.
Esperanto tries to be a simple language with simple rules that will be as easy as possible to learn for as many as possible. Way easier than trying to remodel English.
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.
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
..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.
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.
