How far back in time can you understand English?

Post by noosphr » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 10:13 AM UTC

sheept wrote: post #294

noosphr wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You suffer from the typical brain damage caused by using a language without an alphabet. There is no such thing as spelling in phonetic writing systems because they render what is said, not some random collection of glyphs that approximated how a word was pronounced 500 years ago, in the best case. If two people with different accents can speak to each other, they can also write to each other under a phonetic writing…

Then under your definition there must not be any widely used written language with an alphabet. Most of the world's alphabetic writing systems aren't phonetic transcriptions, they're standardized. They're usually based on the prestige dialect, at the cost of diminutizing other dialects. For example, Spanish has a fairly consistent spelling system standardized by RAE, based in Madrid. But, for instance, even though mu…

Post by kstrauser » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 10:19 AM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #280

Oreb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phonetic spelling would perhaps make the language easier to learn for native speakers, but it would make it harder to learn for foreigners, at least those of us who come from Europe. Most words in written English resemble words in Germanic or Romance languages. If English was spelled phonetically, the resemblance would be significantly smaller. People often say that the English spelling is weird or illogical. As a no…

> Phonetic spelling would perhaps make the language easier to learn for native speakers, but it would make it harder to learn for foreigners, at least those of us who come from Europe. BS. Phonetic alphabets are _much_ easier to learn for everyone. In Russia and Ukraine pretty much every child can read by the time they enter the first grade. It's _that_ easy because both alphabets are phonetic (although it's only one…

Post by kstrauser » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 10:26 AM UTC

noosphr wrote: post #283

scubbo wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spelling can still be phonetic even if groups of letters have differing sounds from those letters' sounds serially in isolation. The key criterion is that the rules must be universal, applying to every instance of those groupings, rather than having exceptions for their appearances in certain words. ...ok, it occurs to me now that a smart-alec might declare each individual word to be a "grouping of letters with its o…

The issue is that the language can never render that collection of letters. Sh in English can render the sh in sheep. It can't render any word with the sounds s and h together.

Post by well_actulily » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 10:30 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #256

dhosek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I remember being in Oxford in the 90s and an older man approached me and spoke to me in English and I couldn’t understand a word he said. My ex-wife, who’s an ESL speaker who speaks fluently and without an accent has trouble with English accents in general. Similarly, in Spanish, I find it’s generally easier for me to understand Spanish speakers than Mexican speakers even though I learned Mexican Spanish in s…

Who taught you Mexican Spanish in school? Im always hearing about how Spanish speakers not from Spain struggle with Spanish in school. You didn't learn vosostros?

Post by jcul » Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 10:37 AM UTC

MrScruff wrote: post #304

Seems like some of the initial changes are reflecting more than just the evolving language. He’s comparing someone using informal slang “not gonna lie” against someone writing extremely formally “Hunger, that great leveller, makes philosophers of us all, and renders even the meanest dish agreeable.” which I’m not sure makes sense.