Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the sake of being a contrarian, there are two pieces of "glass" in a glasses. I do wonder if simpler english will ever catch on I do wondr if simplr nglsh wil evr cach on.
There’s already a weird thing in certain cultures in the US - leaving out articles and possessives. That mike car Him going there
Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
71–80 of 247 posts
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the sake of being a contrarian, there are two pieces of "glass" in a glasses. I do wonder if simpler english will ever catch on I do wondr if simplr nglsh wil evr cach on.
Doubtful. Also, I think your "simpler" transcription is actually less phonologically accurate. For instance, I would transcribe the "er" in "wonder" as [ɝ]. In some dialects, it would actually just be [ɜ] without any pronounced trace of the "r" like sound. In actuallity, I suspect that it is actually [ɜɹ] underlying, and the two sounds just coalesce into [ɝ] when you pronounce them. That is to say, the "er" sound is…
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#73The article fails to explain why English moved from en to s for plural forms around 1400, though.
The answer is that the -s plural is from the Vikings/Norse, and the -en plural is from the more complex system inherited from Anglo Saxon languages.
English is like a creole or a pidgin language in a lot of ways and a lot of its features are due to various foreign invaders imposing their grammatical rules on the local vocabulary.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#74Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#75Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#76Worse imho is the "glasses", "pants", "pliers", "scissors", etc thing. Single object with plural name just because it happens to be made of two similar parts. Most objects are made of multiple parts though and they get a singular name just fine. That and the "double u", why not "we"??
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the sake of being a contrarian, there are two pieces of "glass" in a glasses. I do wonder if simpler english will ever catch on I do wondr if simplr nglsh wil evr cach on.
How long are we going to continually spell things like: knife, night, knight, thought, etc. When you add up the generations of wasted human effort in spelling words in such pointless ways, its mind boggling.
Define "pointless". Each word has its own etymology, and if we're going to be honest here, the different spellings aren't _that_ complicated. Take it up with English's ancestors for borrowing words from many different languages, and then with more recent ancestors for the great vowel shift, among other things leading to change.
Language is never going to make sense. It's not prescriptive- we just make changes, arbitrarily, sometimes due to mistakes, and it either catches on or it doesn't. Trying to "fix" language is an impossible task because no one is making the rules. English in particular doesn't have a language council making decisions, unlike say, Korean. It doesn't matter anyways because "Standard English" is quite different than day to day conversation, and even in formal settings it's based on stylistic guidelines, not hard rules.
Just let it be- devising an _arbitrary_ method of attempting to corral an entire language is an impossible task. And any work would be undone within one generation anyways since languages evolve. Esperanto, a manufactured language, has already seen linguistic changes by its native speakers (kids who were taught it growing up).
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the sake of being a contrarian, there are two pieces of "glass" in a glasses. I do wonder if simpler english will ever catch on I do wondr if simplr nglsh wil evr cach on.
There’s already a weird thing in certain cultures in the US - leaving out articles and possessives. That mike car Him going there
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
what do you suggest instead: naif, nife, nyve ..?
Move to a phonetic alphabet. E.g. Arabic.
Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)
#80Worse imho is the "glasses", "pants", "pliers", "scissors", etc thing. Single object with plural name just because it happens to be made of two similar parts. Most objects are made of multiple parts though and they get a singular name just fine. That and the "double u", why not "we"??
A lot less strange that intimate objects having a gender as you do a French and many other languages